19552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

David L. Miller, 

Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Department 

of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7752 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 100323162–2182–03] 

RIN 0648–XV30 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Range Extension for Endangered 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing a 

final rule under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, that 

redefines the geographic range of the 

endangered Central California Coast 

(CCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

(ESU) to include all naturally spawned 

populations of coho salmon that occur 

in Soquel and Aptos creeks. Information 

supporting this boundary change 

includes recent observations of coho 

salmon in Soquel Creek, genetic 

analysis of these fish indicating they are 

derived from other nearby populations 

in the ESU, and the presence of 

freshwater habitat conditions and 

watershed processes in Soquel and 

Aptos Creeks that are similar to those 

found in closely adjacent watersheds 

that support coho salmon populations 

that are part of the ESU. We have also 

reassessed the status of this ESU 

throughout its redefined range and 

conclude that it continues to be 

endangered. 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, Attn: Craig Wingert, 

Southwest Region, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., 

Suite 5200, Long Beach, CA, 90802– 

4213. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest 

Region, (562) 980–4021; or Dwayne 

Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Central California Coast (CCC) 

coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit (ESU) was listed as a threatened 

species on October 31, 1996 (61 FR 

56138) and subsequently reclassified as 

an endangered species on June 28, 2005 

(70 FR 37160). At the time it was 

reclassified as endangered in 2005, the 

ESU was defined to include all naturally 

spawning populations of coho salmon 

found in coastal watersheds from Punta 

Gorda in northern California southward 

to and including the San Lorenzo River 

in central California, as well as four 

artificially propagated stocks of coho 

salmon. For more information on the 

status, biology, and habitat of this coho 

salmon ESU, see ‘‘Endangered and 

Threatened Species: Final Listing 

Determinations for 16 ESUs of West 

Coast Salmonids and Final 4(d) 

Protective Regulations for Threatened 

Salmonid ESUs; Final Rule’’ (70 FR 

37160; June 28, 2005) and ‘‘Final Rule 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Threatened Status for Central California 

Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit (ESU)’’ (61 FR 56138; 

October 31, 1996). 

The geographic boundaries of west 

coast coho salmon ESUs ranging from 

British Columbia to central California 

were originally delineated as part of a 

west coast status review for the species 

(Weitkamp et al., 1995). In defining ESU 

boundaries for west coast coho salmon, 

NMFS considered a wide range of 

information including genetic and life 

history information for natural and 

hatchery populations, and 

environmental and habitat information 

for those watersheds that supported 

coho salmon either historically or at the 

time of the review. Based on a 

consideration of the best available 

information at that time, Weitkamp et 

al. (1995) concluded that the southern 

boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU 

was the San Lorenzo River in Santa 

Cruz County, California. Weitkamp et 

al. (1995) also recognized that coho 

salmon could also occur in watersheds 

south of the San Lorenzo River and, 

therefore, concluded that any fish found 

spawning south of the San Lorenzo 

River that were not the result of nonnative stock transfers from outside the 

ESU should be considered part of the 

ESU. 

In 2003, NMFS received a petition to 

delist those populations of the CCC 

coho salmon ESU that spawn in coastal 

streams south of the entrance to San 

Francisco Bay. The petition was 

eventually accepted by NMFS (75 FR 

16745; April 2, 2010), which triggered a 

formal status review focused on 

determining whether the populations 

south of the entrance to San Francisco 

Bay were part of the ESU, what the 

appropriate southern boundary of the 

ESU should be, and the biological status 

of any revised ESU. In conducting this 

status review, new information became 

available indicating that the range of the 

ESU should be extended southward 

(Spence et al., 2011). This information 

included observations of coho salmon in 

Soquel Creek in 2008, genetic analysis 

of tissue samples indicating that the fish 

from Soquel Creek were closely related 

to nearby coho salmon populations in 

the ESU, and the ecological similarity of 

Soquel and Aptos creeks with other 

nearby creeks that support coho salmon. 

Based on this information, a review of 

the biological status of coho salmon 

populations within this ESU (Spence 

and Williams, 2011), and a 

consideration of the five factors listed 

under Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we 

proposed moving the southern 

boundary of the ESU south from the San 

Lorenzo River to include any coho 

salmon found in Soquel and Aptos 

creeks (76 FR 6383; February 4, 2011). 

Summary of Peer Review and Public 

Comments on Proposed CCC Coho 

Salmon ESU Range Extension 

Peer Review Comments 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management (OMB) issued a Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review establishing minimum 

standards for peer review. Similarly, a 

joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) Policy for Peer Review in 

Endangered Species Act Activities 

(59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires us 

to solicit independent expert review 

from at least three qualified specialists 

on proposed listing determinations. 

Accordingly, we solicited reviews from 

three scientific peer reviewers having 

expertise with coho salmon in 

California and received comments from 

all three reviewers. We carefully 

reviewed the peer review comments and 

have addressed them as appropriate in 

this final rule. A summary of the peer 

review comments and our responses 

follow below. 

Issue: Proposed ESU Range Extension 

Comment 1: Two of the peer 

reviewers fully supported our proposal 

to extend the southern boundary of the 

CCC coho salmon ESU to include coho 

salmon populations in Soquel and 

Aptos creeks. The reviewers cited 

information referenced in the proposed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19553 

rule and its supporting reports (Spence 

et al., 2011; Spence and Williams, 2011) 

as supporting the range extension, 

including: (1) The historic and recent 

occurrence of coho salmon in Soquel 

Creek, (2) the likely presence of coho 

salmon in Aptos Creek historically, (3) 

the similarity of freshwater habitat in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks to that found 

in the San Lorenzo River and other 

nearby streams that also support coho 

salmon or did in the past, and (4) the 

proximity of Soquel and Aptos creeks to 

nearby streams that support coho 

salmon. 

Response: We agree with the 

reviewers that the available evidence 

presented in the proposed rule and the 

supporting technical reports support our 

proposal to extend the ESU’s range to 

include coho salmon populations in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks. 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer 

indicated that the streams immediately 

south of Aptos Creek, including the 

Pajaro, Salinas and Carmel rivers, are 

not likely to have historically supported 

sustainable coho salmon populations 

because: (1) Their spawning and rearing 

habitat is located much farther inland 

compared with Aptos and Soquel creeks 

(and other streams farther northward) 

making adult and juvenile migration 

difficult, (2) these habitats are likely to 

lose their connectivity to the ocean 

during periods of prolonged drought, 

and (3) coho salmon would therefore be 

unlikely to persist given their rigid 3- 

year life cycle. 

Response: We agree with the 

reviewer’s comments and believe they 

support our decision not to include the 

Pajaro River in the proposed range 

extension. The reviewer’s comments are 

also consistent with the rationale that 

led Spence et al. (2011) to conclude that 

the Pajaro River should not be included 

in any proposed range extension. 

Comment 3: One reviewer agreed that 

the available evidence supports 

extending the range of the ESU 

southward to include Soquel Creek, but 

contended that Aptos Creek should not 

be included in the proposed range 

extension because there is no evidence 

of recent or historic presence of coho 

salmon spawning in that watershed. 

Response: We disagree with the peer 

reviewer on this issue. Spence et al. 

(2011) explained at length why they 

concluded that both Soquel and Aptos 

creeks should be included in any range 

extension for this ESU, and their 

rationale was the basis for our proposal. 

First, they found there was no strong 

ecological reason that the distribution of 

coho salmon would have historically 

stopped at the San Lorenzo River (the 

current southern boundary of the ESU) 

because there is no significant 

ecological break along the coast before 

the southern edge of the Santa Cruz 

Mountains which marks the southern 

boundary of the Coast Range Ecoregion. 

Second, they indicated that Soquel and 

Aptos creeks are in the Coast Range 

Ecoregion, both are in very close 

proximity to the San Lorenzo River 

(approximately 7 and 10 km south, 

respectively), and both historically 

shared many habitat characteristics with 

the San Lorenzo and other similar sized 

coho salmon bearing streams to the 

north. Third, they indicated that the 

recent documentation of coho spawning 

in Soquel Creek suggests it is possible 

that coho salmon may also stray into 

Aptos Creek (as well as Soquel Creek) 

from populations in nearby watersheds 

to the north because of their close 

proximity. 

Based on the arguments presented in 

Spence et al. (2011), our proposal to 

extend the southern boundary of this 

ESU to include both Soquel and Aptos 

creeks was intended to ensure that any 

coho salmon found in either watershed 

in the future would be considered part 

of this ESU, and therefore, subject to 

protection under the ESA. Absent a 

formal range extension that includes 

Aptos Creek, we believe it would be 

difficult to ensure that any coho salmon 

found in that watershed would be 

protected under the ESA in the future. 

By formally including Aptos Creek in 

the range extension, we have provided 

the public and other entities with notice 

(and comment opportunity) that any 

coho salmon found there in the future 

will be considered part of the ESU and 

subject to protection under the ESA. 

Comment 4: The same peer reviewer 

that disagreed with our proposal to 

include Aptos Creek in the proposed 

range extension also questioned why 

Spence et al. (2011) did not recommend 

including the Pajaro River in the range 

extension since it may have also 

historically supported coho salmon just 

as was the case for Aptos Creek. 

Response: In evaluating the various 

alternative southern watershed 

boundaries for this ESU (e.g., San 

Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek, Aptos 

Creek, and the Pajaro River), Spence et 

al. (2011) considered three primary 

factors: (1) Evidence of historical and 

recent occurrence of coho in each 

watershed, (2) the historical suitability 

of freshwater habitats for coho salmon 

in each watershed, and (3) the 

geographic proximity of each watershed 

to other known populations of coho 

salmon. In making their 

recommendation for a southern 

boundary extension, Spence et al. 

(2011) weighed all of the available 

information related to these factors and 

concluded that the available evidence 

did not support including the Pajaro 

River in any range extension. 

Their reasons for not recommending 

inclusion of the Pajaro River in the 

range extension were: (1) The lack of 

recent or historical first hand accounts 

of coho salmon in the watershed, (2) the 

likelihood that environmental 

conditions were not favorable for coho 

salmon in the southern and eastern 

portions of the watershed because of 

habitat and environmental changes that 

occur in watersheds south of the Santa 

Cruz Mountains, (3) the high likelihood 

that any suitable habitat for coho 

salmon in the watershed (most likely in 

areas draining the Santa Cruz 

Mountains) would lose its connectivity 

to the ocean, unlike Soquel and Aptos 

creeks, during periods of drought, 

thereby precluding successful adult and 

juvenile migration to and from the 

ocean, and (4) the relatively low 

likelihood that coho salmon from 

streams to the north would stray into 

the watershed given its relative large 

distance from Aptos Creek and the San 

Lorenzo River (16 and 26 kilometers, 

respectively). 

Issue: ESU Status and Characterization 

Comment 5: One peer reviewer 

commented that the long-term trend 

analysis presented by Spence and 

Williams (2011) for the abundance of 

several coho salmon populations in this 

ESU failed to emphasize the major 

decline in abundance that began for 

most of the populations starting in 2006. 

The peer reviewer contended that the 

main factor responsible for the 

population declines that began in 2006 

was a significant reduction in ocean 

productivity that began in 2005 and 

adversely impacted the ocean survival 

of coho salmon. 

Response: We agree with the peer 

reviewer that the trend analysis 

presented in Spence and Williams 

(2011) does not reflect the significant 

population declines that were observed 

starting in 2006. Spence and Williams 

(2011) did note that the poor returns 

began in 2006, but did not attribute the 

declines to any particular cause. We 

agree with the peer reviewer that these 

abrupt population declines beginning in 

2006 were most likely caused by poor 

ocean conditions that started in 2005. 

Other salmon and steelhead populations 

in California also exhibited major 

declines in abundance during this 

period that were attributed to poor 

ocean productivity (Lindley et al., 

2009), and therefore, it is reasonable to 

conclude that reductions in ocean 

productivity were the primary cause of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

these coho salmon population declines 

as well. 

Comment 6: Each of the peer 

reviewers agreed with Spence and 

Williams (2011) that the extinction risk 

of this ESU has increased since it was 

last reviewed in 2005 and that our 

proposal to list the ESU as endangered 

was warranted. 

Response: We agree with the peer 

reviewers that extinction risk for this 

ESU has increased substantially since it 

was last reviewed in 2005 and that the 

ESU therefore continues to warrant 

listing as an endangered species under 

the ESA. 

Comment 7: One peer reviewer felt it 

was inappropriate for the proposed rule 

to characterize the 2008 discovery of 

juvenile coho salmon in Soquel Creek 

(and the associated spawning that 

produced the juveniles) as a 

‘‘population’’ of coho salmon because 

we do not know if those juveniles will 

produce returning adults that will 

successfully spawn in the future leading 

to a persistent population. 

Response: We agree with the peer 

reviewer that the proposed rule should 

not have characterized the observation 

of juvenile coho salmon in 2008 as a 

‘‘coho salmon population’’ since this 

presumes that a persistent population of 

coho salmon has been established. 

Accordingly, we have revised the final 

rule where appropriate to indicate there 

is documented evidence of coho salmon 

spawning and rearing in Soquel Creek 

rather than evidence of a newly 

established coho salmon ‘‘population.’’ 

Comment 8: One peer reviewer 

indicated that the technical reports 

supporting the proposed range 

extension (Spence et al., 2011; Spence 

and Williams, 2011) were inconsistent 

in how they described the number of 

spawning events that may have 

occurred in Soquel Creek in 2008. 

Response: The peer reviewer 

misinterpreted the description of how 

many spawning events occurred in 

Soquel Creek, and therefore, the reports 

are not inconsistent. In Spence and 

Williams (2011), the authors were 

referring to genetic analysis of fish 

collected in three watersheds, only one 

of which was Soquel Creek. The method 

of analysis used by the researchers 

referenced in the report can only 

provide a minimum number of 

spawners and for two of the streams 

(San Vincente and Alpine) the 

methodology indicated there had been a 

minimum of a single spawning pair. In 

Soquel Creek, however, the analysis 

indicated that there had been at least 

three individuals involved in spawning, 

which indicated that there were a 

minimum of two spawning events. 

Spence et al. (2011) indicate that the 

juveniles found in Soquel Creek were 

the product of at least two reproductive 

events, and therefore, the two reports 

are consistent. 

Public Comments 

The proposed range extension for the 

CCC coho salmon ESU was published 

on February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6383) with 

a 60-day public comment period. Based 

on a request from one individual, we 

extended the public comment period for 

an additional 60 days, so the public 

comment period finally closed on June 

6, 2011. Two written comment 

submittals were received on the 

proposed action. One set of comments 

was provided by the petitioner and 

largely focused on the scientific issues 

addressed in our 12-month finding on 

that petition as well as our scientific 

evaluation of the petition (Spence et al., 

2011). The other commenter provided 

comments regarding the potential 

economic consequences of the proposed 

range extension. We carefully reviewed 

the comments to identify those issues 

that were within the scope of the 

rulemaking and have addressed those 

herein. A summary of those comments 

and NMFS’ responses are presented 

below by specific issue. 

Issue: Scientific Information Used To 

Support NMFS’ 12-Month Finding That 

Coho Salmon Populations South of San 

Francisco Bay Are Part of the CCC Coho 

Salmon ESU and the Proposed Range 

Extension 

Comment 9: One commenter asserted 

that the available scientific information 

does not support NMFS’ 12-month 

finding that coho salmon populations 

south of the entrance to San Francisco 

Bay are part of the CCC coho salmon 

ESU or our proposal to extend the 

geographic range of this ESU south to 

include coho salmon populations in 

Aptos and Soquel creeks. In making this 

assertion, the commenter argued there 

were gaps or other problems with the 

scientific information used by NMFS in 

making these determinations or that we 

somehow misinterpreted the available 

information. The scientific issues raised 

by the commenter in support of this 

assertion were: (1) NMFS’ use of 

intrinsic potential modeling to evaluate 

historical habitat potential in 

watersheds south of the entrance to San 

Francisco Bay; (2) questions about 

recent fish surveys conducted by the 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

(SWFSC) in watersheds south of San 

Francisco; (3) the absence of genetic 

data for coho salmon from the San 

Lorenzo River; (4) inaccuracies in the 

historical hatchery stocking information 

for coho salmon considered by NMFS; 

(5) NMFS’ interpretation of 

archeological data for coho salmon; and 

(6) NMFS’s evaluation of coho salmon 

habitat suitability in areas south and 

immediately north of the entrance to 

San Francisco Bay. A general response 

to the commenter is provided here and 

each of the points identified in this 

comment to support the commenter’s 

assertion are addressed in greater detail 

in comments 10 through 15. 

