45970 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices 

selecting File No. 25850 from the list of 

available applications. These documents 

are also available upon written request 

via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@

noaa.gov. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include File No. 25850 in the subject 

line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@

noaa.gov. The request should set forth 

the specific reasons why a hearing on 

this application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D. or Jordan 

Rutland, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

The applicant proposes to import 

biological samples from Canada for 

stable isotope analysis to study trophic 

ecology and distribution. An unlimited 

number of samples from up to 40 killer 

whales may be imported annually. The 

requested duration of the permit is five 

years. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of the 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: August 12, 2021. 

Julia Marie Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17607 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 210806–0159] 

RTID 0648–XW032 and 0648–XW013 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife; 12-Month Findings on 

Petitions To List Spring-Run Oregon 

Coast Chinook Salmon and SpringRun Southern Oregon and Northern 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

findings. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce 12- 

month findings on 2 petitions to list 

populations of spring-run Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as 

threatened or endangered Evolutionarily 

Significant Units (ESUs) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with the listings. We have completed a 

comprehensive analysis of Oregon Coast 

(OC) and Southern Oregon and Northern 

California Coastal (SONCC) spring-run 

Chinook salmon populations in 

response to the petitions. Based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, including the ESU 

configuration report, we have 

determined that listing the OC and 

SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 

populations as threatened or 

endangered ESUs is not warranted. We 

determined that the OC and SONCC 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

do not meet the ESU Policy criteria to 

be considered ESUs separate from the 

OC and SONCC fall-run Chinook 

salmon populations and, therefore, do 

not meet the statutory definition of a 

species under the ESA. We also 

announce the availability of an ESU 

configuration report we prepared to 

inform our determination. 

DATES: These findings were made on 

August 17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The documents informing 

the 12-month findings, including the 

ESU configuration report (Ford et al. 

2021), are available by submitting a 

request to the Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, West Coast Regional Office, 

501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long 

Beach, CA 90802, Attention: OC and 

SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 12- 

month Findings. The documents are 

also available electronically at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresource-regulations?title=&field_

species_vocab_target_

id=Chinook+Salmon&sort_by=field_

relevant_date_value. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Rule, NMFS West Coast Region at 

gary.rule@noaa.gov, (503) 230–5424; or 

Heather Austin, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources at heather.austin@

noaa.gov, (301) 427–8422. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 24, 2019, the Secretary 

of Commerce received a petition from 

the Native Fish Society, Center for 

Biological Diversity, and Umpqua 

Watersheds (hereafter, the OC 

Petitioners) to list OC spring-run 

Chinook salmon as a threatened or 

endangered ESU under the ESA. 

Currently, OC spring-run Chinook 

salmon populations are part of the OC 

Chinook salmon ESU that combines 

populations of spring- and fall-run 

Chinook salmon and is not listed under 

the ESA. The OC Petitioners request that 

OC spring-run Chinook salmon be 

considered as a separate ESU and listed 

as threatened or endangered. The OC 

Petitioners also request the designation 

of critical habitat for OC spring-run 

Chinook salmon concurrent with ESA 

listing. On April 13, 2020, we published 

a positive 90-day finding (85 FR 20476) 

(RTID 0648–XW013) announcing that 

the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. In our 90-day 

finding, we also announced the 

initiation of a status review to determine 

whether the spring-run populations of 

OC Chinook salmon constitute an ESU, 

and, if so, whether that OC spring-run 

Chinook salmon ESU is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range; and we 

requested information to inform our 

status review. 

On May 4, 2020, the Secretary of 

Commerce received a petition from 

Richard K. Nawa (hereafter, the SONCC 

Petitioner, or Petitioners when referring 

collectively to the OC Petitioners and 

the SONCC Petitioner) to identify 

SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon as a 

separate ESU and list the ESU as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. Currently, SONCC spring-run 

Chinook salmon populations are part of 

the SONCC Chinook salmon ESU that 

combines populations of spring- and 

fall-run Chinook salmon and is not 

listed under the ESA. The SONCC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices 45971 

Petitioner requests that SONCC springrun Chinook salmon be considered as a 

separate ESU and listed as threatened or 

endangered. The SONCC Petitioner also 

requests the designation of critical 

habitat for SONCC spring-run Chinook 

salmon concurrent with ESA listing. On 

March 16, 2021, we published a positive 

90-day finding (86 FR 14407) (RTID 

0648–XW032) announcing that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. In our 90-day finding, we 

also announced the initiation of a status 

review to determine whether the springrun populations of SONCC Chinook 

salmon constitute an ESU, and, if so, 

whether that SONCC spring-run 

Chinook salmon ESU is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range; and we 

requested information to inform our 

status review. 

Listing Species Under the ESA 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species under our jurisdiction 

are threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make 

this determination, we first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532), and then, 

if so, consider whether the status of the 

species qualifies it for listing as either 

threatened or endangered. Section 3 of 

the ESA defines species to include any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment 

(DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature. 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 a Pacific salmon 

population unit 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 population units; and (2) it 

represents an important component in 

the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

The ESU Policy is used exclusively for 

delineating 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. 

Section 3 of the ESA further defines 

an endangered species as any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and a threatened species as one 

which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Thus, we 

interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be 

one that is presently in danger of 

extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on 

the other hand, is not presently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. In 

other words, the primary statutory 

difference between a threatened and 

endangered species is the timing of 

when a species may be in danger of 

extinction, either presently 

(endangered) or in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA also 

requires us to determine whether any 

species is endangered or threatened as 

a result of any of the following five 

factors: The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)–(E)). 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us 

to make listing determinations based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

efforts being made by any state or 

foreign nation or political subdivision 

thereof to protect the species. In 

evaluating the efficacy of formalized 

domestic conservation efforts that have 

yet to be implemented or demonstrate 

effectiveness, we rely on the Services’ 

joint Policy for Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions (PECE; 68 FR 15100; 

March 28, 2003). 

Status Review 

As part of our review of the 

Petitioners’ requests to delineate the OC 

and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 

ESUs and list them as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA, we formed 

an expert panel (Panel) consisting of 

scientists from NMFS Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center and Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center. We asked the 

Panel to provide: (1) An analysis and 

review of the Petitioners’ claims that OC 

and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 

populations should be considered ESUs; 

and, if any new ESUs were identified, 

(2) a description of the demographic 

risks (i.e., abundance, productivity, 

spatial distribution and diversity) of the 

new ESUs. The first task was for the 

Panel to compile the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

relevant to re-evaluating the ESU 

structure of the OC and SONCC Chinook 

salmon ESUs, including information 

provided by the Petitioners. 

Specifically, the NMFS West Coast 

Region (WCR) requested the Panel use 

the criteria in the ESU Policy (56 FR 

58612; November 20, 1991) to evaluate 

whether the OC and/or SONCC springrun Chinook salmon populations should 

be considered ESUs. If the Panel 

concluded that one or both of the 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

should be considered a separate ESU, 

and the WCR concurred, the Panel 

would complete the second task of 

describing the demographic risks, and 

submit their report on both tasks to the 

WCR. If the Panel concluded, and WCR 

concurred, that there should not be a 

change in the current ESU structure for 

either ESU (i.e., the spring-run Chinook 

salmon are part of the current ESU), the 

Panel would finalize their ESU structure 

findings and submit a report to the 

WCR. Under this second scenario, the 

Panel would not conduct a demographic 

risk analysis of the OC or SONCC 

spring-run Chinook salmon. 

In order to complete their ESU 

analysis, the Panel considered a variety 

of scientific information from the 

literature, unpublished documents, and 

direct communications with researchers 

working on the genetics of Chinook 

salmon, as well as information 

submitted to NMFS in response to the 

90-day findings on the petitions. 

Information that was not previously 

peer-reviewed was formally reviewed by 

the Panel. The Panel evaluated the 

information provided by the Petitioners 

and considered additional factors that 

may contribute to our understanding of 

the evolutionary significance of runtiming in Chinook salmon. 

The Panel’s draft report was subjected 

to independent peer review as required 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (M–05–03; 

December 16, 2004). The draft report 

was peer reviewed by three independent 

specialists selected from the academic 

and scientific community, with 

expertise in the genetic diversity and 

biology of salmonids. The peer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
45972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices 

reviewers were asked to evaluate the 

adequacy, appropriateness, and 

application of data used in the report. 

Of the three peer reviewers, two 

responded with written comments and 

the third responded informally that they 

had no comments. All peer reviewer 

comments were addressed prior to 

dissemination and finalization of the 

draft report and publication of these 12- 

month findings. 

We subsequently reviewed the report, 

its cited references, and peer review 

comments, and believe the report, 

which informs our 12-month findings, 

provides the best available scientific 

and commercial information on the OC 

and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs. 

Much of the information discussed 

below is attributable to the report. 

However, in making the 12-month 

findings determination, we have 

independently applied the statutory 

provisions of the ESA, our regulations 

regarding listing determinations (50 CFR 

part 424), and our ESU Policy. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 9, 1998, following 

completion of a comprehensive status 

review of Chinook salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) populations in 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

California, we published a proposed 

rule to list seven Chinook salmon ESUs 

as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (63 FR 11482). In this proposed 

rule, we identified the OC Chinook 

salmon ESU as comprised of coastal 

populations of spring- and fall-run 

Chinook salmon from the Elk River 

north to the mouth of the Columbia 

River (63 FR 11482, March 8, 1998). We 

did not propose to list the OC ESU of 

Chinook salmon under the ESA, 

concluding that the ESU was neither in 

danger of extinction nor likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. 

On September 16, 1999, following an 

updated status review for four Chinook 

salmon ESUs, we published a final rule 

to list two Chinook salmon ESUs as 

threatened under the ESA (64 FR 

50394). In this 1999 final rule, we 

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, September 16, 

1999). After assessing information 

concerning Chinook salmon abundance, 

distribution, population trends, and 

risks, and after considering efforts being 

made to protect Chinook salmon, we 

determined in this 1999 final rule that 

the SONCC ESU of Chinook salmon did 

not warrant listing under the ESA. 

Evolutionary Significant Unit Analysis 

The Petitioners requested we 

delineate and list the OC and SONCC 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

as ESUs. As described above, the ESU 

Policy requires the consideration of two 

elements when deciding whether a 

population unit is an ESU: (1) It is 

substantially reproductively isolated 

from other conspecific population units; 

and (2) it represents an important 

component in the evolutionary legacy of 

the species. The first criterion, 

reproductive isolation, refers to 

restricted interbreeding among 

populations. Such isolation does not 

have to be absolute, but it must be 

strong enough to permit evolutionarily 

important differences to accrue in 

different population units. Information 

that can be useful in determining the 

degree of reproductive isolation 

includes documentation of fish straying 

from one population to another, 

recolonization rates of other 

populations, the efficacy of natural 

barriers to migration, and measurements 

of genetic differences between 

populations. Each of these types of 

information has its limitations. 

Identification of physical barriers to 

genetic exchange can help define the 

geographic extent of distinct 

populations but reliance on physical 

features alone can be misleading in the 

absence of supporting biological 

information. Documentation of straying 

between populations can provide 

information about the movements of 

individual fish but not the genetic 

consequences of migration. 

Furthermore, measurements of current 

straying or recolonization rates provide 

no direct information about the 

magnitude or consistency of such rates 

in the past. In this respect, data from the 

analysis of genetic variation between 

individuals or groups of fish can be very 

useful because they reflect levels of gene 

flow that have occurred over 

evolutionary time scales. 

To be considered an ESU, the 

population must also represent an 

important component in the 

evolutionary legacy of the species. The 

evolutionary legacy of a species is the 

genetic variability that is a product of 

past evolutionary events and which 

represents the reservoir upon which 

future evolutionary potential depends. 

This second criterion would be met if 

the population contributed substantially 

to the ecological/genetic diversity of the 

species as a whole. In other words, if the 

population became extinct, would this 

event represent a significant loss to the 

ecological/genetic diversity of the entire 

species? In making this determination, 

the following questions are relevant: 

1. Is the population genetically 

distinct from other conspecific 

populations? 

2. Does the population occupy 

unusual or distinctive habitat? 

3. Does the population show evidence 

of unusual or distinctive adaptation to 

its environment? 

Several types of information are 

useful in addressing these questions. 

Again, the strengths and limitations of 

the information will be considered in 

making the determination. Phenotypic/ 

life-history traits, such as size, 

fecundity, and age and time of spawning 

may reflect local adaptations of 

evolutionary importance, but 

interpretation of these traits is 

complicated by their sensitivity to 

environmental conditions. Data from 

DNA analysis provides valuable insight 

into levels of overall genetic 

differentiation among populations but 

in many cases does not contain direct 

information regarding the extent of 

adaptive genetic differences. Habitat 

differences suggest the possibility for 

local adaptations but do not prove that 

such adaptations exist. 

Methods for Analyzing Genetic 

Variation 

Genetic variability within and 

between populations of Chinook salmon 

generally falls into two categories: 

Neutral and adaptive genetic variation. 

Most of the variation in a species’ 

genome (the sum total of an organism’s 

DNA) has no influence on survival or 

reproduction, and hence is considered 

to be selectively neutral. Examining 

patterns of selectively neutral variation 

among individuals in populations is 

very useful for understanding the 

relationships between those individuals 

and the histories of the populations. For 

example, neutral variation can be used 

to estimate the degree of gene flow or 

interbreeding among different 

populations, or the familial 

relationships among specific 

individuals. Adaptive genetic variation 

refers to genes or regulatory regions of 

the genome that have an effect on fitness 

(survival or reproduction). Adaptive 

genetic variation occurs when certain 

DNA sequence variants in a population 

help some members survive or 

reproduce better than others. 

Reproductive Isolation Criterion 

The 1998 and 1999 coastwide status 

reviews for Chinook salmon focused on 

patterns of neutral genetic variation and 

did not consider differences in run 

timing (adaptive genetic variation) alone 

to be indicative of substantial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices 45973 

reproductive isolation. This conclusion 

was due in part to the observed patterns 

of genetic variation, in which spring-run 

and fall-run fish spawning in the same 

or nearby rivers were genetically similar 

to each other and more similar to each 

other than to populations of either run 

type spawning in geographically distant 

rivers (Myers et al. 1998; Busby et al. 

1999). The Panel reviewed subsequent 

genetic studies and found that they 

clearly confirm the earlier findings that, 

as a group, coastal spring-run Chinook 

salmon are not a distinct evolutionary 

lineage within the species, but rather 

share their evolutionary history and 

most of their genetic variation with the 

fall-run Chinook salmon spawning in 

the same and nearby rivers. In other 

words, the patterns of genetic variation 

coastwide indicate that spring-run 

Chinook salmon spawning in different 

rivers are generally more differentiated 

from each other than they are to cooccurring fall-run Chinook salmon. 

Although this pattern is apparent 

when viewed on a coastwide scale, it is 

important to note that most of the 

coastwide Chinook salmon genetic 

studies conducted over the past two 

decades had few samples from the OC 

and SONCC areas. The Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

identified up to nine rivers in the 

currently defined OC Chinook salmon 

ESU as having either spring-run 

populations or a spring-run or summerrun component to a population, but no 

genetics study has included more than 

three spring-run or summer-run 

population samples, and spring-run or 

summer-run samples have only been 

analyzed for a total of four OC river 

systems: Nehalem, Trask, Siletz, and 

Umpqua rivers. Following a review of 

the available information, the Panel 

found that some of the samples from cooccurring spring-run and fall-run 

populations in the OC areas do not 

necessarily seem to be closely 

genetically related. In particular, 

Umpqua River spring-run (sampled 

from the Rock Creek hatchery) tend to 

cluster with SONCC samples of both run 

types in a number of studies rather than 

with Umpqua fall-run samples or other 

OC fall-run samples (Myers et al. 1998; 

Waples et al. 2004; Seeb et al. 2007; 

Narum et al. 2008; Clemento et al. 2014; 

Hecht et al. 2015; note that some studies 

used the same set of samples so these 

data are not all independent). This 

pattern could indicate that Umpqua 

River spring-run Chinook salmon are in 

fact historically more closely related to 

SONCC Chinook salmon, or could be a 

result of past broodstock transfers from 

the Rogue River (and elsewhere) into the 

Rock Creek Hatchery (as summarized by 

Myers et al. 1998, Appendix D). In 

addition, fall-run samples from the 

Trask River Hatchery were more closely 

related to other OC fall-run samples 

than to Trask River Hatchery spring-run 

samples (Beacham et al. 2006). A 

similar pattern was seen in wild fall-run 

and spring-run Chinook salmon from 

the Siletz River (Davis et al. 2017). 

Extensive out-of-basin spring-run (and 

fall-run) Chinook salmon hatchery 

releases in the Trask River may be an 

explanation for this pattern. Similarly, 

although relatively few spring-run 

Chinook salmon hatchery releases have 

occurred in the Siletz River, that basin 

did receive more than 2 million 

Columbia River hatchery Chinook 

salmon releases between 1934 and 1952 

(Myers et al. 1998, Appendix D). 

Additional sampling and genetic 

analysis of natural-origin fish across the 

range of return timing in multiple OC 

and SONCC rivers would help improve 

our understanding of the genetic 

relationships among OC and SONCC 

Chinook salmon populations. However, 

the available data does not indicate that 

spring-run Chinook salmon spawning in 

rivers on the Oregon Coast, as a group, 

form a distinct lineage separate from OC 

fall-run Chinook salmon. 

The SONCC area is more thoroughly 

sampled, particularly with respect to the 

Rogue River basin. Within the SONCC 

ESU, it is apparent that the close genetic 

relationship between geographically 

proximate spring-run and fall-run 

Chinook salmon continues to be true 

when viewed at the within-ESU scale. 

In particular, in several studies, springrun and fall-run samples from the Rogue 

River are more genetically related to 

each other than either are to samples 

from other rivers in the SONCC ESU. In 

other words, within the currently 

delineated SONCC Chinook salmon 

ESU, spring-run and fall-run fish 

spawning in the Rogue River appear to 

reproduce more with each other than 

with fall-run fish spawning in other 

rivers in the ESU. The Panel found that 

this pattern is similar to what has been 

reported in the Upper Klamath and 

Trinity Rivers (Anderson and Garza 

2018), and is also apparent in the Puget 

Sound and Lower Columbia Chinook 

ESUs. 

In addition to neutral genetic 

variation, adaptive genetic variation has 

been used to identify differences 

between individual fish or groups of 

fish. An example is the gene-region that 

has been associated with run-timing in 

Chinook salmon and steelhead, the 

GREB1L gene (otherwise referred to as 

the GREB1L region of the genome). Hess 

et al. (2016), Prince et al. (2017) and 

Thompson et al. (2019a) characterized 

the GREB1L region as two alleles 

(different forms) and three genotypes 

(different combinations of the two 

alleles): Individuals with two early runtiming 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). There are five recent 

studies that have examined run-timeassociated variants in the GREB1L 

region in OC and SONCC Chinook 

samples (Prince et al. 2017; Anderson & 

Garza 2018; Thompson et al. 2019a; 

O’Malley et al. 2020a; O’Malley et al. 

2020b). These studies have found that 

heterozygotes are common, indicating 

that interbreeding between fish 

homozygous for the spring-run and fallrun variants is commonly occurring. 

This pattern has been extensively 

studied in the Rogue River basin of the 

SONCC ESU (Thompson et al. 2019; 

O’Malley et al. 2020a; O’Malley et al. 

2020b), where researchers have obtained 

relatively large sample sizes of fish 

based on carcass surveys and surveys of 

captured live fish conducted throughout 

the run. For the OC, the only river that 

has been sampled using the GREB1L 

markers is the Siletz River (Anderson 

and Garza 2018; Thompson et al. 2020). 

That study also found substantial 

proportions of heterozygotes, 

particularly among fish that returned to 

the river early and were identified as 

spring-run (29 percent). A similarly high 

proportion of GREB1L region 

heterozygotes have been found in other 

coastal Chinook salmon ESUs (Upper 

Klamath River, Anderson and Garza 

2018; Rogue River, Thompson et al. 

2019a; Washington Coast, Thompson et 

al. 2019b). 

The GREB1L region has been 

demonstrated to be highly associated 

with run timing in multiple populations 

of coastal Chinook salmon (i.e., coastal 

spring-run Chinook salmon are 

homozygous for the early alleles, and 

fall-run Chinook are homozygous for the 

late alleles—Anderson and Garza 2018, 

Thompson et al. 2019a,b, O’Malley et al. 

2020, Thompson et al. 2020). The 

finding of substantial proportions of 

heterozygotes provides evidence of 

contemporary interbreeding between 

alternative homozygotes at the GREB1L 

region. This, in turn, implies that 

mating among spring-run and fall-run 

(and likely intermediate timed) fish is 

common in multiple watersheds 

(reviewed by Ford et al. 2020). Analysis 

of recombination events (Anderson and 

Garza 2018, Thompson et al. 2020) also 

indicates that at least in the Upper 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
45974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices 

Klamath River, such interbreeding must 

have also occurred historically at some 

level, although the rate of interbreeding 

was not determined and could be lower 

than is seen now. 

In both the OC and the SONCC ESUs, 

there is therefore strong evidence from 

GREB1L region markers that 

interbreeding between spring-run and 

fall-run Chinook salmon is common, at 

least for the two watersheds that have 

been studied to date (Rogue River, Siletz 

River). However, the data do not 

indicate whether the current levels of 

interbreeding occurred historically 

under more pristine conditions. Patterns 

of random genomic variation (indicative 

of population history) indicate that 

spring-run Chinook salmon in the OC 

and SONCC ESUs are, as a group, not 

substantially reproductively isolated 

from fall-run Chinook spawning in the 

OC and SONCC rivers. There is some 

indication that spring-run Chinook 

salmon in the Umpqua River may have 

somewhat reduced gene flow from other 

OC fall-run and spring-run Chinook 

salmon populations, but past hatchery 

practices may have also influenced this 

result. As a whole, however, the 

available data indicate that the springrun portions of the OC and SONCC 

ESUs are not substantially 

reproductively isolated from the fall-run 

populations in the ESUs. Additional 

genetic sampling of fish throughout the 

period of migration in multiple 

populations, especially in the OC ESU, 

would be very helpful for further 

evaluating this question. 

Evolutionary Legacy Criterion 

The early run-timing trait is an 

important component of diversity 

within the Chinook salmon species. In 

particular, the trait allows Chinook 

salmon to access upstream habitats that 

are inaccessible to later returning fish in 

some years. Run time diversity as a 

whole is also expected to increase 

viability by broadening the portfolio of 

traits within a species or an ESU, which 

leads to increased resilience to 

environmental variation (Quinn et al. 

2016). Recent reviews of ESU/DPS 

configurations of Chinook salmon 

(Anderson et al. 2018) and steelhead 

(Pearse et al. 2019) support this point, 

as does a recent expert workshop report 

(Ford et al. 2020) and the original 

coastwide status review of Chinook 

salmon (Myers et al. 1998). Recovery 

plans for Chinook salmon ESUs that 

contain populations with both springrun and fall-run fish also emphasize the 

importance of recovering populations 

with both life-history strategies (Shared 

Strategy Development Committee 2007; 

Dornbush 2013; Pearse et al. 2019). 

While recognizing the importance of 

run-timing variation to species and ESU 

viability, Myers et al. (1998) concluded 

that patterns of genetic variation and 

patterns of variation for other lifehistory traits indicated that coastal 

spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon 

shared the same recent evolutionary 

history. Coastal ESUs were identified 

based on concordant patterns of genetic, 

life-history, and geographic variation, 

with run-timing variation considered to 

be an important element of diversity 

within ESUs. Subsequent reports of 

Upper Klamath Trinity River Chinook 

salmon and Northern California 

steelhead have reached the same 

conclusion (Williams et al. 2013, 

Anderson et al. 2018, Pearse et al. 2019). 

Recent genetic studies have greatly 

increased our knowledge of the genetic 

basis of run-timing variation, but these 

studies do not change or invalidate the 

previous conclusion that spring-run and 

fall-run Chinook salmon in the currently 

delineated OC and SONCC Chinook 

salmon ESUs share a recent 

evolutionary legacy, and they are, on the 

whole, more genetically similar to each 

other than to populations in other ESUs. 

The two run types display similar 

characteristics in other life-history 

traits, and are genetically similar to each 

other due to a combination of recent 

common ancestry and ongoing 

interbreeding. Identifying a spring-runonly Chinook salmon ESU for either the 

OC or SONCC areas would therefore be 

inconsistent with our ESU policy, both 

because of high levels of interbreeding 

between spring-run and fall-run fish in 

these ESUs and because spring-run fish, 

as a group, in these ESUs do not form 

a distinct evolutionary lineage within 

the species. 

Conclusions on the Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit Analysis 

The Panel concluded, and the WCR 

concurred, that the best available 

information indicates that OC and 

SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 

populations do not meet the 

reproductive isolation and genetic 

legacy criteria of the ESU Policy. The 

spring-run phenotype and the springrun variant within the GREB1L 

chromosomal region are clearly an 

important part of the diversity within 

the Chinook salmon species, but the 

available data indicate that spring-run 

Chinook salmon in the OC and SONCC 

ESUs regularly interbreed with and 

share a recent evolutionary history 

throughout the vast majority of their 

genome with fall-run Chinook salmon in 

the same rivers. 

Final Determination 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that NMFS make listing determinations 

based solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account those 

efforts, if any, being made by any state 

or foreign nation, or political 

subdivisions thereof, to protect and 

conserve the species. We have 

independently reviewed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, including the information 

provided in the petitions and public 

comments submitted on the 90-day 

findings (85 FR 20476, April 13, 2020; 

86 FR 14407, March 16, 2021), the ESU 

configuration review report, and other 

published and unpublished 

information, and have consulted with 

species experts and individuals familiar 

with the OC and SONCC Chinook 

salmon ESUs. 

Our determination set forth here is 

based on a synthesis and integration of 

the foregoing information. Based on our 

consideration of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

as summarized here and in the ESU 

configuration report, we conclude that 

OC and SONCC spring-run Chinook 

salmon populations do not constitute 

ESUs. Accordingly, OC and SONCC 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

do not meet the statutory definition of 

a species, and thus, OC and SONCC 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

do not warrant listing under the ESA. 

This is a final action, and, therefore, 

we are not soliciting public comments. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: August 6, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17211 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES