{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025178504321683576, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008267568583239383, 'mean_word_length': 5.091533180778032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team Report

List of Figures Figure 1. Two generalized patterns of evolution of life-history traits. An asterisk denotes an evolutionary change (Waples et al. 10. Time series of Klamath River fall Chinook salmon spawner reduction rate. These rates represent fractions of potential spawners that have been reduced by harvest and harvest-related actions.. 3. Template for the risk matrix used in BRT deliberations. The matrix is divided into five sections that correspond to the four viable salmonid population parameters from McElhany et al. (2000) plus a recent events category (Good et al. Unit (ESU), and to designate critical habitat for any listed ESU. The Petitioners 1 requested that NMFS consider one of three alternatives for the listing of Chinook salmon in the UKTR: 1) list spring-run only as a separate ESU, 2) list spring-run as a distinct population segment within the UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU, or 3) list the entire UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU including both spring-run and fall-run populations. The NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) determined that the petition presented substantial new scientific information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. The SWR then requested that the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) convene a Biological Review Team (BRT) to: 1) evaluate the extent to which the new information supports the current UKTR Chinook Salmon ESU delineation, or the separation of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon into separate ESUs, and 2) assess the biological status of the supported ESU configuration using the viable salmonid population framework (McElhany et al. 2000) for the analysis. The SWFSC accepted this charge, and convened a BRT to evaluate the data and information they determined to be most relevant to the questions of ESU configuration and status, which included the information provided by the Petitioners and contained in their petition, other information deemed pertinent by the BRT, and the information provided to the SWR by other parties interested in this issue. The BRT's evaluation and conclusions on these two questions are presented in this paper. It begins with the question of ESU configuration, and following that evaluation continues with the question regarding ESU status. The Petitioners submit that new information demonstrates that spring-run Chinook salmon and fall-run Chinook salmon qualify as separate ESUs based on significant and persistent genetic and reproductive isolation (Petitioners 2011). Specifically, they contend that spring-run and fall-run populations in the UKTR ESU are separated by run