Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Oregon Coast Spring-Run Chinook Salmon as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 20476-20482 [2020-07736]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 71 (Monday, April 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20476-20482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07736]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 200407-0102]
RTID 0648-XW013


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List Oregon Coast Spring-Run Chinook Salmon as Threatened or 
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and 
initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 
spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) on the Oregon 
coast (OC) as a threatened or endangered Evolutionarily Significant 
Unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate 
critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the 
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of 
OC spring-run Chinook salmon to determine whether the petitioned action 
is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are 
soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this 
species from any interested party.

DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the 
petitioned action must be received by June 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit data and information relevant to our review 
of the status of Oregon Coast spring-run Chinook, identified by 
``Oregon Coast spring-run Chinook salmon Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2019-
0130),'' by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2019-0130, click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West 
Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite #1100, Portland, OR 
97232. Attn: Gary Rule.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available 
from the NMFS website at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-and-regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at 
[email protected], (503) 230-5424; or Heather Austin, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, at [email protected], (301) 427-8422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 24, 2019, the Secretary of Commerce received a 
petition from the Native Fish Society, Center for Biological Diversity, 
and Umpqua Watersheds (hereafter, the Petitioners) to identify OC 
spring-run Chinook salmon as a separate ESU and list the ESU as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. Previously, in 1999, we 
identified the OC Chinook salmon ESU as including both spring-run and 
fall-run Chinook salmon and determined that the ESU did not warrant 
listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Petitioners are 
requesting that OC spring-run Chinook salmon be considered as a 
separate ESU and listed as threatened or endangered. The Petitioners 
assert that new research into the genomic basis for premature migration 
in salmonids demonstrates that significant genetic differences underlie 
the spring- and fall-run life history types, and that the unique 
evolutionary lineage of spring-run Chinook salmon warrants their 
listing as a separate ESU. The Petitioners also request the designation 
of critical habitat for OC spring-run Chinook salmon concurrent with 
ESA listing. The petition includes an overview of new research into the 
genomic basis for premature migration in salmonids, as well as general 
biological information about OC spring-run Chinook salmon including 
their distribution and range, life history characteristics, habitat 
requirements, as well as basin-level population status and trends and 
factors contributing to the populations' status. Copies of the petition 
are available as described above (see ADDRESSES, above).

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions, and Evaluation 
Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or 
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly 
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information 
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a 
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a 
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will 
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a 
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted 
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available 
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day 
stage, a positive 90-day finding does not prejudge the outcome of the 
status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which 
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, 
any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 
U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, we issued the Policy on Applying the 
Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific 
Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991), which explains 
that Pacific salmon populations will be considered a DPS, and hence a

[[Page 20477]]

``species'' under the ESA, if it represents an ``evolutionarily 
significant unit'' of the biological species. The two criteria for 
delineating an ESU are: (1) It is substantially reproductively isolated 
from other conspecific populations, and (2) it represents an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. The ESU Policy was 
used to define the OC Chinook salmon ESU in 1998 (63 FR 11482; March 9, 
1998), and we use it exclusively for defining distinct population 
segments of Pacific salmon. A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the Services' 
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the 
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the 
ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). In announcing this 
policy, the Services indicated that the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon 
was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use 
the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon.
    A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we 
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one 
or a combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or 
manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(1)(A)-(E), 50 CFR 424.11(c)(1)-(5)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial 
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, 
or reclassify a species as ``credible scientific or commercial 
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.'' Conclusions 
drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or 
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial 
information.'' In reaching the initial 90-day finding on the petition, 
we consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), 
(d), and (g) (if applicable).
    Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted depends in part on the degree to which the 
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information 
on current population status and trends and estimates of current 
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if 
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of 
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting 
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the 
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened 
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how 
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its 
habitat are; (4) information on the adequacy of regulatory protections 
and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other 
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect 
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation 
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims 
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
    If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the 
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the 
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is 
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and 
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information 
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
    We also consider information readily available at the time the 
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting 
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide 
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright 
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., 
publications, maps, reports, and letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 
424.14(h)(1)(ii).
    The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard 
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made 
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the 
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, 
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition 
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received 
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to 
determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial 
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the 
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where 
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final 
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petitioned action will generally not be considered 
to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating 
that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new 
information or analyses not previously considered.
    At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, 
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to 
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's 
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they 
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have 
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's 
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant 
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than 
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available 
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long 
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial 
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioner's 
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating that the 
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to 
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of 
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a 
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may 
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we 
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either 
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate 
whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the 
information readily available in our files, indicates that the 
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under 
the ESA. Next, we evaluate

[[Page 20478]]

whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction 
risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be 
warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing 
the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts 
and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific 
demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the 
species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial 
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical 
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential 
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the 
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic 
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 
4(a)(1).
    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to 
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these 
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species 
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad 
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification 
of general factors that could negatively impact a species, alone, do 
not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the 
particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be 
responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential 
significance of that negative response.

Previous Federal Actions

    On March 9, 1998, following completion of a comprehensive status 
review of Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) populations in Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 
seven Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered under the ESA (63 
FR 11482). In this proposed rule, NMFS identified the Oregon Coast (OC) 
Chinook salmon ESU as comprised of coastal populations of spring- and 
fall-run chinook salmon from the Elk River north to the mouth of the 
Columbia River (63 FR 11482). NMFS did not propose to list the OC ESU 
of Chinook salmon under the ESA, concluding that the ESU was neither in 
danger of extinction nor likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. This proposed rule was followed by a final rule to list four 
Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered under the ESA, which 
NMFS published on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308). After assessing 
information concerning Chinook salmon abundance, distribution, 
population trends, and risks, and after considering efforts being made 
to protect Chinook salmon, NMFS determined in this final rule that the 
OC ESU of Chinook salmon did not warrant listing under the ESA.

Evaluation of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS' Files

    The petition contains information and assertions in support of 
designating and listing the spring-run component of the OC Chinook 
salmon ESU as threatened or endangered under the ESA. As discussed 
above, based on biological, genetic, and ecological information 
compiled and reviewed as part of a previous West Coast Chinook salmon 
status review (Myers et al., 1998), we included all spring-run and 
fall-run Chinook salmon populations in river basins from the Elk River 
north to the mouth of the Columbia River in the OC Chinook salmon ESU 
(63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998). While run-timing was recognized as having 
a heritable basis, review of genetic data at that time did not identify 
clear sub-groups associated with migration timing within the OC Chinook 
salmon ESU. Spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon were found to be 
separate ESUs in other areas (e.g., in the upper Columbia River, Snake 
River, and Sacramento River drainages). However, in coastal areas life-
history and genetic differences between runs were found to be 
relatively modest, with spring- and fall-run fish exhibiting similar 
ocean distribution patterns and genetic characteristics (Myers et al., 
1998).
    The Petitioners assert that spring-run Chinook salmon in the OC 
Chinook salmon ESU have been sufficiently isolated from fall-run 
Chinook salmon for evolutionarily important differences to have arisen 
and been maintained. The Petitioners present new genetic evidence to 
suggest the OC spring-run Chinook salmon populations may qualify as a 
separate ESU from the fall-run populations. The Petitioners assert that 
findings from recently published articles on the evolutionary basis of 
premature migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et al., 2017; Davis et 
al., 2017; Narum et al., 2018; and Thompson et al., 2019) indicate that 
spring-run Chinook salmon in the OC ESU should be considered a separate 
ESU. Prince et al. (2017) reported on a survey of genetic variation 
between mature- and premature-migrating populations of steelhead and 
Chinook salmon from California, Oregon, and Washington. Narum et al. 
(2018) replicated analysis of loci identified by Prince et al. (2017) 
as associated with premature and mature migratory phenotypes. Davis et 
al. (2017) genotyped Chinook salmon within the Siletz River using 
multiple genetic markers, including neutral markers and adaptive loci 
associated with migratory timing. Thompson et al. (2019) provide 
additional information about genetic differentiation between mature- 
and premature-migrating Chinook salmon in the Rogue River, Oregon, and 
in the Klamath River, California, particularly in response to 
anthropogenic changes. The Petitioners suggest that the results of 
these studies indicate that premature migration (e.g. spring-run 
Chinook salmon) arose from a single evolutionary event within the 
species and, if lost, is not likely to re-evolve in time frames 
relevant to conservation planning.
    The Petitioners also assert that the Chinook salmon spring-run life 
history represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of 
the species. In support of this assertion, the Petitioners describe 
specific ecological and evolutionary benefits of the life history 
variation provided by spring-run stocks within the OC Chinook salmon 
ESU. The Petitioners describe how spring-run Chinook salmon tend to 
spawn higher up in the watershed than fall-run and how this adds to the 
spatial distribution of the species. We have reviewed the new genetic 
information and the information presented by the Petitioners about the 
evolutionary legacy of spring-run Chinook salmon. Based on information 
provided by the Petitioners, as well as information readily available 
in our files, we find that a reasonable person may conclude that OC 
spring-run Chinook salmon could qualify as an ESU pursuant to our ESU 
Policy.

OC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Status and Trends

    The Petitioners assert that spring-run Chinook salmon populations 
in the OC ESU have suffered significant declines in numbers from 
historical abundance. The Petitioners assert that former spring-run 
populations in the Siuslaw, Coos, and Salmon rivers are apparently 
extirpated and that small, very depressed populations of spring-run 
Chinook salmon remain in the Tillamook, Nestucca, Siletz, Alsea, and 
Coquille Rivers (Percy et al., 1974; Nicholas and Hankin 1989; Kostow 
et al., 1995; ODFW, 2005; ODFW, 2017; ODFW, 2018 unpublished data; 
Rasmussen and Nott, 2019). The Oregon Native Fish Status Report (ODFW, 
2005) concluded that the Siletz spring-run Chinook salmon population, 
although small, passed all assessment criteria and was not considered 
at risk. ODFW (2005) further found that spring-run

[[Page 20479]]

Chinook salmon populations in the Coquille and Alsea Rivers were 
sufficiently spatially diverse, independent, and free of hybridization, 
but due to chronically low adult returns were still considered 
potentially at risk. Citing the above information sources and adult 
counts at Winchester Dam, the Petitioners also assert that the North 
Umpqua River supports the only remaining large spring-run Chinook 
salmon population in the OC ESU, but conclude recent surveys by the 
USFS and viability analyses by other researchers (Ratner and Lande, 
1996) indicate the South Umpqua River run has been severely depleted.
    The Petitioners also call attention to the Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife's Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management 
Plan (CMP) (ODFW, 2014) and fish counts at Winchester Dam (ODFW, 2019) 
in support of their assertions that spring-run Chinook salmon 
populations are at risk of extinction. The CMP is the State of Oregon's 
plan for long-term conservation of naturally-produced salmon, 
steelhead, and trout on the Oregon Coast. The CMP identifies 
populations within the OC Chinook salmon ESU, and recognizes that while 
there are spring-run life history variants present in many of the OC 
Chinook salmon populations, only the North and South Umpqua Rivers 
support runs that are sufficiently isolated to be considered 
independent spring-run Chinook salmon populations (ODFW, 2014). Spring-
run Chinook salmon in the North Umpqua River were found to be viable, 
although with a decreasing trend in abundance (1972-2010). South Umpqua 
spring-run Chinook salmon had a low extinction risk (<5%) and an 
increasing trend in abundance (1972-2010), but the population was 
considered non-viable because the current abundance was low and 
carrying capacity estimated to be less than necessary to maintain 
evolutionary potential to persist in future conditions (ODFW, 2014). 
The CMP assessments for OC Chinook salmon populations outside of the 
Umpqua Basin, which use the predominant fall-run Chinook salmon to 
evaluate population viability, found all populations were viable except 
for Elk River.
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a fish 
counting station at Winchester Dam, located approximately 118 river 
miles from the Pacific Ocean, near the town of Roseburg on the North 
Umpqua River. Although the most recent (2011-2018) average Winchester 
Dam counts of spring-run Chinook salmon in the North Umpqua show an 
improvement over historic lows, these counts indicate a decreasing 
trend of natural-origin adult returns over the last eight years (ODFW, 
2019). Fieldwork conducted in 2019 by an inter-agency team confirmed 
that abundance of spring-run Chinook salmon in the South Umpqua remains 
low after recent declines (Kruzic, 2019).
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude current demographic risks indicate that OC 
spring-run Chinook salmon populations may be at risk of extinction and 
thus warrant further investigation.

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    The Petitioners assert that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors 
contribute to the need to list the OC spring-run Chinook salmon as a 
threatened or endangered ESU. Specifically, the Petitioners assert that 
several factors are known to be contributing to the destruction and 
modification of OC spring-run Chinook salmon habitat and curtailment of 
its range, that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to 
protect the spring-run component of the existing ESU, and that other 
natural and manmade factors are negatively affecting the continued 
existence of spring-run Chinook salmon on the Oregon Coast. Petitioners 
further assert that there is insufficient information to determine the 
extent to which disease, predation, and overutilization are affecting 
OC spring-run Chinook salmon, and that available evidence suggests 
there are existing negative impacts associated with all of these 
factors.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    The Petitioners assert that OC spring-run Chinook salmon face 
numerous threats to suitable habitat, including impacts from historical 
and ongoing logging practices, agricultural practices, channelization, 
and urbanization. NMFS' most recent OC coho salmon status review (NMFS, 
2016) evaluated the status of habitat threats over an area almost 
completely co-extensive with the range of OC spring-run Chinook salmon 
and concluded that degraded habitat conditions in this area continue to 
be of concern, particularly with regard to land use and development 
activities that affect the quality and accessibility of habitats and 
habitat-forming processes.
    The Petitioners assert that habitat degradation due to logging and 
roads reduces stream shade, increases fine sediment levels, reduces 
levels of in-stream large wood, and alters watershed hydrology, which 
is supported by similar conclusions in NMFS' 2011 Final Rule listing OC 
coho salmon under the ESA (76 FR 35755), describing habitat that is co-
extensive with the range of OC spring-run Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners specifically assert that extensive logging can be harmful 
to spring-run Chinook salmon populations by causing depletion of summer 
and early fall streamflows needed for adult migration, holding, and 
spawning. Perry and Jones (2017) found that after an initial delay, 
base streamflows were substantially decreased for decades in logged 
areas as compared to pre-logging conditions. The Petitioners also 
assert that timber harvest and road construction harm OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon by altering stream flow, increasing sediment loading, 
contaminant concentrations, and temperatures, and decreasing dissolved 
oxygen. References to NMFS' 2011 OC Coho salmon listing (76 FR 35755) 
and U.S. Bureau of Land Management analysis of timber harvest in the 
Siletz River watershed (USBLM 1996) support their assertion.
    The Petitioners further assert that dams, water diversions, and 
other barriers impact OC spring-run Chinook salmon by blocking suitable 
riverine habitat, impeding migration, and reducing water quality and 
quantity. NMFS' 2011 OC coho listing concluded that fish passage has 
been blocked in many streams by improperly designed culverts and is 
limited in estuaries by tide gates in the range of the OC coho salmon 
ESU. The Petitioners assert that large dams significantly reduce the 
amount of spawning and rearing habitat accessible to migrating Chinook 
salmon. However, the Oregon Native Fish Status Report (ODFW, 2005) 
concluded that essentially all potential OC spring-run Chinook salmon 
habitat remains accessible (although recognizing this assessment did 
not capture fine-scale blockages such those caused by culverts). The 
Petitioners also assert that dams (large and small), reservoirs, 
diversions, and other barriers can significantly delay upstream and 
downstream migration. The most recent NMFS status review of OC coho 
salmon (NMFS, 2016) recognizes that impeded fish passage and habitat 
access is a concern in many watersheds within their range, although 
this is not considered a primary limiting factor.
    The Petitioners assert that dams and diversions also have the 
potential to decrease downstream flows, and that decreased summer and 
fall baseflows can result in increased water temperatures that are 
harmful to OC

[[Page 20480]]

spring-run Chinook salmon. As referenced in the petition and NMFS' most 
recent status review of OC Chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998) Bottom 
et al. (1985) cited low streamflows and high summer temperatures 
exacerbated by water withdrawals as problems for many streams (notably 
Tillamook Bay tributaries and Alsea, Siletz, Siuslaw, and Umpqua 
Rivers). The 2016 NMFS status review of OC coho salmon recognizes water 
quality and quantity as primary or secondary limiting factors for many 
coastal basins, and the Oregon CMP (ODFW 2014) lists low flows and high 
temperatures as primary limiting factors for OC spring-run Chinook 
salmon.
    The Petitioners also highlight other ongoing anthropogenic 
disturbances that may cause habitat degradation, including gravel 
mining, pollutants, and stream channelization, which is consistent with 
findings in NMFS' 2011 Final Rule to list OC coho salmon and limiting 
factors (particularly reduced habitat complexity) identified in the 
2016 NMFS OC coho salmon status review.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person may conclude that habitat destruction and curtailment of their 
range pose a threat to the continued existence of OC spring-run Chinook 
salmon.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The Petitioners assert that harvest of OC spring-run Chinook salmon 
in commercial and recreational fisheries in the ocean may be a threat. 
However, due to the mixed stock nature of these fisheries, the 
Petitioners note that it is extremely difficult to identify harvest 
rates for and the level of impact on OC spring-run Chinook salmon. The 
2018 stock assessment and fishery evaluation document for the Pacific 
Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (PFMC, 2018) reports harvest 
relative to management objectives set for OC Chinook salmon, which 
combine all run timing variants within northern and central Oregon 
Coast Chinook salmon stock complexes. Based on peak adult index spawner 
counts and estimates of adult escapement in 2018, the aggregate 
northern and central Oregon Coast escapement goal was likely met, and 
available exploitation rate data indicate OC Chinook salmon were not 
overfished (PFMC, 2018). However, the Petitioners assert that because 
these estimates do not distinguish between fall- and spring-run ocean 
harvest, the impacts of harvest could be greater on small populations 
of spring-run Chinook salmon within the ESU.
    The Petitioners assert that catch card data from recreational 
fishermen and other unpublished freshwater harvest data indicate that 
in-river fisheries can harvest large portions (40-60%) of returning 
adults in Oregon Coast watersheds, but that the freshwater harvest 
rates of naturally produced spring-run Chinook salmon stocks remains 
unknown for most populations. PFMC (2018) reports total estuary and 
freshwater harvest of OC spring-run Chinook salmon ranged from 9,400 to 
18,700 adults between 2010 and 2017, as compared to harvest of fall-run 
OC Chinook salmon which ranged from 44,100 to over 117,000 in the same 
timeframe. Population-specific harvest data are also available from 
ODFW for OC spring-run Chinook salmon in all of the major basins for 
which abundance and trends were discussed by the Petitioners (ODFW, 
2019), although standard abundance estimates needed to calculate 
proportion of run harvested for spring-run Chinook salmon are not 
readily available for many tributaries outside of the Umpqua Basin.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that there is 
inadequate information for a reasonable person to determine if 
overutilization poses a threat to the continued existence of OC spring-
run Chinook salmon.

Disease or Predation

    The Petitioners assert that the extent to which predation affects 
OC spring-run Chinook salmon is unknown, but predation by avian, marine 
mammal, and non-native fish have the potential to negatively impact 
abundance. The Petitioners note that introduced predators such as 
smallmouth bass are a threat to spring-run Chinook salmon, particularly 
in the South Umpqua River (ODFW, 2014). The Petitioners also assert 
that hatchery-reared fish and outplanted carcasses in Oregon Coast 
watersheds are likely a vector for spreading common diseases known to 
affect spring-run Chinook salmon on the Oregon Coast, including 
Furunculosis, Cold Water Diseases, Trichodinids, and bacterial kidney 
disease, because these diseases are known to be associated with 
artificially rearing fish in high densities.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that there is 
inadequate information for a reasonable person to determine if disease 
or predation pose a threat to the continued existence of OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Petitioners assert that existing federal and state regulatory 
mechanisms are not sufficient to protect and recover OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon and their habitat. Although the petitioners found 
harvest to be a concern above, the focus of their discussion in this 
section is on regulatory mechanisms for habitat protection.
    The Petitioners state that co-occurrence of OC spring-run Chinook 
salmon with other ESA-listed species does afford them some habitat 
benefits where their ranges overlap. The range of spring-run Chinook 
salmon overlaps substantially with listed OC coho salmon and therefore 
falls almost entirely within OC coho salmon designated critical 
habitat. However, the Petitioners assert that there is little evidence 
that improved habitat protections under the ESA since OC coho salmon 
were listed have resulted in actions sufficient to lead to recovery of 
either species.
    The Petitioners assert that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's 
resource management plans do not provide adequate protection for OC 
spring-run Chinook salmon. The Petitioners assert that allowable 
logging practices and aquatic conservation strategies under the 
resource management plans do not effectively protect OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon habitat. The Petitioners cite NMFS' comments in its 
review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the revision of 
the resource management plans (NMFS, 2015b) and later comments by 
conservation groups (NFS, 2015, American Rivers et al., 2016) to 
support their claim that the resource management plans are not 
sufficient to adequately maintain and restore riparian and aquatic 
habitat necessary for conservation of anadromous fish.
    The Petitioners also assert that the U.S. Forest Service's forest 
plans do not provide adequate protection for OC spring-run Chinook 
salmon. The Petitioners contend that the National Forest Management Act 
does not effectively limit long-term impacts to salmon habitat in 
Oregon Coast watersheds because it does not prohibit the U.S. Forest 
Service from carrying out management actions and projects that harm the 
species or habitat. Petitioners also contend that National Forest Plans 
have limited ability to protect OC Chinook salmon habitat because 
National Forest lands make up

[[Page 20481]]

a small portion of Oregon Coast watersheds relative to private lands.
    The Petitioners further assert that the licensing process for non-
federal hydropower projects does not necessarily provide adequate 
protections for OC spring-run Chinook salmon. The Federal Power Act 
mandates that when issuing licenses the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission include conditions to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and 
wildlife affected by hydropower projects. The petitioners assert that 
although the Commission must seek recommendations from the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and NMFS, the Commission can reject such measures 
if they determine there is not substantial evidence of need, and the 
timeline of most licenses (30-50 years) limits the opportunity for 
future improvements. Petitioners also assert that water quality 
protections under the Coastal Zone Management Act and Clean Water Act 
are not adequately protective of OC spring-run Chinook salmon habitat. 
The Petitioners cite to NOAA's and the Environmental Protection 
Agency's findings that Oregon's coastal nonpoint pollution control 
program is inadequate (NOAA and EPA, 2013), and NMFS' conclusion that 
Clean Water Act programs are not sufficient to protect Oregon Coast 
coho salmon habitat (NMFS, 2015).
    The Petitioners additionally assert that State forest management is 
also not adequately protective of salmon habitat. The Petitioners cite 
NMFS' comments, from the 2011 Final Rule listing OC coho salmon under 
the ESA (76 FR 35755), that the Oregon Forest Practices Act may not 
adequately protect OC coho salmon habitat in support of their assertion 
that it is therefore unlikely to protect OC spring-run Chinook salmon 
habitat. The Petitioners further point to an evaluation by Talberth and 
Fernandez (2015), which found the Oregon Forest Practices Act does not 
provide stream buffers in all areas adequate to protect water quality 
and habitat for fish and wildlife and allows clearcutting in areas 
prone to landslides and with cold-water fish habitat, in support of 
their conclusion that the Act does not adequately limit harmful 
clearcutting practices. The Petitioners also assert that the 2010 
Northwest Oregon Forest Management Plan and the Elliot Forest 
Management Plan do not contain sufficient measures to manage or protect 
OC spring-run Chinook salmon and, in support of this claim, reference 
NMFS' 2011 OC coho listing Final Rule which stated NMFS was unable to 
conclude these plans provide for OC coho salmon habitat capable of 
supporting viable populations during both good and poor marine 
conditions.
    The Petitioners point out that there have been various state 
watershed and salmon management plans with goals for protecting and 
recovering salmon, including the 1991 Coastal Chinook Salmon Plan, 1997 
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, Siletz and Alsea River 
Basin Fish Management Plans, 2006 Oregon Conservation Strategy, and 
2014 Coastal Multispecies Conservation and Management Plan. However, 
Petitioners assert that despite all of these plans, OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon populations have continued to decline or remain at 
depressed levels, and state land managers continue to allow logging and 
other activities and programs that may harm salmon and degrade their 
habitat, indicating these plans are inadequate to protect OC spring-run 
Chinook salmon.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms may pose a threat to the continued existence of OC spring-
run Chinook salmon.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Hatcheries
    The Petitioners assert that fish hatcheries have negative impacts 
on OC spring-run Chinook salmon by causing competition in the wild 
between hatchery and wild fish, supporting mixed-stock fisheries that 
have disproportionately harmed wild Chinook salmon, and promoting 
hybridization between spring and fall-run Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners assert that hatchery programs within the OC Chinook salmon 
ESU are intended for fisheries augmentation, and there are no 
conservation or reintroduction hatchery programs at this time.
    The Oregon CMP (ODFW, 2014) has recognized hatcheries as a primary 
limiting factor for OC Chinook salmon in the Elk River, a secondary 
risk factor for stocks in the Salmon River, and a potential limiting 
factor for other OC Chinook salmon populations in the ESU as well as OC 
spring-run Chinook salmon in the Umpqua Basin. The risk associated with 
hatcheries as a limiting factor for these populations is primarily due 
to the potential genetic impacts of hatchery fish interbreeding with 
natural-origin fish on spawning grounds, although not specifically 
interbreeding between fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. The 
potential for competition between naturally-produced and hatchery-
origin fish is also recognized. However, the specific effects of 
coastal hatchery programs have not been systematically assessed (ODFW 
2014).
Climate Change and Ocean Conditions
    The Petitioners also assert that ongoing threats of poor ocean 
conditions and climate change are likely to threaten the continued 
existence of OC spring-run Chinook salmon. As described in NMFS' status 
reviews (Stout et al., 2011; NMFS, 2016) and ESA listing of OC coho 
salmon (76 FR 35755), variability in ocean conditions in the Pacific 
Northwest is a concern for the persistence of Oregon Coast salmonids 
because it is uncertain how populations will fare in periods of poor 
ocean survival when freshwater and estuarine habitats are degraded. The 
Petitioners also cite these NMFS sources to support their assertions 
that predicted effects of climate change are expected to negatively 
affect Oregon Coast salmonids through many different pathways, and cite 
the Oregon CMP (ODFW, 2014) in support of their statement that regional 
changes in climate and weather patterns will negatively impact Oregon 
coastal aquatic ecosystems and salmonids.
    The Petitioners also assert that predicted climate change impacts 
on streamflows will be exacerbated by continued forest land use 
practices. The Petitioners cite studies demonstrating recent declines 
in Pacific Northwest streamflows and predicting increasing temperatures 
in downstream reaches (Luce and Holden, 2009; Isaak et al., 2018) in 
support of their assertion that decreases in streamflow caused by 
logging will exacerbate streamflow decreases and temperature increases 
likely to occur due to climate change.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person may conclude that hatcheries and climate change may pose threats 
to the continued existence of OC spring-run Chinook salmon.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well 
as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petition 
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the 
petitioned action to delineate an OC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU and 
list it as threatened or endangered under the ESA may be warranted. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a

[[Page 20482]]

status review to determine whether the spring-run populations of OC 
Chinook salmon constitute an ESU, and, if so, whether that OC spring-
run Chinook salmon ESU is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. After the conclusion of the status review, we will make a 
finding as to whether listing the OC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU as 
endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) 
of the ESA.

Information Solicited

    To ensure that our status review is informed by the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are opening a 60-day public comment 
period to solicit information on spring-run Chinook salmon in the OC 
Chinook salmon ESU. We request information from the public, concerned 
governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific 
community, agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, 
fishing groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning 
the current and/or historical status of spring-run Chinook salmon in 
the OC Chinook salmon ESU. Specifically, we request information 
regarding: (1) Species abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species 
distribution or population spatial structure; (4) patterns of 
phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5) habitat 
conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or 
planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; 
(7) information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
whether protections are being implemented, and whether they are proving 
effective in conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and 
trends of identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information on 
targeted harvest (commercial and recreational) and bycatch of the 
species; (10) other new information, data, or corrections including, 
but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes; and (11) 
information concerning the impacts of environmental variability and 
climate change on survival, recruitment, distribution, and/or 
extinction risk.
    We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting 
documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of 
pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any 
association, institution, or business that the person represents.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 8, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-07736 Filed 4-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P