Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal Spring-Run Chinook Salmon as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 14407-14414 [2021-05338]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14407-14414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 210308-0048; RTID 0648-XW032]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 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 
Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal (SONCC) spring-run 
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 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 and 
commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be 
warranted. We will conduct a status review of SONCC 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 May 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit data and information relevant to our review 
of the status of Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 
spring-run Chinook salmon, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0079, by either 
of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2020-0079 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' 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.

[[Page 14408]]

    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. NMFS 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 May 4, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from 
Richard K. Nawa (hereafter, the Petitioner) to identify SONCC 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 SONCC 
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 (64 FR 50394; September 16, 
1999). The Petitioner is requesting that SONCC spring-run Chinook 
salmon be considered as a separate ESU and listed as threatened or 
endangered. The Petitioner asserts 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 Petitioner 
also requests the designation of critical habitat for SONCC 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 SONCC 
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 
``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 SONCC Chinook salmon ESU in 1999 (64 FR 50394; 
September 16, 1999), 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 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; inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; or any 
other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    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 will 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 will depend 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

[[Page 14409]]

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 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 may 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, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 
424.14(c)(6).
    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 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 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.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by 
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may 
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. 
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a 
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications 
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria 
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not 
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, 
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is 
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or 
threats discussed above.

[[Page 14410]]

Previous Federal Actions

    On September 16, 1999, following completion of a status review of 
west coast Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) populations in Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California, and an updated status review for four 
Chinook salmon ESUs, NMFS published a final rule to list two Chinook 
salmon ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (64 FR 
50394). In that final rule, NMFS identified the SONCC Chinook salmon 
ESU as composed of coastal populations of spring- and fall-run Chinook 
salmon from Euchre Creek, Oregon, through the Lower Klamath River, 
California (inclusive) (64 FR 50394). 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 that final rule that the Southern Oregon and 
Northern California Coastal 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 SONCC 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 the previous status review of Chinook 
salmon (O. tshawytscha) populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California (Myers et al., 1998) and the status review update for 
deferred ESUs of West Coast Chinook Salmon (NMFS, 1999), we included 
all spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon populations from Euchre 
Creek, Oregon, through the Lower Klamath River, California, in the 
SONCC Chinook salmon ESU (64 FR 50394; September 16, 1999). 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 SONCC 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; NMFS, 1999).
    The Petitioner asserts that spring-run Chinook salmon in the SONCC 
Chinook salmon ESU have been sufficiently isolated from fall-run 
Chinook salmon for evolutionarily important differences to have arisen 
and been maintained. The Petitioner presents new genetic evidence to 
suggest the SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon populations may qualify as 
a separate ESU from the fall-run populations. The Petitioner asserts 
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 SONCC 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 Petitioner 
suggests 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 Petitioner also asserts 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 Petitioner describes 
specific ecological and evolutionary benefits of the life history 
variation provided by spring-run stocks within the SONCC Chinook salmon 
ESU. The Petitioner describes 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. The Petitioner notes that the 
presence of spring-run Chinook salmon in the headwaters could protect 
SONCC Chinook salmon from large mortality events due to disease 
outbreaks, interspecific competition for food and habitat, warm 
temperatures and low flow regimes due to climate change, and temporal 
unfavorable conditions in the marine environment. The Petitioner 
asserts that diversity in run timing contributes to the resiliency and 
stability of salmon populations.
    At the 90-day finding stage, we also consider information readily 
available in our files. We are currently processing another petition 
that cites the same scientific research in support of a request to 
identify and list a new coastal spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. On 
September 24, 2019, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from 
the Native Fish Society, Center for Biological Diversity, and Umpqua 
Watersheds to identify Oregon Coast spring-run Chinook salmon as a 
separate ESU and list the ESU as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA. In the Oregon Coast spring-run Chinook salmon petition, the 
petitioners similarly asserted 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 Oregon Coast ESU should be considered a separate ESU. On April 13, 
2020, we published notice of a positive 90-day finding on the petition 
to list Oregon Coast spring-run Chinook salmon (85 FR 20476) and 
announced our intent to conduct a status review.
    We have reviewed the new genetic information and the information 
presented by the Petitioner about the evolutionary legacy of spring-run 
Chinook salmon in the SONCC ESU. Based on information provided by the 
Petitioner, as well as information readily available in our files, we 
find that a reasonable person would conclude that SONCC spring-run 
Chinook salmon may qualify as an ESU pursuant to our ESU Policy.

SONCC Spring-Run Chinook Salmon Status and Trends

    The Petitioner asserts that spring-run Chinook salmon populations 
in the SONCC ESU have suffered significant declines in numbers from 
historical abundance. The Petitioner cited findings by Nicholas and 
Hankin (1989) that all spring-run Chinook salmon populations on the 
Oregon coast are smaller than fall-run populations and are depressed 
from historical population sizes. The Petitioner presents data from the 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) that indicate a 25-year 
decline in abundance of spring-run Chinook salmon on the Rogue River 
(1981-2006) (ODFW 2019). During a 10-year period (1970-1979) that spans 
the

[[Page 14411]]

construction of the William Jess Dam (1977) on the Rogue River, an 
average of 28,052 adult spring-run Chinook salmon were counted 
annually. ODFW (2019) estimated that there were 10,240 adult spring-run 
Chinook salmon in 2017 and that the annual average for the years 2008-
2017 was 9,663.
    The Petitioner notes that following ODFW's adoption of the Rogue 
Spring Chinook Conservation Plan in 2007, the average annual abundance 
of natural-origin adult spring-run Chinook salmon increased from 7,596 
to 9,663 in 2017. The Petitioner asserts that this increase of spring-
run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River was likely a result of the 
removal of the Gold Hill, Savage Rapids, and Gold Ray dams, which 
allowed heterozygous and homozygous fall-run Chinook salmon to ascend 
upriver rapidly and spawn with homozygous spring-run Chinook. In the 
Final Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Comprehensive 
Assessment and Update, ODFW found that while the status of spring-run 
Chinook salmon improved over the past decade the ten year average is 
below the desired threshold of 15,000 naturally produced adult spring-
run Chinook salmon returning to the Rogue River annually (ODFW, 2019). 
The Petitioner also calls attention to the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery and 
Genetic Management Plan that reports the smolt to adult return rate of 
Cole M. Rivers Hatchery spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River 
has been below 1 percent since 2002 (ODFW, 2016). The Petitioner 
asserts that the smolt to adult return rate for natural fish is also 
likely low.
    The Petitioner further asserts that the abundance of spring-run 
Chinook salmon in the Rogue River may actually be lower than reported. 
Hess et al. (2016), Prince et al. (2017) and Thompson et al. (2019) 
have studied the relationship between genetic material from a portion 
of the genome that includes the Greb1L gene (otherwise referred to as 
the Greb1L region of the genome) and run-timing in Chinook salmon and 
steelhead. The authors characterized the Greb1L region as two alleles 
(different forms) and three genotypes (different combinations of the 
alleles): Individuals with two early run-timing alleles (early-run 
homozygotes), individuals with two late run-timing alleles (late-run 
homozygotes), and individuals with one allele for the early and one for 
the late run-timing (heterozygotes). Thompson et al. (2019) asserted 
that there is a considerable amount of interbreeding between spring-run 
and fall-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River as a result of dam 
construction. Thompson et al. (2019) analyzed samples from 2004 and 
reported that many of the spring-run Chinook salmon counted at Gold Ray 
dam were in fact heterozygotes.
    The Petitioner also calls attention to a declining trend in 
abundance of adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the Smith River. The 
Petitioner cites data from snorkel surveys of spring-run Chinook salmon 
in the South Fork, Middle Fork, and North Fork of the Smith River from 
1982 to 2018 (Hanson, 2018). Hanson (2018) found that the number of 
adult spring-run Chinook salmon counted per mile (density) has been 
declining since survey counts peaked in 1996 at a density of 2.5 salmon 
per mile. Hanson (2018) reported that adult spring-run Chinook salmon 
densities have remained at less than 0.3 salmon per mile since 2007 
(Hanson, 2018). The Petitioner asserts that this decline in spring-run 
Chinook salmon indicates that the population within the Smith River is 
threatened with extinction.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude current demographic risks indicate that SONCC 
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 Petitioner asserts that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors 
contribute to the need to list the SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon as a 
threatened or endangered ESU. Each of these factors is discussed in 
further detail below.

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

    The Petitioner asserts that SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon face 
numerous threats to suitable habitat, including impacts from dams, 
logging practices, road building, and mining operations. The Army Corps 
of Engineers completed construction of William Jess Dam/Lost Creek 
Reservoir on the upper Rogue River in 1977. The Petitioner cites the 
Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Comprehensive Assessment 
and Update (ODFW, 2019) in support of their assertion that artificially 
enhanced summer stream flows from Lost Creek Reservoir are adversely 
affecting spring-run Chinook salmon. ODFW (2019) found that enhanced 
summer stream flows allow fall-run Chinook salmon to spawn upstream in 
habitat that historically was utilized primarily by spring-run Chinook 
salmon.
    The Petitioner asserts that artificially augmented high flows in 
August and September in the Rogue River may reduce egg to fry survival 
of spring-run Chinook salmon. If spring-run Chinook salmon spawn during 
high river flows in September, redds may be dewatered and embryos 
desiccated when releases from the Lost Creek Reservoir decrease during 
the reservoir fill season, which begins in January (ODFW, 2019). ODFW 
(2019) states that egg to fry survival has likely decreased as a result 
of redds being dewatered.
    The Petitioner also asserts that other anthropogenic disturbances 
have degraded spring-run Chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Rogue 
and Smith Rivers. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that increased 
fine sediments due to logging, road building, and mining have adversely 
affected spawning habitat which is supported by similar conclusions in 
NMFS' 1997 final rule listing the SONCC coho salmon ESU under the ESA 
(62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997), describing habitat that is co-extensive 
with the range of SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon.
    NMFS' most recent SONCC coho salmon status review (NMFS, 2016) 
evaluated the status of habitat threats over an area that includes the 
range of SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon and concluded that degraded 
habitat conditions in this area continue to be of concern, particularly 
with regard to insufficient instream flow, unsuitable water 
temperatures, and insufficient rearing habitat due to a lack of 
floodplain and channel structure. While restoration and regulatory 
actions have been made to improve freshwater and estuary habitat 
conditions in the SONCC coho salmon ESU, habitat concerns remain 
throughout the range of the ESU particularly in regards to water 
quality, water quantity, and rearing habitat.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude that habitat destruction and curtailment of their 
range may pose a threat to the continued existence of SONCC spring-run 
Chinook salmon.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The Petitioner asserts that harvest of SONCC spring-run Chinook 
salmon for commercial and recreational fisheries in the ocean and 
freshwater may be a threat. The Petitioner notes that the fisheries off 
the coast of Oregon and California are not managed to minimize impacts 
on SONCC spring-run Chinook. The Petitioner notes that the Rogue

[[Page 14412]]

Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan assumes the average harvest 
rate of naturally produced spring-run Chinook salmon is 15 percent 
(ODFW, 2007). The Petitioner does not specifically assert that the 
harvest rates of SONCC spring-run Chinook are too high.
    The Petitioner additionally summarizes the freshwater angling 
regulations put in place in 2008 to protect spring-run Chinook salmon 
from direct harvest in the Rogue River. The Petitioner does not provide 
an explanation for why freshwater angling regulations may be 
inadequate. ODFW (2019) states that from January through May, anglers 
may only keep adipose fin-clipped hatchery spring-run Chinook Salmon on 
the Rogue River. Wild harvest opens at various sections of the Rogue 
River after the early-run fish have passed. ODFW also states that the 
fishery does not open to wild harvest upstream of Dodge Bridge, where 
early-run fish occupy deep pools during the spring and summer. ODFW 
(2019) found that following implementation of the freshwater angling 
regulations, there were immediate reductions in freshwater harvest and 
increased spawner escapement (2008-2011). As a result, adult returns of 
naturally produced spring-run Chinook salmon began to improve in 2012. 
The Petitioner notes that while the estimated harvest rates of natural 
spring-run Chinook salmon are low, spring-run Chinook salmon are not 
meeting the escapement goal and homozygous spring-run Chinook salmon 
are likely declining.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, 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 SONCC 
spring-run Chinook salmon.

Disease or Predation

    The Petitioner asserts that disease poses a risk to naturally 
produced spring-run Chinook in the Rogue River. ODFW (2019) found that 
under certain conditions disease, primarily caused by the bacterium 
Flexibacter columnaris, can spread quickly in Rogue River Chinook 
salmon. Downstream of Gold Ray Dam, extensive mortalities of adults 
were documented in 1977, 1987, 1992, and 1994 due to disease (ODFW, 
2007). Estimates of mortality rates during those years ranged between 
28 percent and 70 percent of the spring-run Chinook salmon that entered 
the Rogue River (ODFW, 2007). The Petitioner cites the Rogue Spring 
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan that states that disease is known to 
be a primary factor that affects the abundance of spring-run Chinook 
salmon (ODFW, 2007). The Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 
also notes that spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River are 
exposed annually to high water temperatures that increase the mortality 
rates of infected juvenile Chinook salmon (ODFW, 2007). The Petitioner 
notes that ODFW, the Oregon Water Resources Department, and the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers now release water from the Lost Creek Reservoir 
to minimize pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon due to 
disease (ODFW, 2019). The Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan 
Comprehensive Assessment and Update (ODFW, 2019) states that during the 
2013-2015 drought, careful reservoir management resulted in no 
significant loss of fish due to disease on the Rogue.
    The Petitioner also asserts that hatchery produced coho salmon and 
steelhead prey upon natural origin spring-run Chinook salmon fry. 
Surveys conducted during 1979-81 indicated that both of these species 
prey upon the fry of spring-run Chinook salmon (ODFW, 2007). The 
Petitioner cites estimations made by Evenson et al. (1981) that 
hatchery origin steelhead consume between 134,000 to 218,000 spring-run 
Chinook salmon fry and that hatchery origin coho salmon are estimated 
to consume between 29,000 to 57,000 spring-run Chinook salmon fry. In 
the Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, ODFW reported that 
if these estimates are accurate, hatchery origin salmonids consume 3-7 
percent of the natural origin spring-run Chinook salmon fry produced 
annually in the Rogue River (ODFW, 2007). ODFW (2007) noted that the 
rate of predation by juvenile steelhead and coho salmon from Cole M. 
Rivers Hatchery is highly dependent on the duration of time that 
hatchery fish reside in the river, and on the proportion of the release 
groups that fail to migrate downstream. ODFW (2007) also found that 
predation is likely not a primary factor contributing to the decline of 
spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, 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 SONCC spring-
run Chinook salmon.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Petitioner asserts that existing federal and state regulatory 
mechanisms are not sufficient to protect and recover SONCC spring-run 
Chinook salmon and their habitat. The Petitioner states that the Oregon 
Native Fish Conservation Policy, The Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon 
Conservation Plan, and the Coles M. Rivers Hatchery and Genetic 
Management Plan do not provide safeguards to stabilize or reverse 
increases in Chinook salmon heterozygous for run timing. The Petitioner 
asserts that insufficient measures have been taken to prevent the 
interbreeding between naturally produced spring-run Chinook salmon and 
hatchery produced spring-run Chinook salmon from the Cole M. Rivers 
Hatchery. The Petitioner further asserts that the Rogue Fall Chinook 
Conservation Plan (ODFW, 2007) does not adequately address the risks of 
interbreeding with spring-run fish as a result of artificially 
augmented summer flows (ODFW, 2013).
    The Petitioner notes that spring-run Chinook salmon on the Rogue 
River are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Oregon state 
Endangered Species Act. The Petitioner asserts that while the Rogue 
Spring Chinook Species Management Unit/SONCC ESU is on the Oregon 
Sensitive Species List, the designation does not provide regulatory 
protection for SONCC Chinook salmon.
    Consistent with the petition received to list an ESU of Oregon 
Coast spring-run Chinook salmon under the ESA, the Petitioner here 
asserts that the Oregon Forest Practices Act and Forest Practice Rules 
do not provide adequate habitat protections for spring-run Chinook 
salmon. For reasons previously described in the 90-day finding for that 
petition (85 FR 20476; April 13, 2020) the petitioner asserts that it 
is unlikely that the Oregon Forest Practices Act adequately protects 
the habitat of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River.
    NMFS' most recent SONCC coho salmon status review (NMFS 2016) 
evaluated the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms over an area 
in large part co-extensive with the range of SONCC spring-run Chinook 
salmon and concluded that the Oregon Forest Practices Act does not 
provide adequate protection for SONCC coho salmon. NMFS (2016) noted 
that particular areas of concern include: (1) Whether the widths of 
riparian management areas (RMAs) are sufficient to fully protect 
riparian functions and stream habitats; (2) whether operations allowed 
within RMAs will degrade stream habitats; (3) operations on high-risk 
landslide sites; and (4) watershed-scale effects. NMFS (2016) similarly 
expressed concerns

[[Page 14413]]

with the adequacy of California's forest practice rules to provide 
protection for SONCC coho salmon. Specifically, NMFS recommended the 
addition of the following standards to California's forest practice 
rules: (1) Provide Class II-S (standard) streams with the same 
protections afforded Class II-L (large) streams, (2) include provisions 
to ensure hydrologic disconnection between logging roads and streams, 
and (3) include provisions to avoid hauling logs on hydrologically 
connected streams during winter periods. Furthermore, NMFS concluded 
that the effects of past and present timber harvest activities in 
California continue to be an ongoing threat to the SONCC coho salmon 
ESU.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, 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 SONCC 
spring-run Chinook salmon.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Hatcheries
    The Petitioner asserts that the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery threatens 
the future viability of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River. 
The Petitioner asserts that operation of the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery 
poses a risk to natural origin spring-run Chinook salmon due to 
multiple factors including competition, predation, disease, and 
interbreeding. The Petitioner asserts that the release of an average of 
1.6 million spring-run Chinook salmon annually from the Cole M. Rivers 
Hatchery results in increased competition between naturally produced 
spring-run Chinook salmon and the more abundant artificially produced 
salmonids. As previously mentioned the Petitioner asserts that hatchery 
produced coho salmon and steelhead prey upon natural origin spring-run 
Chinook salmon fry. The Petitioner further notes that the hatchery is a 
known source of disease in Chinook salmon. Amandi et al. (1982) found 
that spring-run Chinook salmon in the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery were 
found to be infected with F. columnaris and that pathogen 
concentrations in the outflow from the hatchery were greater than 
concentrations from the other water bodies sampled. ODFW (2019) 
reported that it is unknown if the infected salmon were infected with 
F. columnaris before entering the hatchery or if the salmon contracted 
F. columnaris after entering the hatchery.
Climate Change and Ocean Conditions
    The Petitioner also asserts that ongoing threats of poor ocean 
conditions and climate change are likely to threaten the continued 
existence of SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon. As described in NMFS' 
Oregon Coast Chinook salmon status reviews (NMFS, 2011; Stout et al., 
2012), variability in ocean conditions in the Pacific Northwest is a 
concern for the persistence of coastal Oregon Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioner also cites NMFS (2011) and Stout et al. (2012) in support of 
assertions that predicted effects of climate change are expected to 
negatively affect coastal Oregon salmonids through many different 
factors. The Petitioner cites the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (ODFW, 
2014) in support of his assertion that regional changes in climate and 
weather patterns will negatively impact SONCC coastal aquatic 
ecosystems and salmonids. The Petitioner cites Reiman and Isaaks (2010) 
to support his assertion that variable weather and warming events will 
become more frequent in the Pacific Northwest and continue to threaten 
SONCC Chinook salmon.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioner, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude that hatcheries and climate change may pose 
threats to the continued existence of SONCC 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 the SONCC 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 
status review to determine whether the spring-run populations of SONCC 
Chinook salmon constitute an ESU, and, if so, whether that SONCC 
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 SONCC 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 SONCC 
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 SONCC 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.).


[[Page 14414]]


    Dated: March 10, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05338 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P