Response: We convened a biological 

review team (BRT) to thoroughly 

evaluate all of the information in the 

petition to delist coho salmon 

populations south of the entrance to San 

Francisco Bay, as well as all other 

relevant scientific data and information 

concerning the issues raised in the 

petition. Based on its review and 

analysis, the BRT concluded that: (1) 

Coho salmon populations south of the 

entrance to San Francisco Bay were 

native to the area and extant 

populations are part of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU; and (2) the southern 

boundary of the ESU should be moved 

farther south to include coho salmon 

populations occurring in Soquel and 

Aptos creeks (Spence et al., 2011). The 

BRT’s review included an exhaustive 

assessment of information in the 

petition and other relevant information 

including: Evidence about coho salmon 

distribution in the historical literature; 

archeological data for coho salmon from 

native American Indian middens; the 

suitability of freshwater habitat 

conditions for coho salmon in coastal 

watersheds immediately north and 

south of San Francisco Bay; historical 

hatchery stocking information for coho 

salmon in watersheds south of San 

Francisco Bay; comprehensive genetic 

data collected for extant coho salmon 

populations throughout the range of the 

ESU including those south of San 

Francisco Bay; and recent information 

on the presence of coho salmon in 

watersheds south of San Francisco Bay 

including Soquel Creek. We believe that 

the BRT used the best available 

scientific information and that its 

conclusions regarding coho salmon 

populations south of the entrance to San 

Francisco Bay represent the most 

scientifically defensible interpretation 

of the available data. Our 12-month 

finding and proposed range extension 

were based upon the scientific 

information and conclusions reached by 

the BRT, and therefore, we believe these 

decisions are scientifically defensible 

and consistent with the best available 

information. Responses to the issues 

upon which the commenter based his 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19555 

assertion are provided in comments 10 

through 15. 

Comment 10: The commenter 

criticized NMFS’ use of an intrinsic 

habitat model to estimate potential coho 

salmon habitat capacity in streams 

south of the entrance to San Francisco 

Bay. The commenter argued that the 

model assumptions were unrealistic and 

that the model was not properly 

calibrated for stream habitat and coho 

salmon populations south of San 

Francisco Bay. For these reasons, the 

commenter asserted that use of this 

modeling resulted in an inaccurate 

characterization of coho salmon 

population structure south of San 

Francisco Bay, an overestimation of the 

historical habitat and abundance of 

coho salmon populations in streams 

south of San Francisco Bay, and an 

underestimate of the extinction risk of 

the populations south of San Francisco 

Bay. 

Response: In developing the draft 

recovery plan for the CCC coho salmon 

ESU, NMFS established a technical 

recovery team (TRT) to develop a 

scientific foundation for the recovery 

planning analysis. As part of its work, 

the TRT used an intrinsic potential 

habitat model to estimate habitat that 

would potentially be available to 

support individual coho salmon 

populations that are part of this ESU if 

the habitat was properly functioning 

(Agrawal et al., 2005; Bjorkstedt et al., 

2005). The results of this analysis were 

then used in the historical population 

structure analysis and in estimating 

adult spawner abundance levels that 

could have been supported by the 

habitat. This information was used to 

develop viability criteria or recovery 

targets for the ESU as a whole. The TRT 

stated its working assumptions in using 

this model and evaluated those 

assumptions and the overall modeling 

approach by comparing available 

historical adult spawner estimates with 

adult abundance estimates that were 

derived from the intrinsic potential 

habitat modeling (Spence et al., 2008). 

The TRT noted that there was a high 

degree of uncertainty regarding 

available historical estimates of adult 

abundance, but they noted these 

estimates provided the only basis for 

assessing whether the estimates derived 

from the modeling were within a 

plausible range for this and other ESUs 

that were similarly evaluated (Bjorkstedt 

et al., 2005). A comparison of projected 

adult abundance levels derived from the 

modeling with adult abundance levels 

estimated in a 1965 statewide coho 

salmon abundance assessment 

(California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG), 1965) led the TRT to 

conclude that the habitat model 

predicted abundance levels that were 

plausible (Spence et al., 2008). 

For the area south of the entrance to 

San Francisco Bay, the TRT compared 

intrinsic habitat modeling population 

estimates with coho salmon abundance 

data collected by Shapovalov and Taft 

(1954) in Waddell Creek. Shapovalov 

and Taft (1954) estimated adult 

abundance of coho salmon in Waddell 

Creek over a nine year period covering 

the spawning seasons from 1933–1942. 

The average annual adult run size for 

coho salmon during that period was 

estimated to be 313 fish (range 111– 

748). In comparison, the intrinsic 

habitat modeling for the smallest 

independent population in the area 

south of San Francisco Bay yielded an 

estimate of 365 potential adult 

spawners. Because the habitat 

conditions in Waddell Creek at the time 

of the study were less than pristine due 

to heavy timber harvest in the past, the 

TRT concluded the modeled adult 

abundance projection was realistic and 

not an overestimate. Based on these and 

other results presented by the TRT 

(Agrawal et al., 2005; Bjorkstedt et al., 

2005), we believe the use of intrinsic 

habitat modeling for streams south of 

the entrance to San Francisco Bay is a 

valid tool for assessing population 

structure and developing population 

viability criteria for coho salmon. For 

these reasons we disagree with the 

commenter that the intrinsic potential 

habitat modeling overestimated historic 

abundance levels and underestimated 

extinction risk for watersheds south of 

San Francisco Bay. 

Comment 11: The commenter 

indicated that coho salmon survey 

information collected by the SWFSC in 

streams south of San Francisco Bay from 

2006–2008 and discussed in the BRT’s 

report on the coho salmon delisting 

petition (Spence et al., 2011) was 

incomplete and difficult to interpret 

because the survey objectives, methods 

and detailed results were not presented. 

The commenter argued this information 

was relevant for evaluating the status of 

coho populations south of the entrance 

to San Francisco Bay and determining 

whether they were part of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU. 

Response: The objectives of the 

SWFSC ’s surveys from 2006–2008 were 

three-fold: (1) To evaluate methods for 

defining an appropriate sampling 

protocol for species’ presence in areas 

where it is known to be in low 

abundance or patchily distributed; (2) to 

develop statistical methods for 

estimating occupancy rates of species 

under such circumstances; and (3) to 

develop a short time series on the status 

of coho salmon in the area south of San 

Francisco between San Gregorio and 

Aptos creeks, a range which spanned 

three brood cycles. The genetic analysis 

and the surveys completed in 

connection with this study are final and 

documented with detailed results; the 

surveys and genetic analysis were 

completed using standard NMFS 

methodology but have not yet been 

published (SWFSC, unpublished). As 

such, we do not believe that the 

information relied upon was incomplete 

or difficult to interpret. Furthermore, 

the information derived from these 

completed aspects of the study is 

scientifically credible and represents the 

best available information on the status 

and geographic range of coho salmon 

south of San Francisco Bay. This final, 

scientifically credible information 

documents the presence of coho salmon 

in Soquel Creek and the analysis of 

genetic data from these fish. This 

information was considered by the BRT 

and was an important factor in their 

recommendation to extend the southern 

boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU 

to include Soquel and Aptos creeks 

(Spence et al., 2011). This information 

was also considered by Spence and 

Williams (2011) in their updated 

assessment of the status of this ESU. 

Information collected on the status of 

coho salmon in these streams was 

considered by the BRT and did provide 

important information regarding the 

southern boundary of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU, as well as the current 

status of coho salmon in the streams 

south of San Francisco Bay (Spence and 

Williams, 2011). As such, we believe 

that our determination to extend the 

geographic boundary of the ESU 

southward to include Soquel and Aptos 

creeks was founded on the best 

scientific information available. 

Comment 12: The commenter asserted 

the BRT (Spence et al., 2011) failed to 

report microsatellite DNA results for 

coho salmon from the San Lorenzo 

River and that the genetic database for 

the CCC coho salmon ESU was therefore 

incomplete. The commenter further 

argued that NMFS’ conclusions 

regarding the origin and ancestry of 

coho salmon south of the entrance to 

San Francisco Bay could be in error 

because the genetic database did not 

include data for fish from the San 

Lorenzo River. 

Response: We do not have any genetic 

data for coho salmon from the San 

Lorenzo River, and therefore, it could 

not be included in the genetic data sets 

analyzed by the BRT (Spence et al., 

2011). Coho salmon are rarely observed 

in the San Lorenzo River, which has 

contributed to the lack of genetic 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

information for that watershed. The 

SWFSC does have a limited number of 

coho salmon tissue samples taken from 

the San Lorenzo River, but they have 

not been analyzed largely because of 

uncertainties about their origin. 

Although we do not have genetic data 

for coho salmon from the San Lorenzo 

River, there are comprehensive genetic 

data from coho salmon populations in 

other watersheds south of San Francisco 

Bay, as well as watersheds north of San 

Francisco Bay, and that information was 

carefully analyzed by the BRT (Spence 

et al., 2011). Based on the analysis of all 

the available genetic data for coho 

salmon in this ESU, the BRT concluded 

that extant populations of coho salmon 

south of San Francisco Bay are part of 

the ESU and not the result of stock 

transfers from populations outside the 

ESU (Spence et al., 2011). We believe 

the genetic data that the BRT analyzed 

in its review of the southern boundary 

of this ESU are scientifically credible, 

that they represent the best available 

information for coho salmon 

populations throughout the geographic 

range of this ESU including those 

populations south of San Francisco Bay, 

and that they support our determination 

to extend the geographic boundary of 

the ESU southward to include Soquel 

and Aptos creeks. 

Comment 13: The commenter asserted 

that, in its review of the coho delisting 

petition, the BRT did not use all 

available historical records regarding 

the artificial propagation and outplanting of coho salmon in streams 

south of the entrance to San Francisco 

Bay. The commenter provided 

information regarding the history of 

coho salmon out-planting in Waddell 

and Scott creeks that he asserted were 

in conflict with that reviewed by the 

BRT. Waddell Creek is an important 

watershed south of the entrance to San 

Francisco Bay in part because a major 

study on the life history of coho salmon 

and steelhead was initiated there by 

Shapovalov and Taft (1954) around the 

same time coho salmon were outplanted into the watershed. The 

commenter suggested coho salmon were 

planted in Waddell Creek in large 

numbers between the early 1920s and 

1933 (citing Streig (1991) and Bryant 

(1994)) and by inference, implied that 

planted fish contributed to the number 

of adults observed in the Shapovalov 

and Taft (1954) life history study. 

Response: We reviewed the source 

data cited by Streig (1991) and Bryant 

(1994) as well as other sources of data, 

and found no evidence of coho salmon 

being out-planted into Waddell Creek 

during the period from 1911 to 1941, 

other than 15,000 fish that were released 

in 1933 and an undetermined number 

that were released for an age validation 

study in 1929. Both of these plantings 

were considered by the BRT and 

discussed in their report (Spence et al., 

2011). In evaluating the Streig (1991) 

report, which was the basis for the 

numbers presented in Bryant (1994), we 

found discrepancies between reported 

numbers and the original sources that 

were cited. If other stocking information 

was used in compiling the Streig (1991) 

and Bryant (1994) reports, we have not 

found that information, and therefore, 

believe the data and analysis by the BRT 

(Spence et al., 2011) are the most 

scientifically defensible data available 

for assessing the artificial propagation 

and out-planting of coho salmon in 

streams south of San Francisco Bay. 

Moreover, regardless of the number of 

fish out-planted into Waddell Creek or 

any other watershed south of San 

Francisco Bay, the BRT (Spence et al., 

2011) emphasized that the out-planted 

coho salmon likely experienced very 

low survival rates due to the common 

practice at the time of releasing fish as 

fry. Because of these low survival rates, 

we believe the out-planting of 

artificially propagated coho salmon into 

Waddell Creek is unlikely to have 

contributed substantially to the adult 

coho salmon numbers reported by 

Shapovalov and Taft (1954). 

Comment 14: The commenter 

disagreed with the BRT’s interpretation 

of archeological data from a site at An ̃ o 

Nuevo State Reserve that was used to 

support the determination that coho 

salmon populations were native to 

watersheds south of San Francisco Bay. 

The commenter asserted that the coho 

bones found there were from fish that 

were of marine origin, rather than from 

a stream at that site, and therefore, 

argued that these data are inconclusive 

and do not support the BRT’s statement 

that coho salmon occurred as far south 

as Santa Cruz county. 

Response: The BRT reviewed the most 

recent available archeological 

information relevant to the southern 

extent of the range of coho salmon 

(Gobalet, in press), as well as earlier 

literature by Gobalet (Gobalet, 1990; 

Gobalet and Jones, 1995; and Gobalet et 

al., 2004) that provide additional 

information regarding the archeological 

record for coho salmon in California. 

The BRT acknowledged that evidence in 

the archeological record for coho 

salmon in California, particularly in 

coastal areas, is sparse (Spence et al. 

2011). However, the BRT considered the 

information, analysis and conclusions 

presented in Gobalet (in press) to be the 

best available archeological information 

relevant to determining the historical 

presence of coho salmon south of San 

Francisco Bay, and their conclusion that 

coho salmon occurred as far south as 

Santa Cruz county is based on that 

information. The commenter did not 

provide any new information to support 

his assertion that the coho salmon bones 

found at the An ̃o Neuvo site were of 

marine origin or that would alter our 

view that these bones are from coho 

salmon and constitute significant data 

documenting the presence of coho 

salmon in Santa Cruz County. We 

believe the data presented in Gobalet (in 

press) represents the best available 

archeological information relevant to 

determining the historical distribution 

of coho salmon south of San Francisco 

Bay. In summary, we believe the 

available archeological information 

reviewed by the BRT is scientifically 

credible, that it represents the best 

available information regarding the 

historical distribution of coho salmon 

south of San Francisco Bay, and that it 

supports our 12-month finding that 

coho salmon south of San Francisco are 

part of the CCC coho salmon ESU. 

Comment 15: The commenter asserted 

that the BRT’s conclusion that 

freshwater habitat conditions are 

suitable for coho salmon in watersheds 

both south and north of the entrance to 

San Francisco Bay was incorrect and 

that there are significant habitat 

differences between the two areas that 

preclude the persistence of coho salmon 

in streams south of San Francisco. The 

commenter provided information for 

survival rates in streams in Oregon and 

Washington that were published in 1982 

and compared those data to survival 

rates estimated by Shapovalov and Taft 

(1954). The commenter also provided 

information on flood flows recorded 

during the Shapovalov and Taft (1954) 

study. 

Response: The BRT carefully 

reviewed contemporary freshwater 

habitat data for streams north and south 

of San Francisco Bay in its review of the 

petition to delist coho salmon south of 

San Francisco Bay (Spence et al., 2011). 

Their review included substantial 

information submitted by the petitioner 

as a supplement to the original petition. 

Following its review, the BRT 

concluded that historical habitat 

conditions in watersheds south of San 

Francisco Bay were conducive to the 

presence of persistent coho salmon 

populations since the freshwater habitat 

conditions south of San Francisco Bay 

are not appreciably different from those 

in watersheds immediately north of San 

Francisco Bay, as described in their 

report. The BRT also concluded that 

current habitat conditions south of San 

Francisco (as well as elsewhere in the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19557 

range of the CCC coho salmon ESU) are 

a challenge to coho salmon populations, 

but that currently degraded habitat 

conditions are mainly due to 

anthropogenic effects, rather than any 

inherent characteristics of the 

watersheds themselves. We believe that 

the freshwater habitat information 

considered by the BRT represents the 

best available information regarding the 

suitability of habitat for coho salmon 

south of San Francisco Bay. The 

survival rate information provided by 

the commenter concerned coho salmon 

from a different eco-region under 

different environmental conditions; 

furthermore, the data cited by the 

commenter were gathered in a time 

period different from the one considered 

in Shapalov and Taft. The data provided 

by the commenter do not represent a 

valid comparison of habitat conditions 

from areas north and south of San 

Francisco, and therefore, do not refute 

the scientifically-credible conclusions of 

the BRT. After considering the 

information provided by the commenter 

and its relevance, in addition to the 

information and analysis found in 

Spence et al., (2011), we believe that the 

BRT’s conclusions concerning 

freshwater habitat suitability for coho 

salmon in watersheds both south and 

north of the entrance to San Francisco 

Bay were correct. The BRT’s 

conclusions support both our finding 

that coho salmon south of San Francisco 

are part of the CCC coho salmon ESU 

and our proposal to move the southern 

boundary of the ESU south to include 

Soquel and Aptos creeks. 

Issue: Viability of Coho Populations 

South of San Francisco Bay and Their 

Contribution to the Evolutionary Legacy 

of the CCC Coho Salmon ESU 

Comment 16: One commenter 

provided an analysis of data collected 

by Shapovalov and Taft (1954) and 

argued the results indicated coho 

salmon populations south of San 

Francisco were likely to go extinct and 

that these and other populations south 

of San Francisco are ‘‘sink’’ populations 

that are ephemeral and do not 

contribute to the evolutionary legacy of 

the CCC coho salmon ESU. Based on 

these reasons and the commenter’s 

interpretation of NMFS’ ESU policy, the 

commenter argues that coho salmon 

populations south of San Francisco Bay 

should not be part of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU. A similar argument was 

made in the petition to delist coho 

salmon populations south of San 

Francisco Bay. 

Response: The BRT that evaluated the 

petition to delist coho salmon 

populations south of San Francisco Bay 

addressed the viability of coho salmon 

populations south of San Francisco Bay 

and their contribution to the 

evolutionary legacy of the species 

(Spence et al., 2011). Based on the 

BRT’s review of the best available 

information (especially Bjorkstedt et al., 

2005), they concluded that populations 

south of San Francisco Bay were most 

likely a combination of independent 

and dependent populations that 

contributed to the overall functioning of 

the CCC coho salmon ESU rather than 

serving as‘‘sink’’ or ephemeral 

populations. The BRT also noted that 

even if the populations south of San 

Francisco were ‘‘sink’’ populations they 

could still contribute to the persistence 

of the ESU as a whole based on the 

current understanding of metapopulation function. For the reasons 

stated in Spence et al. (2011), we reach 

the same conclusions arrived at by the 

BRT with regard to the populations 

south of San Francisco Bay. Lastly, the 

commenter’s argument that populations 

south of San Francisco Bay do not 

contribute to the evolutionary legacy of 

the ESU, and therefore, should not be 

included in the ESU, demonstrates a 

lack of understanding of the 

evolutionary legacy criterion in NMFS’ 

ESU policy for Pacific Salmon (56 FR 

58612; November 20, 1991). The 

commenter is attempting to apply the 

evolutionary legacy criterion to 

individual populations, which is 

inappropriate. Under NMFS’ ESU 

policy, the evolutionary legacy criterion 

is applied to the group of populations 

being considered as an ESU, rather to 

individual populations. Accordingly, 

we believe that our proposed 

redefinition of the CCC coho salmon 

ESU boundaries is based on the best 

available information and the proper 

interpretation and application of NMFS’ 

ESU policy for Pacific Salmon. 

Issue: Climate Change and Long-Term 

Sustainability of Coho Salmon 

Populations South of San Francisco Bay 

Comment 17: One commenter 

questioned the long-term sustainability 

or viability of the coho salmon 

populations in coastal streams south of 

the entrance to San Francisco Bay in 

light of potential future impacts to the 

species and its habitat from climate 

change, changes in sea level, changes in 

the California Current and its 

productivity, and other factors. Given 

these factors, the commenter expressed 

concern about the economic cost of 

maintaining suitable habitat for coho 

salmon populations in watersheds south 

of San Francisco Bay and questioned the 

need to include these populations in the 

CCC coho salmon ESU and provide 

them with protection under the ESA. 

Response: Although we recognize that 

ensuring the long-term persistence of 

coho salmon in streams south of San 

Francisco presents many difficulties and 

uncertainties due to the current 

extremely low population sizes, the 

poor condition of the habitat in many 

watersheds, changes in the productivity 

of the California Current, and the 

possible effects of climate change, coho 

salmon populations south of San 

Francisco Bay are critical to the longterm viability and recovery of the CCC 

coho salmon ESU as a whole, and it is 

both necessary and possible to restore 

these populations (NMFS, 2010). 

Moreover, once we identify an ESU that 

meets the criteria of our ESU policy for 

Pacific Salmon, and determine that that 

ESU is threatened or endangered under 

the ESA, we must list that ESU. 

Issue: Economic Impacts of Proposed 

CCC Coho Salmon ESU Range Extension 

Comment 18: One commenter 

asserted the proposed range extension of 

the CCC coho salmon ESU failed to 

consider the potential financial impacts 

to landowners and other entities in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks. 

Response: Our proposal was to revise 

the CCC Coho ESU boundaries in order 

to formally recognize that the freshwater 

range of coho salmon in this ESU 

actually extends further south than was 

previously thought. Unlike critical 

habitat designations, section 4(b)(1)(A) 

of the ESA explicitly prohibits us from 

considering non-scientific information 

(including potential economic impacts) 

when making listing determinations. If 

we determine that the existing critical 

habitat designation for this ESU should 

be revised in the future to include 

freshwater habitat in Soquel and Aptos 

creeks, then an economic analysis 

appropriate to critical habitat 

designations, as stated in the applicable 

statutes, implementing regulations, and 

executive orders, will be conducted. 

Revised Geographic Range of CCC Coho 

Salmon ESU 

The ESU boundaries for west coast 

coho salmon, ranging from southern 

British Columbia to Central California, 

were first delineated in a 1994 status 

review (Weitkamp et al., 1995). In 

delineating these ESU boundaries, a 

wide range of information pertaining to 

West Coast coho salmon throughout its 

range was considered, including 

geographic variables, ecological and 

habitat variables, genetic variation 

among populations, and variation in life 

history traits among populations. In the 

1995 proposal to list the CCC coho 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

salmon ESU (60 FR 38011), NMFS 

indicated that the southern boundary of 

the ESU was the San Lorenzo River in 

Santa Cruz County based on the best 

available information at that time. 

The 1994 status review (Weitkamp et 

al., 1995) recognized that the rivers 

draining the Santa Cruz Mountains 

south of San Francisco Bay formed a 

cohesive group with respect to 

environmental conditions, and 

therefore, concluded that the Pajaro 

River was likely the historical southern 

limit of coho salmon in the area. In 

determining where the southern 

boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU 

should be placed, the status review 

analysis relied heavily on information 

provided in a 1993 status review of coho 

salmon in Scott and Waddell creeks 

(Bryant, 1994), which indicated there 

were no recent reports of coho salmon 

in rivers south of the San Lorenzo River. 

Faced with uncertainty about whether 

any coho salmon populations were 

present south of the San Lorenzo River 

and the uncertain origin of coho salmon 

in the San Lorenzo River, Weitkamp et 

al. (1995) concluded that the San 

Lorenzo River should be the southernmost basin in the ESU and that any coho 

salmon found spawning south of the 

San Lorenzo River that were not the 

result of non-ESU origin stock transfers 

should be considered part of the ESU. 

In reviewing the petition to delist 

coho salmon populations south of San 

Francisco Bay, the BRT reviewed 

recently collected information on the 

distribution of coho salmon in this area 

(Spence et al., 2011). Based on this new 

information and other information 

indicating that freshwater habitat 

conditions and watershed processes in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks were similar to 

those found in nearby watersheds 

within the ESU, the BRT recommended 

that the southern boundary of the CCC 

coho salmon ESU be moved southward 

from the San Lorenzo River to include 

coho salmon occurring in Soquel and 

Aptos creeks. The new information 

supporting this recommendation 

included: (1) Observations of juvenile 

coho salmon in Soquel Creek in 2008 

and (2) genetic information obtained 

from the juvenile coho salmon observed 

in Soquel Creek indicating the fish were 

closely related to populations in nearby 

watersheds. 

During the summer of 2008, juvenile 

coho salmon were observed in Soquel 

Creek by NMFS scientists for the first 

time in many years. Soquel Creek enters 

the Pacific Ocean about 6.5 km south of 

the San Lorenzo River. A total of 

approximately 170 juvenile fish were 

observed in the East Branch of Soquel 

Creek and some were photographed. 

These observations demonstrated that 

suitable spawning and rearing habitat 

for coho salmon occurs in Soquel Creek. 

A total of 28 of these fish were captured 

for tissue sampling and subsequent 

genetic analysis. Genetic analyses of 

these samples used 18 microsatellite 

loci to genotype the fish, investigate the 

origins of their parents, and to estimate 

the minimum number of reproductive 

events that contributed to the observed 

juveniles. Standard genetic stock 

identification techniques were used 

with a baseline reference database that 

included representative stocks from all 

regional California groups of coho 

salmon. The Soquel Creek fish were 

compared to coho salmon from a south 

of San Francisco Bay reference 

population (Scott Creek in Santa Cruz 

County, California) and it was 

determined, with very high confidence, 

that they were closely related. This 

analysis demonstrated that the juvenile 

fish observed in Soquel Creek were the 

progeny of locally produced adults 

returning to reproduce in nearby 

streams, and that they were native to 

streams draining the Santa Cruz 

Mountains south of San Francisco Bay. 

Genetic analysis of tissue samples 

from these juveniles (Garza et al., 

unpublished as cited in Spence et al., 

2011) also revealed that they were 

produced by a minimum of two 

reproductive events in Soquel Creek, 

rather than by a single pair of fish 

randomly straying into the watershed. 

The analysis only determined the 

minimum number of spawning parents, 

so it is possible that additional 

reproductive events occurred in Soquel 

Creek in 2008. This information strongly 

supports our conclusion that the fish in 

Soquel Creek are part of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU. 

In reviewing the ecological conditions 

of streams south of San Francisco Bay 

that originate from the Santa Cruz 

Mountains, Spence et al. (2011) noted 

that a significant ecological transition 

occurs immediately south of the Santa 

Cruz Mountains, with the northern edge 

of the Salinas Valley marking the 

boundary between an area with cool, 

wet redwood forests to the north and an 

area with warm, drier chaparral 

landscapes to the south where small 

relic redwood forests are primarily 

confined to riparian areas near the coast. 

The Soquel and Aptos watersheds occur 

within the Coast Range Ecoregion, 

which runs almost continuously from 

the Oregon border to the southern 

boundary of the Santa Cruz Mountains 

(the northern edge of the Pajaro River 

basin) and includes all the streams 

originating from the Santa Cruz 

Mountains south of San Francisco. 

Soquel and Aptos creeks exhibit 

ecological, climatic, and habitat 

attributes similar to streams historically 

and/or presently occupied by coho 

salmon elsewhere in this Ecoregion, 

indicating they provide habitat that is 

suitable for coho salmon. 

Status of the CCC Coho Salmon ESU 

Status reviews by Weitkamp et al. 

(1995), Good et al. (2005), and Spence 

and Williams (2011) have all concluded 

that the CCC coho salmon ESU is in 

danger of extinction. NMFS listed this 

ESU as threatened in 1996 (61 FR 

56138) and reclassified its status as 

endangered in 2005 (71 FR 834). The 

status reviews by Weitkamp et al. (1995) 

and Good et al. (2005) cited concerns 

over low abundance and long-term 

downward trends in abundance 

throughout the ESU, as well as the 

extirpation or near extirpation of 

populations across most of the southern 

two-thirds of the ESU’s historical range, 

including several major river basins. 

They further cited as risk factors the 

potential loss of genetic diversity 

associated with the reduction in range 

and the loss of one or more brood 

lineages in some populations coupled 

with the historical influence of hatchery 

fish (Good et al., 2005). 

As part of a recent 5-year status 

review update for listed salmon and 

steelhead in California, Spence and 

Williams (2011) updated the biological 

status of the CCC coho salmon ESU, 

taking into consideration the recent 

discovery of coho salmon in Soquel 

Creek. Their review concluded that 

despite the lack of long-term data on 

coho salmon abundance, available 

information from recent short-term 

research and monitoring efforts 

demonstrates that the status of coho 

populations in this ESU has worsened 

since it was reviewed in 2005 (Good et 

al., 2005). For all available time series, 

recent population trends were 

downward, in many cases significantly 

so, with particularly poor adult returns 

from 2006 to 2010. Based on population 

viability criteria that were developed to 

support preparation of the draft 

recovery plan for this ESU (Bjorkstedt et 

al., 2005; Spence et al., 2008), all of its 

independent populations in the ESU are 

well below low-risk abundance targets 

(e.g., Ten Mile River, Noyo River, 

Albion River), and several are, if not 

extirpated, below high-risk depensation 

thresholds (e.g., San Lorenzo River, 

Pescadero Creek, Gualala River). 

Though population-level estimates of 

abundance for most independent 

populations are lacking, it does not 

appear that any of the five diversity 

strata identified by Bjorkstedt et al. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19559 

(2005) for this ESU currently support a 

single viable population based on the 

viability criteria developed by Spence et 

al. (2008). Based on a consideration of 

all new substantive information 

regarding the biological status of this 

ESU, including the recent discovery of 

juvenile coho salmon in Soquel Creek, 

Spence and Williams (2011) concluded 

that the CCC coho salmon ESU 

continues to be in danger of extinction 

and that its overall extinction risk has 

increased since 2005. We concur. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Revised CCC Coho Salmon ESU 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat and Range 

Our review of factors affecting the 

CCC coho salmon ESU concluded that 

logging, agriculture, mining activities, 

urbanization, stream channelization, 

dams, wetland loss, water withdrawals, 

and unscreened diversions have 

contributed to its decline. Land-use 

activities associated with logging, road 

construction, urban development, 

mining, agriculture, and recreation have 

significantly altered coho salmon 

habitat quantity and quality (61 FR 

56138, October 31, 1996; 70 FR 37150, 

June 28, 2005). Impacts of these 

activities include alteration of 

streambank and channel morphology, 

alteration of ambient stream water 

temperatures, elimination of spawning 

and rearing habitat, fragmentation of 

available habitats, elimination of 

downstream recruitment of spawning 

gravels and large woody debris, removal 

of riparian vegetation resulting in 

increased stream bank erosion, and 

degradation of water quality (61 FR 

56138, October 31, 1966; 70 FR 37150, 

June 28, 2005). 

Land-use and extraction activities 

leading to habitat modification can have 

significant direct and indirect impacts 

to coho salmon populations. Land-use 

activities associated with residential 

and commercial development, road 

construction, use and maintenance, 

recreation, and past logging practices 

have significantly altered coho salmon 

freshwater habitat quantity and quality 

throughout this ESU, as well as in the 

Aptos and Soquel watersheds. 

Associated impacts of these activities 

include alteration of streambank and 

channel morphology, alteration of 

ambient stream water temperatures, 

degradation of water quality, 

elimination of spawning and rearing 

habitats, removal of instream large 

woody debris that forms pool habitats 

and overwintering refugia, removal of 

riparian vegetation resulting in 

increased bank erosion, loss of 

floodplain habitats and associated 

refugia, and increased sedimentation 

input into spawning and rearing areas 

resulting in the loss of channel 

complexity, pool habitat, and suitable 

gravel substrate. 

The loss and degradation of habitats 

and instream flow conditions were 

identified as threats to coho salmon in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks in the draft 

recovery plan for this ESU (NMFS, 

2010). Although many historically 

harmful practices have been halted, 

particularly removal of large woody 

debris by Santa Cruz County, much of 

the historical damage to habitats 

limiting coho salmon in these 

watersheds remains to be addressed. 

Habitat restoration activities and threat 

abatement actions will likely require 

more focused effort and time to stabilize 

and improve habitat conditions in order 

to improve the survival of coho salmon 

in these watersheds. Additionally, some 

land-use practices such as water 

diversions, floodplain development, 

unauthorized removal of inchannel 

woody debris, quarrying, and road 

maintenance practices continue to pose 

risks to the survival of local coho 

salmon populations. Insufficient flow 

during the summer due to authorized 

and unauthorized water diversions is 

likely one of the most significant 

limiting factors to coho salmon, 

particularly on the lower mainstem of 

Soquel Creek. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Education 

Purposes 

Commercial and recreational fisheries 

are closed for coho salmon in California; 

however, coho salmon in this ESU can 

still be incidentally captured in fisheries 

for other species. The impacts to coho 

salmon of this type of incidental 

bycatch are poorly understood, but may 

be significant in watersheds where 

population abundance is low. 

Recreational fishing for steelhead is 

allowed in Soquel and Aptos creeks, 

and coho salmon, if present, may 

unintentionally be caught by anglers 

targeting steelhead. The risk of 

unintentional capture is believed to be 

higher in these watersheds than in many 

other coastal streams with coho salmon 

because the current State of California 

fishing regulations allow catch and 

release of steelhead based on calendar 

dates regardless of river flow. Steelhead 

fishing season opens on December 1, 

which is a time of year when coho 

salmon typically begin their upstream 

migration and is typically one month 

before the main steelhead migration. 

Fishing for steelhead during low-flow 

periods may expose coho salmon adults 

to increased rates of incidental capture 

and injury. 

At the time the CCC coho salmon ESU 

was listed in 1996, collection for 

scientific research and educational 

programs was believed to have little or 

no impact on California coho salmon 

populations. In California, most 

scientific collection permits are issued 

by CDFG and NMFS to environmental 

consultants, Federal resource agencies, 

and educational institutions. Regulation 

of take is achieved by conditioning 

individual research permits (61 FR 

56138, October 31, 1996). Given the 

extremely low population levels 

throughout this ESU, but especially in 

watersheds south of San Francisco Bay, 

any collections could have significant 

impacts on local populations and need 

to be carefully controlled and 

monitored. In Soquel and Aptos creeks, 

two researchers are currently sampling 

juvenile salmonid populations using 

electrofishing as part of their sampling 

methodology. Only one researcher is 

authorized to capture coho salmon and 

the other must stop collections if 

juvenile coho salmon are detected. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Relative to the effects of habitat 

degradation, disease and predation were 

not believed to be major factors 

contributing to the decline of West 

Coast coho salmon populations in 

general or for this ESU in particular. 

Nevertheless, disease and predation 

could have substantial adverse impacts 

in localized areas. Specific diseases 

known to be present in the ESU and 

affect salmonids are discussed in a 

previous listing determination (69 FR 

33102; June 14, 2004). No historical or 

current information is available to 

estimate infection levels or mortality 

rates for coho salmon attributable to 

these diseases. 

Habitat conditions such as low water 

flows and high water temperatures can 

exacerbate susceptibility to infectious 

diseases (69 FR 33102). The large 

quantity of water diverted from Soquel 

Creek, which results in decreased 

summer flows, may increase the 

susceptibility of rearing coho salmon to 

disease and predation. Avian predators 

have been shown to impact some 

juvenile salmonids in freshwater and 

near shore environments. In Scott Creek, 

which is near Soquel and Aptos creeks, 

NMFS staff (Hayes, personnel 

communication) have documented 

substantial predation impacts on outmigrating salmonid smolts, based on the 

discovery of pit tags in gull nesting 

areas. Predation may significantly 

influence salmonid abundance in some 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

local populations when other prey 

species are absent and physical 

conditions lead to the concentration of 

adults and juveniles (Cooper and 

Johnson, 1992). Low flow conditions in 

these watersheds may enhance 

predation opportunities, particularly in 

streams where adult coho salmon may 

congregate at the mouth of streams 

waiting for high flows for access (CDFG, 

1995). These types of conditions could 

significantly impact coho salmon in 

Soquel Creek because of the low 

abundance of fish in that watershed. 

Marine predation (i.e., seals and sea 

lions) is a concern in some areas given 

the dwindling abundance of coho 

salmon across the range of this ESU; 

however, such predation is generally 

considered by most investigators and 

the BRT to be an insignificant 

contributor to the population declines 

that have been observed in Central 

California. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

At the time this ESU was originally 

listed, most Federal and non-Federal 

regulatory efforts were not found to 

adequately protect coho salmon due to 

a variety of factors including uncertain 

funding and implementation, the 

voluntary nature of many programs, or 

simply their ineffectiveness. Detailed 

information on regulatory mechanisms 

and other protective efforts for coho 

salmon is provided in NMFS’ Draft 

Recovery Plan for this ESU (NMFS, 

2010) and the 1996 and 2005 final 

listing determinations for this ESU. 

Since the original listing determination 

for this ESU in 1996, few significant 

improvements in regulatory 

mechanisms have been made aside from 

efforts implemented under the ESA (i.e., 

NMFS’ efforts under section 7 of the 

ESA and the designation of critical 

habitat for this ESU). A variety of State 

and Federal regulatory mechanisms 

exist to protect coho salmon habitat, but 

they have not been adequately 

implemented (61 FR 56138; October 31, 

1996). Overall, we believe that most 

current regulatory mechanisms and/or 

other protective efforts are not 

sufficiently certain to be implemented 

and/or are not effective in reducing 

threats to coho salmon in this ESU (70 

FR 37160; June 28, 2005). 

In Soquel and Aptos creeks, one 

recent beneficial regulatory change has 

been the termination of funding for 

Santa Cruz County’s in-stream wood 

removal program in 2009. Curtailment 

of this program is expected to 

eventually result in improvements to 

summer and winter rearing habitat for 

coho salmon in the County. Problems 

with other regulatory efforts, including 

poor oversight and enforcement of State 

water law pertaining to permitted and 

unpermitted diversions, are a significant 

concern in Soquel and Aptos creeks. 

E. Other Natural or Human-Made 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Long-term trends in rainfall and 

marine productivity associated with 

atmospheric conditions in the North 

Pacific Ocean have a major influence on 

coho salmon production on the West 

Coast. Natural climatic conditions may 

have exacerbated or mitigated the 

problems associated with degraded and 

altered freshwater and estuarine habitats 

that coho salmon depend upon (69 FR 

33102). Detailed discussions of these 

factors can be found the 1996 and 2005 

listing determinations for this ESU (61 

FR 56138, October 31, 1996 and 70 FR 

37160, June 28, 2005, respectively). No 

significant changes to this listing factor 

have occurred since the original listing, 

although the risk of climate change may 

well have increased. 

The best available scientific 

information indicates that the Earth’s 

climate is warming, driven by the 

accumulation of greenhouse gasses in 

the atmosphere (Oreskes, 2004; Battin et 

al., 2007; Lindley et al., 2007). Because 

coho salmon depend upon freshwater 

streams and the ocean during their life 

cycle, most if not all populations in this 

ESU, including those in Soquel and 

Aptos creeks, are likely to be impacted 

by climate change in the decades ahead, 

though the type and magnitude of these 

impacts are difficult to predict at this 

time. 

Final Determination 

Based on a consideration of the best 

available information, including new 

information on the presence of coho 

salmon in Soquel Creek, genetic data 

indicating the fish from Soquel Creek 

are closely related to fish from nearby 

watersheds, the similarity of habitat in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks to that in 

nearby watersheds presently or 

historically supporting coho salmon, 

and the proximity of Soquel and Aptos 

creeks to nearby watersheds supporting 

coho salmon, we conclude that the 

southern boundary of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU should be moved 

southward to include Soquel and Aptos 

creeks in Santa Cruz County, California. 

Based on an updated status assessment 

of coho salmon populations throughout 

the range of the ESU, including the 

recent discovery of juvenile coho 

salmon in Soquel Creek, and 

consideration of the factors affecting 

this species throughout the range of the 

ESU, we conclude that the redefined 

ESU continues to be an endangered 

species. 

Section 9 Take Prohibitions and Other 

Protections 

The CCC coho salmon ESU is an 

endangered species and Section 9 of the 

ESA prohibits certain activities that 

directly or indirectly affect endangered 

species. The section 9(a) prohibitions 

apply to all individuals, organizations, 

and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

Section 9 prohibitions apply 

automatically to endangered species 

such as the CCC coho salmon ESU, 

throughout its range. As a result of this 

range extension, the section 9 take 

prohibitions now will apply to all 

naturally produced coho salmon in 

Soquel and Aptos creeks. 

Section 7(a) of the ESA, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

ESA are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with us under the 

provisions of section 7(a)(2). Federal 

agencies and actions that may be 

affected by the revision of the CCC coho 

salmon ESU include the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and its issuance of 

permits under the Clean Water Act. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the ESA provide us with authority to 

grant exceptions to the ESA’s ‘‘take’’ 

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of the affected species. 

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) 

research/enhancement permits for listed 

salmonids, including CCC coho salmon, 

to conduct activities such as trapping 

and tagging and other research and 

monitoring activities. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19561 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permits may be issued to non-Federal 

entities conducting activities that may 

incidentally take listed species so long 

as the taking is incidental to, and not 

the purpose of, the carrying out of an 

otherwise lawful activity. The types of 

activities potentially requiring a section 

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit 

include, but are not limited to, stateregulated angling, academic research 

not receiving Federal authorization or 

funding, road building, timber 

management, grazing, and diverting 

water onto private lands. 

NMFS’ Policies on Endangered and 

Threatened Fish and Wildlife 

NMFS and the FWS published a 

policy in the Federal Register on July 1, 

1994 (59 FR 34272) indicating that both 

agencies would identify, to the 

maximum extent practicable at the time 

a species is listed, those activities that 

would or would not constitute a 

violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 

intent of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effect of this listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the species range. Based on the best 

available information, we believe that 

the following actions are unlikely to 

result in a violation of section 9 for coho 

salmon in this ESU, including Soquel 

and Aptos creeks: 

1. Any incidental take of listed fish 

from this ESU resulting from an 

otherwise lawful activity conducted in 

accordance with the conditions of an 

incidental take permit issued by NMFS 

under section 10 of the ESA; 

2. Any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by a Federal agency that is 

likely to adversely affect listed fish from 

this ESU when the action is conducted 

in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of an incidental take 

statement issued by NMFS under 

section 7 of the ESA; 

3. Any action carried out for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of listed fish from this ESU 

that is conducted in accordance with 

the conditions of a permit issued by 

NMFS under section 10 of the ESA 

Activities that are likely to result in a 

violation of section 9 prohibitions 

against the ‘‘taking’’ of fish from this 

ESU include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

1. Unauthorized killing, collecting, 

handling, or harassing of individual fish 

from this ESU; 

2. Land-use activities that adversely 

affect habitats supporting coho salmon, 

such as logging, development, road 

construction in riparian areas and in 

areas susceptible to mass wasting and 

surface erosion; 

3. Destruction/alteration of the 

habitats supporting coho salmon, such 

as removal of large woody debris and 

‘‘sinker logs’’ or riparian shade canopy, 

dredging, discharge of fill material, 

sandbar breaching, draining, ditching, 

diverting, blocking, or altering stream 

channels or surface or ground water 

flow; 

4. Discharges or dumping of toxic 

chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., 

sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or 

riparian areas supporting coho salmon 

in the ESU; 

5. Violation of discharge permits into 

the ESU; 

6. Application of pesticides affecting 

water quality or riparian areas 

supporting coho salmon in the ESU; 

7. Introduction of non-native species 

likely to prey on coho salmon within 

the ESU or displace them from their 

habitat. 

Other activities not identified here 

will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis 

to determine if violation of section 9 of 

the ESA may be likely to result from 

such activities. Questions regarding 

whether specific activities may 

constitute a violation of the section 9 

take prohibition, and general inquiries 

regarding prohibitions and permits, 

should be directed to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). We do not consider these 

lists to be exhaustive and we provide 

them as general information to the 

public. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

peer review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act, is intended to enhance the 

quality and credibility of the Federal 

Government’s scientific information and 

applies to influential or highly 

influential scientific information 

disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. 

To satisfy our requirements under the 

OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent 

peer review of the scientific information 

compiled in the BRT report (Spence et 

al., 2011) that supports the proposed 

range extension and the continued 

listing of the CCC coho salmon ESU as 

an endangered species. The peer 

reviewers provided only limited, minor 

comments which were addressed in the 

final BRT report. 

A joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) 

requires us to solicit independent expert 

review from at least three qualified 

specialists on proposed listing 

determinations such as this range 

extension. Accordingly, we solicited 

reviews from three scientific peer 

reviewers having expertise with coho 

salmon in California and received 

comments from all three reviewers. We 

carefully reviewed the peer review 

comments and have addressed them as 

appropriate in this final rule (see 

summary of peer review comments 

above). 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA as: ‘‘(i) The specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of this Act, on which are 

found those physical and biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon 

a determination by the Secretary that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(A)). Conservation means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary. Section 4(b)(2) 

requires that designation of critical 

habitat be based on the best scientific 

data available, after taking into 

consideration the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7 of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that they do not fund, 

authorize, or carry out any actions that 

are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat. This requirement is in 

addition to the section 7 requirement 

that Federal agencies ensure that their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the listed species. 

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires 

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, NMFS designate 

critical habitat concurrently with a 

determination that a species is 

endangered or threatened. Critical 

habitat for the CCC coho salmon ESU 

was designated on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 

24049) and presently includes all river 

reaches accessible to coho salmon in 

rivers between Punta Gorda and the San 

Lorenzo River. Within these streams, 

critical habitat includes all waterways, 

substrate and adjacent riparian habitat 

below longstanding, natural impassable 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
19562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

barriers and some specific dams. Critical 

habitat is not presently being proposed 

for designation in Soquel and Aptos 

creek watersheds. Prior to making any 

determination regarding the designation 

of critical habitat in these watersheds, 

we will complete an analysis to 

determine if habitat in Soquel and 

Aptos creeks should be designated and 

whether any modification of the existing 

critical habitat designation is warranted. 

Following completion of this analysis, 

NMFS may initiate rulemaking to 

designate critical habitat in these 

watersheds. Any such proposed rule 

will provide an opportunity for public 

comments and a public hearing, if 

requested. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2nd 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that ESA listing actions are not subject 

to the environmental assessment 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive 

Order 12866, and Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 Amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

ESA listing process. Thus, this final rule 

is also exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

Federalism 

In keeping with the intent of the 

Administration and Congress to provide 

continuing and meaningful dialogue on 

issues of mutual State and Federal 

interest, development of this rule 

included coordination with the State of 

California through the CDFG. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Endangered marine and anadromous 

species. 

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

■ 2. Revise the entry for ‘‘Central 

California Coast coho,’’ in § 224.101(a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Species 1

Where listed Citation(s) for listing 

determinations 

Citations(s) for critical 

habitat Designations Common name Scientific name 

*******

Central California 

Coast coho.

Oncorhynchus 

kitsutch.

U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawning 

populations of coho salmon from Punta 

Gorda in northern California south to and 

including Aptos Creek in central California, 

as well as populations in tributaries to San 

Francisco Bay, excluding the SacramentoSan Joaquin River system, as well as 

three artificial propagation programs: the 

Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive 

Broodstock Program, Scott Creek/King 

Fisher Flats Conservation Program, and 

the Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program.

[INSERT FR CITATION & April 2, 

2012.

64 FR 24049; May 5, 

1999. 

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 19563 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–7860 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket Nos. 100610255–0257–01 and 

040205043–4043–01] 

RIN 0648–XB074 

2012 Accountability Measures for Gulf 

of Mexico Commercial Greater 

Amberjack and Closure of the 

Commercial Sector for Greater 

Amberjack 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements 

accountability measures (AMs) for 

commercial greater amberjack in the 

Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for the 2012 

fishing year through this temporary final 

rule, and announces the closure of the 

2012 commercial sector for greater 

amberjack of the Gulf reef fish fishery. 

This rule reduces the 2012 commercial 

quota for greater amberjack to 237,438 lb 

(107,700 kg), based on the 2011 quota 

overage. The commercial fishing season 

opened on January 1, 2012 and is closed 

March 1–May 31. The season is 

scheduled to re-open on June 1, 

however, NMFS has determined that the 

2012 adjusted commercial quota for 

Gulf greater amberjack was harvested in 

January and February of 2012. 

Therefore, the commercial sector for 

greater amberjack will remain closed for 

the remainder of the 2012 fishing year. 

These actions are necessary to reduce 

overfishing of the Gulf greater amberjack 

resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 2, 

2012, through December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final rule for 

Amendment 30A, the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) for Amendment 30A, 

and other supporting documentation 

may be obtained from Rich Malinowski, 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 

13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701; telephone: 727–824–5305. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Malinowski, telephone: 727–824–5305, 

email Rich.Malinowski@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the reef fish fishery of the Gulf 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of 

Mexico (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMP and NMFS 

implements the FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Background 

The 2006 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act established new 

requirements including annual catch 

limits (ACLs) and AMs to end 

overfishing and prevent overfishing 

from occurring. AMs are management 

controls to prevent ACLs from being 

exceeded, and correct or mitigate 

overages of the ACL if they occur. 

Section 303(a)(15) of the MagnusonStevens Act mandates the establishment 

of ACLs at a level such that overfishing 

does not occur in the fishery, including 

measures to ensure accountability. 

On July 3, 2008, NMFS issued a final 

rule (73 FR 38139) to implement 

Amendment 30A to the FMP. 

Amendment 30A established 

commercial and recreational quotas for 

Gulf greater amberjack and AMs that 

would go into effect if the commercial 

and recreational quotas for greater 

amberjack are exceeded. In accordance 

with regulations at 50 CFR 

622.49(a)(1)(i), when the applicable 

commercial quota is reached, or 

projected to be reached, the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 

(AA), will file a notification with the 

Office of the Federal Register to close 

the commercial sector for the remainder 

of the fishing year. If despite such 

closure, commercial landings exceed the 

quota, the AA will reduce the quota the 

year following an overage by the amount 

of the overage of the prior fishing year. 

Management Measures Contained in 

this Temporary Rule 

Finalized 2011 commercial landings 

data indicated the adjusted 2011 

commercial quota of 342,091 lb (155,170 

kg) was exceeded by 78 percent, or 

265,562 lb (120,457 kg). Therefore, the 

reduced 2012 commercial quota for Gulf 

greater amberjack is 237,438 lb (107,700 

kg) (i.e., 503,000-lb (228,157-kg) 

commercial quota minus the overage of 

265,562 lb (120,457 kg)). The NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

estimated that the commercial sector 

landed 221,789 lb (100,601 kg) of greater 

amberjack during the months of January 

and February of 2012, and projects 

subsequent updates to the landings data 

will meet the adjusted 2012 commercial 

sector quota for greater amberjack of 

237,438 lb (107,700 kg). 

Accordingly, NMFS is closing 

commercial sector harvest of greater 

amberjack in the Gulf EEZ for the 

remainder of the 2012 fishing year. The 

operator of a vessel with a valid 

commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef 

fish having greater amberjack aboard 

must have landed, bartered, traded, or 

sold such greater amberjack prior to 

12:01 a.m., local time, March 1, 2012. 

During the closure, all commercial 

harvest or possession of greater 

amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ, and 

the sale or purchase of greater amberjack 

taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The 

prohibition on sale or purchase does not 

apply to sale or purchase of greater 

amberjack that were harvested, landed 

ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., 

local time, March 1, 2012, and were 

held in cold storage by a dealer or 

processor. In addition to the Gulf EEZ 

closure, a person on board a vessel for 

which a commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf reef fish has been issued must 

comply with these closure provisions 

regardless of where the Gulf greater 

amberjack are harvested, i.e., in State or 

Federal waters. This closure is intended 

to prevent overfishing of Gulf greater 

amberjack and increase the likelihood 

that the 2012 commercial quota will not 

be exceeded. 

The 2013 commercial quota for 

greater amberjack will return to the 

quota of 503,000 lb (228,157 kg) 

specified at 50 CFR 622.42(a)(1)(v) 

unless AMs are implemented due to a 

quota overage and NMFS specifies a 

reduced quota through notification in 

the Federal Register, or the Council 

takes subsequent regulatory action to 

adjust the quota. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) has 

determined this temporary rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the Gulf greater 

amberjack component of the Gulf reef 

fish fishery and is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and 

other applicable laws. 

The temporary rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

These measures are exempt from the 

procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act because the temporary rule is issued 

without opportunity for prior notice and 

comment. 

NMFS prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for Amendment 30A. A notice of 

availability for the FEIS was published 

on April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21124). A copy 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES