Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19597 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 110328226–2189–02] 

RIN 0648–XA272 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Chinook Salmon in the 

Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers 

Basin as Threatened or Endangered 

Under the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Status review; notice of finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) in the Upper Klamath and 

Trinity Rivers Basin (UKTR) as 

threatened or endangered and designate 

critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We have reviewed 

the status of the UKTR Chinook salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) 

and considered the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and 

conclude that the petitioned action is 

not warranted. In reaching this 

conclusion, we conclude that spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR Basin constitute a single ESU. 

Based on a comprehensive review of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

currently available, and consistent with 

the 1998 status review and listing 

determination for the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU, the overall extinction risk 

of the ESU is considered to be low over 

the next 100 years. Based on these 

considerations and others described in 

this notice, we conclude this ESU is not 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range, nor is 

it likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

notice was made on April 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Information used to make 

this finding is available for public 

inspection by appointment during 

normal business hours at the office of 

NMFS Southwest Region, Protected 

Resources Division, 501 West Ocean 

Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 

90802. This file includes the status 

review report, information provided by 

the public, and scientific and 

commercial information gathered for the 

status review. The petition and the 

status review report can also be found 

at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rosalie del Rosario at (562) 980–4085 or 

Ann Garrett at (707) 825–5175, NMFS, 

Southwest Region Office; or Lisa 

Manning at (301) 713–1401, NMFS, 

Office of Protected Resources. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 28, 2011, the Secretary of 

Commerce received a petition from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon 

Wild, Environmental Protection 

Information Center, and The Larch 

Company (hereafter, the petitioners), to 

list Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) in the Upper Klamath 

Basin under the ESA. Because their 

request is generally made in reference to 

the UKTR ESU of Chinook salmon, we 

use the description of that ESU (Myers 

et al., 1998 and 63 FR 11482; March 9, 

1998) as the area in which they are 

requesting that we list Chinook salmon, 

and hereafter refer to that area as the 

Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers 

basin. The petitioners identified three 

alternatives for listing Chinook salmon 

in the UKTR ESU: (1) Listing spring-run 

Chinook salmon in the UKTR ESU as a 

separate ESU; (2) listing spring-run 

Chinook salmon in the UKTR ESU as a 

distinct population segment within the 

currently defined UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU; or (3) listing the currently 

defined UKTR Chinook salmon ESU, 

which includes both spring-run and fallrun populations. The petitioners also 

requested that we designate critical 

habitat for any Chinook salmon 

populations found to warrant listing. 

After reviewing the petition, the 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

literature and information available in 

our files, we found that the petition met 

the criteria in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) that 

are applicable to our 90-day review and 

determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

(76 FR 20302; April 12, 2011). In that 

90-day finding, we explained why we 

would not further consider Petitioners’ 

second alternative for listing Chinook 

salmon in the UKTR ESU. We described 

NMFS’ Policy on Applying the 

Definition of Species Under the 

Endangered Species Act to Pacific 

Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 68612; 

November 20, 1991), which explains 

that a Pacific salmon stock will be 

considered a distinct population 

segment, and hence a ‘‘species’’ under 

the ESA, if it represents an ESU of the 

biological species. We also explained 

the two criteria for delineating an ESU. 

Under its second alternative, Petitioners 

suggest that, even if we determine that 

spring-run Chinook salmon in the UKTR 

ESU do not meet the criteria to be 

delineated as a separate ESU under the 

ESU Policy, we should apply the two 

criteria under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and NMFS Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments under 

the Endangered Species Act (DPS 

Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) to 

determine that spring-run Chinook 

salmon in the UKTR ESU are a separate 

distinct population segment within the 

UKTR ESU. As we described in the 90- 

day finding, NMFS will continue to 

apply the criteria in the ESU Policy to 

Pacific salmon, which includes Chinook 

salmon, rather than the criteria in the 

DPS Policy. Because the ESU Policy 

explains under what criteria Pacific 

salmon populations will be considered 

a distinct population segment, and 

hence a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, if we 

evaluate spring-run Chinook salmon in 

the UKTR according to the criteria of the 

ESU Policy, we will be determining 

whether spring-run Chinook salmon are 

considered a distinct population 

segment. In the 90-day finding, we also 

solicited information pertaining to the 

species and the issues raised in the 

petition. Following publication of our 

90-day finding, we commenced a status 

review of Chinook salmon in the UKTR 

ESU. In response to the 90-day finding 

we received over 50 written comments 

from the public, which we considered 

in making this 12-month finding. 

In support of the status review, 

NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC) convened a Biological 

Review Team (BRT) charged with 

compiling and reviewing the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information on Chinook salmon 

necessary to: (1) Evaluate whether this 

information supports the current UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU configuration or 

the separation of spring-run and fall-run 

Chinook salmon into separate ESUs; and 

(2) assess the biological status of 

Chinook salmon populations 

comprising whichever ESU 

configuration was best supported by the 

available information using NMFS’ 

viable salmonid population (VSP) 

framework for the analysis. The BRT 

was composed of scientists from the 

SWFSC and Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center, USFWS, and U.S. Forest 

Service with expertise in the biology, 

genetics, and ecology of UKTR ESU 

Chinook salmon. The BRT compiled, 

reviewed, and evaluated the best 

available scientific and commercial 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

information concerning the ESU 

configuration and biological status of 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

populations in the UKTR basin, 

including information provided by the 

petitioners, peer-reviewed literature, 

information provided by other parties 

interested in this issue, and other 

information deemed pertinent by the 

BRT. Following its review, the BRT 

prepared a report summarizing the 

information they reviewed, their 

analysis, and conclusions regarding ESU 

configuration and biological status 

(Williams et al., 2011). This report was 

peer reviewed by two independent 

scientific experts who have expertise 

with salmon and steelhead issues in the 

Klamath Basin. One reviewer has 

specific expertise on UKTR Chinook 

salmon genetics, and the other reviewer 

has expertise in the ecology of UKTR 

Chinook salmon. The reviewers’ 

comments were incorporated into the 

final report. 

If a petition is found to present 

substantial scientific information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, ESA section 

4(b)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)) 

requires the Secretary of Commerce to 

make a finding within 12 months of 

receipt of the petition (commonly 

referred to as a 12-month finding) as to 

whether a petitioned action is 

warranted. The Secretary has delegated 

the authority to make this finding to the 

NOAA Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries. This Federal Register notice 

documents our 12-month finding on this 

petition. 

Species Background 

Information on the biology and life 

history of UKTR Chinook salmon is 

summarized in Myers et al. (1998) and 

a listing determination for west coast 

Chinook salmon (63 FR 11482; March 9, 

1998). In 1998, NMFS completed a 

status review of the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU and found that it is 

comprised of both spring-run and fallrun populations (Myers et al., 1998), as 

will be further described in the 

following section. Historically, springrun Chinook salmon were likely the 

predominant run type in the KlamathTrinity River Basin (Myers et al., 1998). 

Most spring-run spawning and rearing 

habitat was blocked by the construction 

of dams in the late 1800s and early 

1900s in the Klamath River and in the 

1960s in the Trinity River Basin (Myers 

et al., 1998). As a result of these and 

other factors, spring-run populations 

were considered to be at less than 10 

percent of their historical levels (Myers 

et al., 1998). Fall-run populations now 

comprise the majority of UKTR Chinook 

salmon. Most of the spring-run 

populations are currently distributed 

throughout the New, South Fork Trinity, 

Upper Trinity, and Salmon rivers. The 

more widely distributed fall-run 

Chinook salmon inhabit most accessible 

streams in the ESU, though their 

distribution generally does not extend 

as far into the tributary drainages as 

spring-run Chinook salmon. As with all 

Chinook salmon populations south of 

the Columbia River, the majority of 

Chinook salmon in the UKTR ESU 

exhibit an ‘‘ocean-type’’ life history with 

juveniles migrating to the ocean within 

one year of hatching (Myers et al., 1998). 

Anadromous salmonids in California, 

like UKTR Chinook salmon, exist at the 

southern edge of their range along the 

west coast of North America. 

Two hatcheries are operated in the 

UKTR basin, Iron Gate Hatchery on the 

Klamath River and Trinity River 

Hatchery on the Trinity River, that 

annually release large numbers of 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

fingerlings and yearlings into the basin. 

Marine recoveries of coded-wire tags 

indicate that hatchery-origin fall- and 

spring-run Chinook salmon from these 

hatcheries have a similar coastal 

distribution offshore of California and 

Oregon (Myers et al., 1998). 

Species Delineation 

ESA Section 3(16) (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)) defines a ‘‘species’’ to include 

any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 

plant, and any distinct population 

segment of any species of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature. In 1991, we published the ESU 

Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 

1991), which describes how we apply 

the definition of ‘‘species’’ in evaluating 

Pacific salmon populations for listing 

under the ESA. Under this policy, a 

group of Pacific salmon populations is 

considered an ESU if it is (1) 

reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and (2) 

represents an important component in 

the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Under this policy, an ESU is considered 

to be a ‘‘distinct population segment’’ 

and thus a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA. 

ESU Configuration 

Based on biological, genetic, and 

ecological information compiled and 

reviewed as part of a previous west 

coast status review for Chinook salmon 

(Myers et al., 1998), we included all 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

populations in the Klamath River Basin 

upstream from the confluence of the 

Klamath and Trinity rivers in the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU (Myers et al., 1998 

and 63 FR 11482, 11487; March 9, 

1998). The petitioners contend new 

information demonstrates that springrun and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU qualify as separate ESUs 

based on significant and persistent 

genetic and reproductive isolation 

resulting from their different run timing. 

They further argue that the genetic 

differences between spring-run and fallrun Chinook salmon in the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU are comparable to 

genetic differences between spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in 

California’s Central Valley, which are 

recognized as separate ESUs by NMFS 

(Myers et al., 1998 and 70 FR 37160; 

June 28, 2005). The BRT carefully 

reviewed the petition and all other 

available and relevant information 

regarding the ESU configuration of 

Chinook salmon populations in the 

UKTR basin and prepared a report 

detailing their review and conclusions 

(Williams et al., 2011). 

Under our ESU policy, Williams et al. 

(2011) indicate that for spring-run and 

fall-run Chinook salmon populations in 

the UKTR ESU to be considered 

separate ESUs, they would need to be 

substantially reproductively isolated 

from each other, and they each must 

represent an important component in 

the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Under the ESU Policy framework, they 

indicate that the concept of evolutionary 

legacy implies there would need to be 

a monophyletic pattern in the 

evolutionary history of each of the two 

run types within the UKTR basin, and 

that spring-run Chinook salmon 

individuals and populations would 

need to be more similar genetically to 

each other than to fall-run Chinook 

salmon individuals and populations. 

As discussed in Williams et al. (2011), 

NMFS has delineated populations of 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

in the same basin as separate ESUs in 

only two areas: California’s Central 

Valley and in the interior Columbia 

River Basin. Chinook salmon 

populations in the Central Valley are 

monophyletic in origin, meaning they 

descended from a common ancestor and 

are more closely related to each other 

than to Chinook salmon populations in 

any other basin on the west coast. 

However, there is significant genetic 

divergence between most naturally 

spawning populations of fall-run and 

spring-run Chinook salmon that occur 

in the same rivers in the Central Valley 

and both run types are monophyletic 

rather than polyphyletic. For these and 

other reasons, NMFS separated springrun and fall-run Chinook populations in 

the Central Valley into separate ESUs. In 

the interior Columbia Basin, spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon are not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19599 

closely related genetically and represent 

two very divergent evolutionary 

lineages (Myers et al., 1998; Waples et 

al., 2004), and therefore were placed 

into separate ESUs. 

In contrast, spring-run and fall-run 

Chinook salmon populations found in 

the coastal basins in California, Oregon, 

and Washington or the lower Columbia 

River basin have not been separated into 

separate ESUs despite differences in 

adult run-timing, life-history strategies, 

and other phenotypic characteristics 

that sometimes accompany genetic 

differences (Williams et al., 2011). The 

primary reason for not separating fallrun and spring-run Chinook salmon into 

separate ESUs in these coastal basins is 

that their genetic population structure 

strongly suggests a polyphyletic pattern 

of run timing evolution (Myers et al., 

1998; Waples et al., 2004), with spring 

and fall-run life histories having 

evolved on multiple occasions in 

different watersheds. Williams et al. 

(2011) indicate this polyphyletic pattern 

of run timing is observed in watersheds 

adjacent to the Klamath basin and 

across a range of watershed sizes in 

California (Mad River, Redwood Creek 

and Eel River) and Oregon (Rogue and 

Umpqua rivers). 

Williams et al. (2011) reviewed new 

genetic information for Chinook salmon 

populations in the UKTR ESU (Banks et 

al., 2000a; Kinziger et al., 2008a; 

Kinziger et al., 2008b; Kinziger et al., In 

Preparation,), as well as other studies 

(Lindley et al., 2004; Waples et al., 

2004; Garza et al., 2007), to assess 

patterns of genetic population structure 

and population differentiation within 

the UKTR ESU and to compare those 

patterns with what has been observed in 

other basins (e.g., Central Valley and 

other coastal watersheds). Kinziger et al. 

(2008a) found that there are four 

genetically differentiated and 

geographically separated groups of 

Chinook salmon populations in the 

UKTR basin and that spring-run and 

fall-run Chinook life histories have 

evolved independently and in parallel 

within both the Salmon and Trinity 

rivers. Kinziger et al. (In Preparation) 

documented the same geographic 

population structure reported by 

Kinziger et al. (2008a) and indicated the 

genetic difference between populations 

was related to geographic distance and 

was independent of run timing (i.e., 

spring-run versus fall-run). In addition, 

they found that spring-run and fall-run 

populations in the Salmon River were 

nearly indistinguishable genetically and 

that spring and fall-run populations in 

the South Fork Trinity were extremely 

similar to each other and to the Trinity 

River hatchery stocks. Banks et al. 

(2000a) reported they found greater 

genetic distances between some fall-run 

populations than among fall-run and 

spring-run populations in the Klamath 

Basin and concluded that populations 

diverged according to geographic 

location first and life history second. 

Banks et al. (2000a) emphasized that 

this pattern of geographic differentiation 

is in strong contrast to that found for 

Chinook salmon populations in the 

Central Valley. 

The petition contends that genetic 

differentiation of Chinook salmon 

populations in the UKTR ESU and the 

Central Valley is of a similar scale, and 

that our separation of spring and fallrun Chinook into separate ESUs in the 

Central Valley means that spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU should also be separated. 

The structure of Central Valley springrun and fall-run Chinook salmon 

populations was recently reviewed by 

Lindley et al. (2004), Good et al. (2005), 

and Garza et al. (2007), all of whom 

supported the general conclusions that: 

(1) Central Valley Chinook salmon of all 

run-types represent a separate lineage 

from Chinook salmon populations 

found in coastal watersheds; and (2) 

Central Valley spring-run populations 

are monophyletic, with spring-run 

Chinook salmon from different basins 

more closely related to each other than 

to fall-run Chinook salmon from the 

same basin. Lindley et al. (2004), Good 

et al. (2005), and Garza et al. (2007) also 

support the conclusion of Banks et al. 

(2000a, 2000b) that the genetic 

population structure and genetic 

variation observed in Chinook salmon 

populations in the Central Valley is 

organized by life history (run-type) 

rather than geographic location, unlike 

that which is observed with the UKTR 

Chinook salmon populations where 

Chinook salmon populations are 

organized by geographic location rather 

than life history type (see Banks et al., 

2000a). 

Based on a review and evaluation of 

this information, Williams et al. (2011) 

concluded that spring-run and fall-run 

Chinook salmon populations in the 

UKTR ESU constitute a single ESU as 

originally defined by Myers et al. 

(1998), and that the expression of the 

spring-run life-history variant is 

polyphyletic in origin in all of the 

populations in the ESU for which data 

are available. 

UKTR spring-run Chinook salmon do 

not warrant being separated into a 

separate ESU because they fail to meet 

the reproductive isolation and 

evolutionary legacy criteria in our ESU 

Policy for Pacific Salmon. The available 

genetic evidence considered by 

Williams et al. (2011) clearly 

demonstrates that spring-run and fallrun Chinook salmon populations in the 

UKTR basin are genetically very similar 

and are not substantially reproductively 

isolated from each other. The degree of 

genetic differentiation between spring 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR basin is comparable to that 

observed in other coastal basins that 

support the two run types (Waples et al., 

2004) and is much less than that which 

has been observed in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and the Central Valley 

where the two run types have been 

separated into different ESUs. The 

available evidence indicating that 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

in the UKTR basin are polyphyletic in 

origin and have evolved on multiple 

occasions, together with the ocean type 

life-history characteristics exhibited by 

both run types, suggests that spring-run 

Chinook salmon do not represent an 

important component in the 

evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Hatchery Stocks 

In 2005, NMFS published a policy on 

how it would consider hatchery-origin 

fish when making ESA listing 

determinations for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead (Hatchery Listing Policy; 70 

FR 37204; June 28, 2005). Under this 

policy, hatchery stocks are considered 

part of an ESU in making ESA listing 

determinations if their level of genetic 

divergence relative to local natural 

populations is no more than what 

occurs between natural populations in 

the ESU. NMFS used this policy and a 

previous assessment of all west coast 

hatchery programs (NMFS 2003) to 

determine which hatchery stocks would 

be considered part of west coast salmon 

and steelhead ESUs in a series of listing 

determinations published in 2005 and 

2006, respectively (70 FR 37160; June 

28, 2005 and 71 FR 834; January 5, 

2006). The assessment of hatchery 

stocks (NMFS 2003) used to support 

these listing determinations evaluated 

each hatchery stock associated with 

individual salmon and steelhead ESUs 

to determine its level of genetic 

divergence relative to natural 

populations. Based on this assessment 

and application of our Hatchery Listing 

Policy (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005), we 

determined that hatchery stocks that 

were no more than moderately divergent 

from natural populations would be 

considered part of an ESU in making 

listing determinations under the ESA. 

Iron Gate Hatchery (IGH) produces 

fall-run Chinook salmon and releases 

approximately 6 million fish (fingerlings 

and yearlings combined) annually in the 

upper Klamath River. Trinity River 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Hatchery (TRH) produces both fall-run 

and spring-run Chinook salmon and 

releases approximately 3 million fallrun fish (fingerlings and yearlings 

combined) and 1.3 million spring-run 

fish (fingerlings and yearlings 

combined), respectively, annually in the 

Trinity River. The SWFSC reviewed and 

evaluated the available information on 

broodstock origin, history, and genetics 

for these three Chinook salmon hatchery 

stocks and concluded that each stock 

was founded from a local, native 

population in the watershed where fish 

are released and that each stock is no 

more than moderately divergent from 

other local, natural populations. 

Moderate divergence in this case means 

that the hatchery stocks and local 

natural populations are no more 

genetically divergent than what is 

observed between closely related 

natural populations. Based on this 

assessment and the criteria in our 

Hatchery Listing Policy, we conclude 

that these three hatchery stocks are part 

of the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU. 

UKTR Chinook Salmon Biological 

Status 

Williams et al. (2011) assessed the 

biological status of the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU using methods similar to 

those described in Good et al. (2005). In 

conducting their review, Williams et al. 

(2011) considered the best available 

information on the species’ current 

distribution, historical abundance, 

recent abundance, trends in abundance, 

population growth rates, the 

distribution of hatchery-origin spawners 

in natural areas, and fishery exploitation 

rates. To the extent possible, Williams et 

al. (2011) evaluated the available data 

on the basis of putative population units 

that are currently recognized by 

management agencies in the Klamath 

Basin such as sub-basin units (e.g., Scott 

River) or specific geographic areas (e.g., 

upper Klamath River mainstem). 

Wherever possible, spring-run and fallrun Chinook salmon populations were 

assessed separately within specific 

population units. The following 

discussion summarizes the biological 

status assessment of UKTR Chinook 

salmon from Williams et al. (2011). 

Current Distribution and Historical 

Abundance 

Williams et al. (2011) concluded there 

have been no changes to the distribution 

of UKTR Chinook salmon since the 

review of Myers et al. (1998). Williams 

et al. (2011) summarized information 

from Myers et al. (1998) and the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG 1965) that indicates the 

historical abundance of Chinook salmon 

in the UKTR ESU was estimated to be 

approximately 130,000 adults in 1912 

(based on peak cannery pack of 18,000 

cases) and 168,000 adults in 1963, with 

the 1963 abundance estimate from 

CDFG split evenly between Klamath and 

Trinity rivers. 

Recent Abundance, Trends in 

Abundance, and Population Growth 

Rate 

As reported in Williams et al. (2011), 

the numbers of adults returning to 

spawning grounds (e.g., Upper Klamath, 

Trinity, Scott, Salmon, and Shasta rivers 

and smaller tributaries) and returns to 

Iron Gate and Trinity River hatcheries 

are monitored using a variety of 

methods by a combination of State, 

Federal, and Tribal agencies. Williams 

et al. (2011) characterized the recent 

spawner abundance in a manner that 

was consistent with the previous coastwide salmon and steelhead status 

reviews (Good et al., 2005). Based on 

this analysis, recent spawner abundance 

estimates of both fall-run and spring-run 

Chinook salmon returning to spawn in 

natural areas are generally low 

compared to historical estimates of 

abundance; however, the majority of 

populations have not declined in 

spawner abundance over the past 30 

years (i.e., from the late 1970s and early 

1980s to 2010) except for the Scott and 

Shasta rivers where there have been 

modest declines. While the BRT 

considered and presented both shortand long-term population growth rate, 

to be consistent with Good et al. (2005), 

the BRT stated that they viewed 

population growth rates based on just 13 

years of data with caution given the 

highly variable population dynamics 

typical of salmon populations and 

influences of shifting environmental 

conditions. Of most interest to the BRT 

were the long-term population growth 

rates of the populations individually 

and the ESU as a whole. 

Williams et al., (2011) reported that 

short-term trends in spawner abundance 

declined slightly for about half of the 

population components over the past 13 

years, and that fall-run Chinook salmon 

returns to Trinity River hatchery have 

been more variable than returns of fallrun Chinook salmon to Iron Gate 

hatchery. Williams et al. (2011) found 

that hatchery returns did not mirror (or 

did not track) escapement to natural 

spawning areas. Overall, Williams et al. 

(2011) concluded that there has been 

little change in the abundance levels, 

trends in abundance, or population 

growth rates since the review by Myers 

et al. (1998). They noted, however, as 

did Myers et al. (1998), that the recent 

abundance levels of some populations 

are low, especially in the context of 

historical abundance estimates. This 

was most evident with respect to two of 

the three spring-run population units 

that were evaluated (Salmon River and 

South Fork Trinity River). 

Hatchery-origin Spawners in Natural 

Areas 

Williams et al. (2011) evaluated the 

occurrence of hatchery-origin Chinook 

salmon spawners in several natural 

spawning areas (i.e., Bogus Creek and 

the Upper Klamath, Shasta, Scott, 

Salmon, Trinity, and South Fork Trinity 

rivers) over the past decade and 

concluded that the majority of hatcheryorigin Chinook salmon that stray to 

natural areas do so in areas adjacent to 

the hatcheries. This is not unexpected 

since both hatcheries release fingerlings 

and yearlings ‘‘on-site,’’ as opposed to 

other locations further downstream in 

the basin. This finding was supported 

by recent genetic analyses from Kinziger 

et al. (In Preparation) that found strong 

evidence for genetic isolation-bydistance that is inconsistent with 

hatchery-origin fish straying in large 

numbers throughout the basin. 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

Williams et al. (2011) used a risk 

matrix approach to assess the viable 

salmonid population (VSP) criteria (i.e., 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity) for the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU. This approach 

was used in the most recent west coast 

salmon and steelhead status reviews 

(Good et al., 2005) and the details of the 

methodology are described in both 

Williams et al. (2011) and Good et al. 

(2005). Based on this risk matrix 

approach, Williams et al. (2011) 

concluded that the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU was at a relatively low risk 

of extinction based on abundance, 

growth rate and productivity, and 

spatial structure and connectivity; and 

the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU was at 

a moderate risk of extinction based on 

diversity. The following sections briefly 

summarize the conclusions of Williams 

et al. (2011) regarding each of the four 

VSP criteria. 

Abundance 

Abundance of spawning populations 

in the ESU appear to have been fairly 

stable for the past 30 years and since the 

review by Myers et al. (1998). Although 

current levels of abundance are 

generally low compared with historical 

estimates of abundance, the current 

abundance levels do not constitute a 

major risk in terms of ESU extinction. 

Long-term population growth rates are 

positive for most population 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19601 

components that were analyzed, 

indicating they are not currently in 

decline and, in general, most 

populations are large enough to avoid 

genetic problems. 

Growth Rate and Productivity 

There is no indication that growth 

rates or productivity of populations 

have changed since the review of Myers 

et al. (1998); however, the impact of 

hatchery-origin fish in some locations 

and in some years is uncertain and is a 

concern. Based on the available 

information, hatchery influence 

appeared to be most concentrated in 

areas adjacent to the two hatcheries, and 

spawning survey information (i.e., 

estimates of adipose fin-clipped fish) 

and genetic analyses suggest there is a 

low hatchery fish influence elsewhere 

in the ESU. 

Spatial Structure and Connectivity 

There is a broad geographic 

distribution of fall-run Chinook salmon 

throughout the UKTR ESU, with genetic 

data (i.e., isolation-by-distance 

information) indicating that there is 

connectivity among populations. There 

are no cases where fall-run Chinook 

were found to be locally extirpated and 

the spatial distribution of fall-run 

Chinook salmon in the UKTR ESU 

indicates that it currently occupies all 

accessible available habitat. Conversely, 

spring-run Chinook population numbers 

are low, with few if any spring-run fish 

recently observed in the Scott and 

Shasta rivers. The geographic 

distribution of spring-run Chinook 

salmon is of some concern, with 

possible extirpations perhaps reflecting 

the effects of low water years and 

habitat accessibility. 

Diversity 

Although there are extant spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon 

populations in the basin, the low 

spawner abundance in spring-run 

populations continues to be a concern, 

as it was in the previous review (Myers 

et al., 1998). In addition to the 

continued presence of both the springrun and fall-run life-history types in the 

basin, the presence of large subyearlings in the Shasta River was 

considered evidence of continuing life 

history diversity in the ESU. Hatchery 

influence in natural spawning areas 

near the two hatcheries is a concern 

because of its possible impacts on the 

productivity and diversity of natural 

spawning Chinook salmon populations 

in those areas, but hatchery-origin fish 

appear to be most concentrated in 

relatively small areas located near the 

two hatcheries rather than elsewhere 

throughout the geographic area 

occupied by the ESU. 

To assess the overall extinction risk of 

the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU, 

Williams et al. (2011) employed a 

methodology (the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team, 

(FEMAT) approach) that has been used 

in previous west coast salmon status 

reviews (see Good et al., 2005). Under 

this approach, the members of the BRT 

made informed professional judgments 

about whether the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU was presently in one of 

three extinction risk categories: ‘‘high 

risk,’’ ‘‘moderate risk,’’ and ‘‘neither at 

high risk or moderate risk’’ (low risk) 

based on the results of the VSP criteria 

assessment and other relevant 

information on the status of the ESU as 

discussed previously. In its assessment, 

the BRT members interpreted the high 

risk category as ‘‘a greater than 5% risk 

of extinction within 100 years’’, and the 

moderate risk category as ‘‘more likely 

than not risk of moving into the high 

risk category within 30–80 years.’’ 

Beyond these time horizons, the BRT 

members concluded it was difficult with 

any degree of confidence to project ESU 

extinction risk. Based on this 

assessment process, Williams et al. 

(2011) concluded that the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU was at a low risk 

of extinction in the next 100 years, 

although the BRT did express some 

uncertainty as to whether the ESU was 

at low risk or moderate risk of 

extinction (Table 5, Williams et al., 

2011). 

Under NMFS’ Hatchery Listing 

Policy, any hatchery stocks that are part 

of an ESU must be considered in status 

assessments for the ESU if it is being 

considered for possible listing (70 FR 

37204; June 28, 2005). As discussed in 

the policy, any status assessment of an 

ESU which includes hatchery stocks 

should evaluate the manner in which 

the hatchery stocks contribute to 

conserving natural populations by 

considering their impact on the VSP 

criteria for natural populations 

comprising the ESU. As noted 

previously, the SWFSC determined that 

the fall-run Chinook salmon stock from 

IGH and the spring-run and fall-run 

Chinook salmon stocks from TRH are no 

more than moderately diverged from the 

local, natural populations, and as a 

result NMFS has concluded that these 

three hatchery stocks are part of the 

UKTR Chinook salmon ESU. Based on 

the hatchery operations and releases, as 

well as the assessment of hatcheryorigin fish spawning in natural areas 

presented by Williams et al. (2011), we 

conclude that these three hatchery 

stocks: (1) Slightly reduce ESU 

extinction risk by increasing abundance 

of Chinook salmon in the UKTR ESU; 

(2) have a neutral or uncertain effect on 

ESU extinction risk associated with 

productivity and spatial structure 

because hatchery origin fish spawn in 

natural areas primarily near the 

hatcheries and naturally produced 

Chinook salmon populations are widely 

distributed throughout the basin; and (3) 

have a slightly increased effect on ESU 

extinction risk associated with diversity 

because of the potential impacts of 

hatchery fish on naturally spawning 

populations near the hatcheries. 

Overall, we conclude that including 

these three hatchery stocks in the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU does not 

appreciably alter the Williams et al. 

(2011) assessment of the VSP status of 

the UKTR Chinook salmon ESU or its 

extinction risk. 

As part of their status review, 

Williams et al. (2011) assessed whether 

there are portions of the UKTR Chinook 

Salmon ESU that would constitute a 

significant portion of its range. In 

making this assessment they considered 

a portion of the range to be significant 

if its contribution to the overall viability 

of the ESU was so important that, 

without it, the ESU would be in danger 

of extinction. The geographical range of 

the ESU they considered in their 

assessment was the current geographical 

distribution of Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU, and thus they did not 

consider inaccessible portions of the 

historical range of Chinook salmon 

upstream of dams. These considerations 

are consistent with interpretations and 

principles in the NMFS and USFWS 

Draft Policy on Interpretation of the 

Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species,’’ which we 

consider as nonbinding guidance in 

making listing determinations until a 

final policy is published (76 FR 76987; 

December 9, 2011). Lastly, they assumed 

that a significant portion of the ESU’s 

range could be a geographic sub-unit of 

the current ESU (e.g., the Salmon River) 

or a life-history variant (spring-run or 

fall-run life-history type), but based on 

the petition, focused their assessment 

on whether the spring-run Chinook 

salmon component of the UKTR ESU 

constituted a significant portion of the 

ESU’s range. 

Williams et al. (2011) concluded that 

Chinook salmon are distributed broadly 

throughout the UKTR ESU and that 

there is connectivity among the 

component populations in the basin 

based on the available genetic 

information. Within the current 

geographic range of the ESU, they did 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

not find any situations where there was 

substantial unused habitat (i.e., 

extirpations) and concluded the spatial 

distribution of Chinook salmon in the 

ESU appeared to be appropriate given 

the current condition of the habitat. 

Williams et al. (2011) expressed concern 

about the overall status of spring-run 

Chinook salmon populations in the 

UKTR Chinook salmon ESU, but they 

did not conclude that these populations 

were at immediate risk of extinction 

(i.e., within the timeframe of 

generations as opposed to tens of 

generations) or that their demographic 

status posed an immediate risk of 

extinction to the ESU. The complete 

loss of spring-run Chinook salmon is 

unlikely in the foreseeable future, but if 

that occurred Williams et al. (2011) 

indicated it would reduce the viability 

of the ESU by reducing its overall 

diversity. Despite such a reduction in 

the viability of the ESU, the BRT 

concluded that the complete loss of 

spring-run would not result in an 

immediate risk of extinction to the 

UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU. Based on 

these considerations, we conclude that 

spring-run Chinook salmon do not 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(1)) and NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (50 CFR Part 424) set forth 

factors and procedures for listing 

species. NMFS must determine if a 

species is endangered or threatened 

based upon any one or a combination of 

the following factors: (1) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) its 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. NMFS has previously 

reviewed and evaluated these listing 

factors for west coast Chinook salmon, 

including those populations that 

comprise the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998; and 

NMFS 1998). These reviews have 

identified a wide range of factors that 

have adversely impacted Chinook 

salmon and their habitat on the west 

coast as well as in the UKTR ESU. The 

following discussion is based on those 

reviews and other more recent sources 

of information. 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

Previous reviews as cited above have 

identified a range of historical and 

ongoing land management activities and 

practices that adversely impact 

freshwater habitat used by Chinook 

salmon in the UKTR ESU, including 

construction of dams and other barriers 

that block access to historical habitat, 

water diversions, agriculture, timber 

harvest, road construction, grazing, and 

mining. The impacts associated with 

these activities have altered or in some 

cases eliminated habitat for Chinook 

salmon. A more detailed discussion of 

the impacts associated with these 

activities can be found in Nehlsen et al. 

(1991), Moyle (2002), and NRC (2004). 

Within the freshwater range of the 

UKTR ESU there are two important 

migration barriers that block access to 

historical spawning and rearing habitat: 

Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River 

(DOI and CDFG 2011) and Lewiston 

Dam on the Trinity River (DOI 2000). 

Many of the streams blocked by these 

dams were high quality snowmeltdriven tributaries or groundwater 

dominated streams that supported adult 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon 

(Moyle 2002). The presence of these 

dams has impacted the production of 

both spring-run and fall-run Chinook 

salmon in the UKTR ESU, but they have 

had a greater impact on the distribution 

and abundance of spring-run Chinook 

salmon (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998). 

Water diversion and agricultural 

activities in the Klamath River and 

Trinity River basins have altered the 

timing and volume of flows in streams, 

reduced habitat availability, reduced 

water quality, and contributed to the 

reduced productivity of natural-origin 

Chinook salmon (NMFS 2010; DOI 

2000). Stream water is diverted for 

consumptive use in the Upper Klamath 

Basin, in the Shasta and Scott River 

valleys, and from the Trinity River into 

other river basins (e.g., Rogue River, 

Sacramento River). Substantial water 

diversions, particularly during dry 

water years, can nearly dewater sections 

of rivers, creating barriers to Chinook 

salmon migration (e.g., Scott River), 

reducing the amount of available 

juvenile rearing habitat, and 

contributing to poor water quality. The 

Klamath River is impaired by a variety 

of water quality problems, including 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, 

nutrients, organic matter, and 

microcystin (NCRWQCB 2010), all of 

which can adversely impact Chinook 

salmon. 

Historical and ongoing timber harvest 

activities in the UKTR ESU have 

reduced habitat quality for Chinook 

salmon (Moyle 2002). Timber harvest 

can result in the loss of riparian 

vegetation, increased stream 

sedimentation, warmer water 

temperatures, reduced availability of 

large woody debris, increased peak 

runoff events, and simplified stream 

habitat, including filling of pools 

(Chamberlain et al., 1991). Road systems 

used to access timber areas cause high 

rates of erosion, landslides and in some 

cases block access to habitat when 

poorly designed culverts are used in 

road-stream crossings (Chamberlain et 

al., 1991). While mining in the UKTR 

ESU has been significantly curtailed in 

the past several decades, some lingering 

effects from tailings piles and other 

disturbances remain. Currently, there is 

a moratorium on suction dredge gold 

mining in California, which limits the 

impact of this activity on UKTR 

Chinook salmon habitat. The impacts to 

UKTR Chinook salmon from land 

management activities that were 

identified in Myers et al. (1998) and 

NMFS’ 1998 listing determination for 

this ESU (63 FR 11482; March 9, 1998) 

continue today, with a few exceptions 

as noted above. Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU have persisted for several 

decades at relatively stable levels of 

abundance, despite the existence of 

these threats to freshwater habitat, and, 

therefore, it is unlikely that destruction 

or modification of habitat or curtailment 

of the species’ range will threaten its 

continued existence now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

UKTR Chinook salmon are harvested 

in commercial and recreational fisheries 

in the ocean as well as Tribal and 

recreational fisheries in the Klamath 

Basin. Ocean harvest of Klamath Basin 

fall-run Chinook salmon is coordinated 

by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (PFMC), Tribal harvest is 

managed by the individual tribes in the 

Klamath Basin, and in-river recreational 

fisheries are managed by the California 

Fish and Game Commission. From the 

mid-1980s through 2011, the PFMC 

managed the Klamath Basin fall-run 

Chinook salmon fishery with twin 

conservation objectives aimed at not 

surpassing a maximum total 

exploitation rate of 67 percent of 

projected returning natural adult 

spawners and achieving a minimum of 

at least 35,000 natural area adult 

spawners, with occasional allowances 

for smaller harvests when projected 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19603 

returns were less than 35,000 adults 

(i.e., de minimis fisheries; PFMC 2011). 

The PFMC Salmon Fishery Management 

Plan was amended in 2011 and, 

beginning in 2012, the maximum 

allowable exploitation rate will be 68 

percent of projected natural area adult 

spawners, subject to a minimum 

escapement of 40,700 natural area adult 

spawners, with allowances for de 

minimis fisheries when the stock is at 

low abundance (PFMC and NMFS 

2011). The minimum natural area 

spawner escapement of 40,700 adults is 

the best estimate of an escapement level 

that will produce maximum sustainable 

yield (Salmon Technical Team 2005). 

Fisheries have very rarely resulted in 

exploitation rates meeting or exceeding 

the maximum allowable level of 67 

percent and the observed total 

exploitation rate on Klamath Basin fallrun Chinook salmon has varied between 

approximately 20 and 65 percent since 

the late 1990s (Williams et al., 2011). 

Ocean exploitation rates for Klamath 

Basin spring-run Chinook salmon are 

not available (Williams et al., 2011). 

However, restrictions on ocean fisheries 

that have been implemented as a result 

of the status of Klamath Basin fall-run 

Chinook salmon, Sacramento River fallrun Chinook salmon, and ESA listed 

salmon stocks also protect UKTR springrun Chinook salmon, given the general 

overlap in the ocean distribution of 

these other stocks and UKTR spring-run 

Chinook salmon (Williams et al., 2011). 

In their final year of life, fall-run 

Chinook salmon leave the ocean and 

return to the river for spawning later in 

the year than do spring-run Chinook 

salmon. As a consequence, fall-run fish 

are exposed to the summer ocean 

fishery in their final year of life, 

whereas spring-run are not. Thus, the 

ocean exploitation rate on Klamath 

Basin spring-run Chinook salmon is 

considered to be lower than on Klamath 

Basin fall-run Chinook salmon, because 

of their lack of exposure to the summer 

ocean fishery in their final year of life. 

In-river recreational fishery 

exploitation rates in the Klamath Basin 

for spring-run Chinook salmon are 

unknown. Williams et al. (2011) 

indicated that in-river Tribal 

exploitation rates in recent years have 

generally been comparable to or slightly 

greater than those reported by Myers et 

al. (1998), particularly for spring-run 

Chinook salmon. To reduce impacts on 

spring-run adult escapement, the Yurok 

Tribe has enacted voluntary 

conservation measures since the early 

1990s. The most recent example is the 

closure of the gillnet fishery three days 

per week and the prohibition of 

commercial fishing during the 2011 

spring-run Chinook salmon migration 

period. Overall, impacts from 

commercial, recreational, and Tribal 

harvest do not appear to have changed 

significantly since they were last 

reviewed in 1998 (Myers et al., 1998). 

Because of the relatively robust 

regulatory controls on the harvest and 

other uses of Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU and the reductions in overall 

harvest from historic levels, 

overutilization of Chinook salmon in 

this ESU for commercial, recreational or 

scientific purposes is unlikely to 

threaten the ESU’s continued existence 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Disease or Predation 

Diseases that cause mortality to UKTR 

Chinook salmon adults and juveniles 

are prevalent in the Klamath Basin, 

particularly in the mainstem Klamath 

River. In the fall of 2002, over 30,000 

fall-run Chinook salmon died in the 

Klamath River as a result of low water 

discharge, large run size, high water 

temperatures, and an epizootic outbreak 

of the bacterium Flavobacterium 

columnare (columnaris) and the parasite 

Ichthyopthirius multifilis (ich) (CDFG 

2004). Since that event, there have been 

substantial efforts to reduce the 

likelihood that such events will occur in 

the future or to minimize the impacts of 

any future event (CDFG 2011). An 

interagency task force has been 

organized to provide early warning and 

response to a potential fish kill that 

would entail requesting water releases 

from either Iron Gate or Lewiston dams 

if Klamath River flows fall below a 

specified minimum threshold during 

the adult fall-run Chinook salmon 

migration period. 

An area of high parasite infections 

exists in the upper Klamath River from 

its confluence with the Shasta River 

downstream to the Seiad Valley (Foote 

et al., 2011). Infection by Ceratomyxa 

shasta can be a significant mortality 

factor for juvenile Chinook salmon; the 

average infection rate for fish in the 

Klamath River upstream from its 

confluence with the Trinity River was 

30 percent from 2004–2008, and 54 

percent in 2009 (True et al., 2011). 

Because high water temperature is one 

of the primary drivers for disease 

infection rates (Foote et al., 2011), 

increased water temperatures associated 

with drought, climate change, and 

human activities (e.g., water diversions) 

are predicted to increase disease rates in 

the future (Woodson et al., 2011). 

Naturally-produced Chinook salmon 

fry are preyed upon by hatchery 

steelhead in the upper Trinity River 

(Naman and Sharpe 2011). There is 

limited information on pinniped 

predation of Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR ESU, but one study from the 

Klamath River estuary in 1997 estimated 

that over 8 percent of the fall-run 

Chinook salmon escapement was 

consumed by pinnipeds (Hillemeier 

1999). 

Diseases are unlikely to threaten the 

ESU’s continued existence now or in the 

foreseeable future, unless climate 

change in the basin causes a substantial 

increase in disease related mortality. 

However, the magnitude of any such 

effects is difficult to predict with any 

degree of certainty. Predation is unlikely 

to threaten the ESU’s continued 

existence now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Forest practices, managed by the State 

and the Federal Government, have 

generally improved since 1998, 

although some practices do not 

adequately protect Chinook salmon or 

other salmonids. About 68 percent of 

the land within the UKTR ESU is 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) under the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The 

NWFP and its associated Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy (ACS), which was 

designed to protect salmon and 

steelhead habitat by maintaining and 

restoring ecosystem health at watershed 

and landscape scales, has improved the 

landscape through changes in timber 

harvesting and road maintenance and 

construction. A recent report assessing 

the overall effectiveness of the NWFP 

indicates that there have been positive 

changes in watershed condition scores 

throughout the range of the NWFP, with 

trends indicating small increases in 

vegetation scores (Lanigan et al., 2011). 

While overall road density changed only 

slightly across the area of the NWFP, 

road densities remain high in some 

portions of the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU (e.g., South Fork Trinity River). 

Since 1998, NMFS has actively 

engaged with the State Board of Forestry 

to facilitate improvements in 

California’s state forest practice rules to 

improve aquatic habitat protection. The 

Board of Forestry has made some 

improvements to the rules. However, 

the current forest practice rules will 

continue to be considered inadequate 

for anadromous salmonids until the full 

suite of needed protections outlined by 

NMFS in public hearings and the 

Northern California steelhead listing (65 

FR 36074; June 7, 2000) are adopted. 

Enforcement of State fishery 

regulations and Tribal trust fishing 

rights is a challenge within the UKTR 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ESU. The Yurok Tribe and Hoopa Valley 

Tribe have Federally reserved fishing 

rights, but the Federally reserved 

salmon and steelhead fishing rights of 

other Tribes have not been established. 

Under their Federally reserved rights, 

the Yurok Tribe and Hoopa Valley Tribe 

are entitled to a moderate living 

standard or 50 percent of the harvest of 

Klamath-Trinity Basin salmon. 

However, members of the Karuk Tribe 

are authorized to fish with traditional 

hand-held dip nets at their indigenous 

fishing site at Ishi Pishi Falls under 

State fishing regulations. Thus, the 

management of in-river harvest of 

salmonids is shared between Federal, 

Tribal, and State agencies and depends 

upon whether the Tribe has a Federally 

reserved fishing right or is harvesting 

salmon under State fishing regulations. 

Monitoring and enforcement of in-river 

harvest is hampered by the complexity 

of the regulations governing the in-river 

fishery. Although the extent to which 

illegal harvest is a problem is unclear, 

illegal harvest of UKTR Chinook salmon 

has been documented. For example, 

State law enforcement officers have 

confiscated gill nets and fishing rods in 

the New River watershed, even during 

periods when the river is closed to 

fishing (Leach 2012). 

While some water diversions in the 

UKTR Chinook salmon ESU are well 

monitored, consumptive water use is 

often poorly or, in some cases, entirely 

undocumented. Groundwater 

withdrawals are not monitored or 

quantified and water master service is 

lacking in much of the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU. The effects of water 

utilization on UKTR Chinook salmon 

are not well understood, and few 

studies have been developed to quantify 

the effects. 

Current regulatory mechanisms are 

not quantifying or addressing 

consumptive water use, land clearing, 

chemical spills, and fertilizer and 

pesticide use associated with outdoor 

cannabis cultivation in the UKTR ESU. 

There is no comprehensive drought 

plan for the Klamath Basin (including 

the Trinity River) or coordinated 

strategy that directs actions of resource 

management agencies to reduce the 

effects of drought or climate change on 

Chinook salmon. However, parties to 

the Klamath Basin Restoration 

Agreement have drafted a Drought Plan 

which, if finalized and implemented, is 

expected to reduce the effects of drought 

on UKTR Chinook salmon in the 

mainstem Klamath River. Without 

appropriate mechanisms in place to 

reduce the effects of drought or climate 

change throughout the UKTR ESU, both 

remain threats to the ESU. 

Though there are examples of existing 

regulatory mechanisms not adequately 

protecting Chinook salmon in the UKTR 

ESU, Chinook salmon populations in 

the ESU have persisted at current levels 

for several decades despite these 

limitations. Overall, we conclude that it 

is unlikely that inadequacies in these 

regulatory mechanisms threaten the 

continued existence of the ESU. 

Other Natural or Man-made Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Natural events like prolonged drought 

or catastrophic flooding could pose 

significant threats to UKTR Chinook 

salmon. Prolonged drought (more than 

two years) would magnify already 

challenging water quality, disease, and 

freshwater habitat conditions for UKTR 

Chinook salmon. A decadal scale 

drought, such as the one that lasted 

from the late 1920s until the late 1930s 

(McCabe et al., 2004), would adversely 

affect several generations of Chinook 

salmon and increase the population’s 

extinction risk. Although many shorter 

term droughts (two to three years) have 

occurred in the recent past, a decadal 

scale drought has occurred once in 

approximately the past 100 years. 

Catastrophic flooding events like 

those in 1955, 1964 and 1997 in the 

Klamath Basin destroyed a large area of 

salmonid habitat, the effects of which 

are still presently evident (Cover et al., 

2010). In addition to adverse impacts to 

the spawning and rearing of Chinook 

salmon during flood events, such events 

also degrade habitat conditions by 

filling in holding pools, changing 

channel hydraulics, reducing the 

amount of large woody debris, and 

increasing summer stream temperatures 

through loss of riparian vegetation (Lisle 

1982). While improvements to 

watershed conditions have been made 

which could help reduce the intensity 

of debris flows and sedimentation, 

catastrophic flooding poses a risk to 

UKTR Chinook salmon, though the 

timing and frequency of such events are 

difficult to predict. 

Climate change projections for the 

Klamath Basin predict greater relative 

warming in the summer than in other 

seasons, drier summers, less snowpack, 

lower stream flow, and changes in 

predominant vegetation types such that 

wildfires are projected to increase in 

frequency and area (Woodson et al., 

2011). These predicted changes would 

impact UKTR Chinook salmon by 

altering fish migration and timing, 

decreasing the availability of side 

channel and floodplain habitats, the loss 

of cool-water refuge areas, higher rates 

of disease incidence, lower dissolved 

oxygen levels, and potentially earlier, 

longer, and more intense algae blooms 

(Woodson et al., 2011). Climate change 

will likely exacerbate existing stressors 

as well as create new stressors for 

salmonids in the Klamath River 

(Quin ̃ ones 2011). A transition to a 

warmer climate state and sea surface 

warming may be accompanied by 

reductions in ocean productivity, which 

affects Chinook salmon survival 

(Behrenfeld et al., 2006). 

Iron Gate Hatchery and Trinity River 

Hatchery release roughly 14.2 million 

hatchery salmonids into the UKTR basin 

annually, of which 10.3 million are 

Chinook salmon that we have 

determined are part of this ESU. 

Releases of hatchery fish can create a 

host of ecological (Kostow 2009) and 

genetic (Reisenbichler and Rubin, 1999; 

Araki et al., 2009) problems that can 

result in lower productivity of naturalorigin salmonids (Buhle et al., 2009; 

Chilcote et al., 2011). Genetic 

information and escapement estimates 

indicate straying of hatchery Chinook 

salmon adults into tributaries is more 

acute for those streams or areas located 

closest to the two hatcheries in the 

Klamath Basin (Williams et al., 2011). 

The extent to which hatchery-origin fish 

affect the productivity of UKTR Chinook 

salmon is unknown, but given research 

on the effect of hatchery fish on the 

productivity of natural-origin fish in 

other systems (Buhle et al., 2009; 

Chilcote et al., 2011), it is likely that 

productivity of UKTR Chinook salmon 

is impacted at least in those areas near 

hatcheries where hatchery-origin fish 

are most abundant. 

Floods and droughts are natural 

phenomena that have affected UKTR 

Chinook salmon for millennia. Although 

these natural phenomena temporarily 

reduce the ability of freshwater habitat 

to support UKTR Chinook salmon, they 

are unlikely to threaten the continued 

existence of the species. Climate change 

has the potential to threaten the ESU’s 

continued existence, particularly if 

precipitation and snowpack markedly 

decrease and temperatures substantially 

increase. However, the magnitude of 

climate driven changes in precipitation 

and snowpack in the foreseeable future 

and the response of Chinook salmon 

populations in the ESU to any such 

changes is unknown. Efforts to reform 

hatchery practices at Trinity River and 

Iron Gate hatcheries are increasing, in 

part driven by the recent scientific 

review of hatchery operations by the 

California Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group. If changes in hatchery operations 

resulting from this process are 

implemented in the future, they are 

expected to reduce the potential adverse 

effects of hatchery releases on the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19605 

productivity of naturally spawning 

Chinook salmon in this ESU. 

Conservation Efforts 

When considering the listing of a 

species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) requires 

consideration of efforts by any State, 

foreign nation, or political subdivision 

of a State or foreign nation to protect the 

species. On March 28, 2003, NMFS and 

the USFWS published the final Policy 

for Evaluating Conservation Efforts 

When Making Listing Decisions (68 FR 

15100), that provides guidance on 

evaluating current protective efforts 

identified in conservation agreements, 

conservation plans, management plans, 

or similar documents (developed by 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, Tribal governments, 

businesses, organizations, and 

individuals) that have not yet been 

implemented, or that have been 

implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. 

There is a wide range of conservation 

efforts focused on salmonids, including 

Chinook salmon, in the UKTR ESU. One 

important effort is the Trinity River 

Restoration Program. This ongoing 

program established restoration goals for 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, 

identified actions that must be taken to 

restore Trinity River Chinook salmon 

populations, established quantifiable 

performance measures, and 

incorporated the principles of adaptive 

management (TRRP 2012). Removing 

Iron Gate Dam and three other dams 

upstream of Iron Gate Dam on the 

Klamath River (if the Secretary of the 

Interior makes an affirmative 

determination under the Klamath 

Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) or 

adding fish passage facilities around 

these and other upper basin dams on the 

Klamath River (if the Secretary of the 

Interior does not make an affirmative 

determination under the Klamath 

Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) 

and associated restoration efforts will 

likely improve the viability of UKTR 

Chinook salmon (CDFG and DOI 2011), 

but there are uncertainties regarding 

which of these efforts will be 

implemented. Several other efforts are 

ongoing in the Klamath Basin; in 

particular, improved forest practices, 

land management, and purchase of 

private land for conservation. Ongoing 

research on diseases that afflict UKTR 

Chinook salmon is expected to provide 

greater understanding of the factors that 

contribute to disease infection and 

management efforts that can ameliorate 

disease impacts in the UKTR ESU. 

12-Month Finding 

We have reviewed the status of the 

UKTR Chinook salmon ESU and 

considered the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and we 

conclude that the petitioned action is 

not warranted. In reaching this 

conclusion, we conclude that spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR Basin constitute a single ESU. We 

have considered the conservation efforts 

for the ESU. In addition, we have 

considered the ESA section 4(a)(1) (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) factors in the context 

of the biological status of the species, 

the assessment of the risks posed by 

those threats, the possible cumulative 

impacts, and the associated 

uncertainties. Despite the issues 

discussed under those factors, 

consistent with the 1998 status review 

and listing determination for the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU, and based on a 

comprehensive review of the best 

scientific and commercial data currently 

available, NMFS concludes the overall 

extinction risk of the ESU is considered 

to be low over the next 100 years. 

Based on these considerations and 

others described in this notice, we 

conclude that the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, nor is it likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU does not meet the ESA definition 

of an endangered or threatened species, 

and listing the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU under the ESA is not warranted at 

this time. 

References 

A complete list of references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7879 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–BB77 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery 

management plan amendments; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

submitted Amendments 10, 11, and 12 

to the Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the 

Coast of Alaska (FMP) to NMFS for 

review. If approved, Amendment 10 

would provide authority for NMFS to 

recover the administrative costs of 

processing applications for any future 

permits that may be required under this 

FMP, except for exempted fishing 

permits and prohibited species donation 

permits. If approved, Amendment 11 

would revise the timeline associated 

with the Council’s process to identify 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern so 

that the process coincides with the 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year 

review, revise habitat research priority 

objectives, and update EFH 

conservation recommendations for, and 

the analysis of the impacts of, nonfishing activities. If approved, 

Amendment 12 would comprehensively 

revise and update the FMP to reflect the 

Council’s salmon management policy 

and Federal law. Amendments 10, 11, 

and 12 are intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

amendment must be received on or 

before 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on June 

1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by FDMS Docket Number 

NOAA–NMFS–2011–0295, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2011–0295 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS