Notice2026-03292
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Washington Coast Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 19, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of the Washington Coast (WC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) in response to a petition to list this species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, including the status review report, and after considering efforts being made to protect the species, NMFS has determined that the WC Chinook salmon ESU does not warrant listing.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7964-7977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03292]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 260217-0048]
RTID 0648-XR129
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month
Finding on a Petition To List the Washington Coast Chinook Salmon
Evolutionarily Significant Unit 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 finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of the
Washington Coast (WC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) in response to a petition to list
this species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the
listing. Based on the best scientific and commercial information
available, including the status review report, and after considering
efforts being made to protect the species, NMFS has determined that the
WC Chinook salmon ESU does not warrant listing.
DATES: This finding was made available on February 19, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The petition, status review report, Federal Register
notices, and the list of references can be accessed electronically
online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/petition-list-washington-coast-chinook-salmon-threatened-or-endangered-under-esa">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/petition-list-washington-coast-chinook-salmon-threatened-or-endangered-under-esa</a>. The
peer review report is available online at: <a href="https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/peer-review-plans">https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/peer-review-plans</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shivonne Nesbit, NMFS West Coast
Region, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bf8e3e2fde4e5e5eea5e5eef8e9e2ffcbe5e4eaeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88b90918e9796969dd6969d8b9a918cb896979999d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, (503) 231-6741; or Jennifer
Schultz, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78121d1616111e1d0a560b1b100d140c023816171919561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff959a919196999a8dd18c9c978a938b85bf91909e9ed1989089">[email protected]</span></a>, (301) 427-8443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 17, 2023, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition
from the Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers (hereafter,
the Petitioners) to list spring-run Chinook salmon on the WC as a
threatened or endangered ESU under the ESA or, alternatively, list WC
Chinook salmon (inclusive of all run types) as a threatened or
endangered ESU. The Petitioners also requested the designation of
critical habitat concurrent with ESA listing. On December 7, 2023, NMFS
published a positive 90-day finding (88 FR 85178) announcing that the
petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating the petitioned action to list the WC Chinook salmon ESU may
be warranted. NMFS also announced the initiation of a status review of
the species, as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and
requested information to inform the agency's decision on whether the
species warrants listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
NMFS received information from the public in response to the 90-day
finding and incorporated that information into both the status review
report and this 12-month finding. This information complemented NMFS's
thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data
for the species (see Status Review below).
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
NMFS is responsible for determining whether species under its
jurisdiction are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). To make a determination whether a species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA, NMFS first
considers whether the species constitutes a ``species'' as defined
under section 3 of the ESA, then 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 of any species
of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, NMFS 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). Under the ESU
Policy, a Pacific salmon population is a distinct population segment
(DPS), and hence a species under the ESA, if it represents an ESU of
the biological species. The ESU Policy identifies two criteria for
making ESU determinations: (1) the population must be substantially
reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units and (2)
it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of
the species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be
absolute, but must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important
differences to accrue in different population units. A population would
meet the second criterion if it contributes substantially to the
ecological and genetic diversity of the species as a whole.
NMFS uses the ESU Policy exclusively for delineating DPS 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 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)). Thus, NMFS interprets 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 determining whether a species qualifies as a threatened species,
the
[[Page 7965]]
Services must analyze whether the species is likely to become an
endangered species within the ``foreseeable future.'' As indicated in
50 CFR 424.11(d), the foreseeable future extends as far into the future
as the Services can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. The
Services describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using
the best available data and taking into account considerations such as
the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection
timeframes, and environmental variability. The Services need not
identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires NMFS to determine whether any
species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one or a
combination of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing determinations
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). In evaluating the efficacy of existing
domestic conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or
demonstrate effectiveness, NMFS relies on the Services' joint Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(``PECE''; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003).
Life History of Chinook Salmon
The largest of the Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) are in the Salmonidae subfamily, which consists of six
genera of trout and salmon (Nelson et al., 2016). Chinook salmon are
anadromous and semelparous (i.e., individuals die after spawning).
Their life history involves incubation, hatching, and emergence in
freshwater, migration to the ocean, and subsequent return to freshwater
for completion of maturation and spawning. Within this general life
history strategy, however, Chinook salmon display considerable
variation with respect to age at outmigration from freshwater, ocean
distribution and migratory patterns, length of residence in the ocean,
and time of year in which they return to freshwater and spawn.
WC Chinook salmon typically express an ocean-type life history
strategy. As defined by Healey (1983), this strategy is characterized
by a predominately subyearling juvenile emigration to salt water and a
coastal-oriented marine migration pattern. The northern portion of its
range (north of the Quinault River) contains rivers that drain to
productive, albeit small estuaries and coastal areas used as juvenile
rearing habitat. The limited basin size of many coastal watersheds
mandates the reliance on extended estuarine or coastal rearing by
juveniles. The southern rivers of the WC contain numerous large
estuarine areas, especially in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Ocean-type
Chinook salmon tend to have much larger eggs than stream-type
populations, which more commonly occur in inland areas (Nicholas and
Hankin 1989). Larger eggs result in larger juveniles and may enable an
earlier and more successful emigration to marine rearing habitat
(Kreeger 1995).
Duration of ocean residence and migration patterns are highly
variable for Chinook salmon. Some fish rear in the ocean for less than
one year, returning to freshwater as age-2 fish and are almost all
males (known as ``jacks''). Other fish may rear in the ocean from 2 to
6 years. WC Chinook salmon generally mature at 3, 4, and 5 years old
and migrate in a northerly direction to coastal waters off British
Columbia and Alaska (Myers et al., 1998).
Chinook salmon may return to their natal river during almost any
month of the year (Healey 1991). Temporal ``runs'' of Chinook salmon
are identified by the time of year in which adult salmon return to
freshwater to spawn. Although the timing of the run is the focus,
distinct runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of
river entry and actual time of spawning (Myers et al. 1998). For
example, spring-run Chinook salmon tend to enter freshwater as immature
or ``bright'' fish, migrate farther upriver, and finally spawn in the
late summer and early fall. In contrast, fall-run Chinook salmon
generally enter freshwater at a more advanced stage of maturity, move
rapidly to their spawning areas on the mainstem or lower tributaries of
the rivers, and spawn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry
(Myers et al. 1998). WC Chinook salmon includes spring-, summer- and
fall-run timings. Rivers in the WC tend to be shorter with low
gradients near the coast. These low gradient areas are preferred
spawning sites for fall-run Chinook salmon, and fall-run Chinook salmon
predominate in most WC river systems.
Previous ESA Status Reviews
In 1998, NMFS conducted a comprehensive status review of West Coast
Chinook salmon populations in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
(Myers et al., 1998). NMFS convened an expert panel of scientists from
NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS'
Northwest and Southwest Regional Offices, and a representative of the
National Biological Survey to (1) identify WC Chinook salmon ESUs and
(2) evaluate their risk of extinction. During the 1998 review, NMFS
determined that the WC Chinook salmon ESU is composed of coastal
populations of spring-, summer- and fall-run Chinook salmon spawning
north of the Columbia River and west of the Elwha River. Following the
identification of the WC Chinook salmon ESU, the 1998 status review
assessment concluded that most populations had a long-term upward
trend; however, several smaller populations were experiencing sharply
downward trends (Myers et al., 1998). Fall-run populations were
predominant and tended to be at a lower risk than spring- or summer-run
populations. Hatchery production was described as significant in the
southern portion of this ESU, whereas the majority of the populations
in the northern portion had minimal hatchery influence. The 1998 status
review team unanimously concluded that Chinook salmon in the WC ESU
were not in danger of extinction nor were they likely to become so in
the foreseeable future (Myers et al., 1998). NMFS did not propose to
list the WC ESU, concluding that the ESU is distributed among a
relatively large number of populations, most of which are large enough
to avoid serious genetic and demographic risks associated with small
populations. Thus, NMFS made the determination at that time that the
ESU was neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future (63 FR 11482, 11494, March 9, 1998; 63 FR
14308, March 24, 1999).
Updated Status Review of WC Chinook Salmon ESU
To help ensure that the updated status review was based on the best
available and most recent scientific information, NMFS solicited
information during a 60-day public comment period regarding the WC ESU
structure and extinction risk of the species, along with any relevant
protective efforts (88 FR 85178, December 7, 2023). NMFS also
[[Page 7966]]
convened a Status Review Team (SRT) to review the best available
scientific and commercial data regarding the ESU structure and
extinction risk of WC Chinook salmon, consistent with the scope of the
listing petition. Specifically, the SRT addressed (1) whether the
geographic extent of the previously identified ESU warranted
redelineation or refinement, (2) the relationship to the defined ESU of
hatchery programs propagating Chinook salmon, (3) current threats faced
by the ESU, and (4) the level of extinction risk of the ESU throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The 2025 status review
report (SRT 2025) summarizes the best available data regarding the
status of WC Chinook salmon and presents the SRT's professional
judgement of the extinction risk facing the WC Chinook salmon ESU but
makes no recommendation as to the listing status of the species. The
status review report (SRT 2025) is available electronically (see
ADDRESSES).
The status review report was subject to independent peer review
pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The
status review was peer reviewed by three independent scientists
selected by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) with expertise in
salmonid biology, conservation, and management and specific knowledge
of Chinook salmon. The SRT asked peer reviewers to evaluate the
adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status
review report, as well as the findings made in the ``Risk Assessment''
section of the report. The SRT addressed all peer reviewer comments
prior to finalizing the status review report. The peer review report is
available electronically (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS subsequently reviewed the status review report, its cited
references, and peer review comments and concluded that the status
review report, upon which this 12-month finding is based, provides the
best available scientific and commercial information on the WC Chinook
salmon ESU. Much of the information discussed below on the ESU
configuration, demographics, threats, and extinction risk is
attributable to the status review report. NMFS has applied the
statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors
set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), NMFS's regulations regarding
listing determinations, and relevant policies identified herein in
publishing this 12-month finding. In the sections below, NMFS provides
information from the status review report regarding threats to and the
status of the WC Chinook salmon ESU.
Review of ESU Delineations
As discussed above, NMFS initially identified the WC Chinook salmon
ESU in the late 1990s as part of the coastwide status review process
undertaken by the agency. Factors considered included patterns of
juvenile and adult life-history variation, freshwater ecological
features, patterns in ocean distribution, and patterns of genetic
variation. Myers et al. (1998) identified the populations with shared
genetic, life history, and ecological habitat characteristics that
would constitute the WC ESU. Coastal populations spawning north of the
Columbia River and west of the Elwha River were included in this ESU.
These populations were distinguished from those in Puget Sound by their
older age at maturity and more northerly ocean distribution. Allozyme
data also indicated geographical differences between populations from
this area and those in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and the Oregon
coast ESUs. Populations within this ESU were ocean-type Chinook salmon
and generally matured at ages 3, 4, and 5. Ocean distribution for these
fish were more northerly than that for the Puget Sound and Lower
Columbia River ESUs. The ESU lies within the Coastal Ecoregion, which
is strongly influenced by the marine environment: high precipitation,
moderate temperatures, and easy migration access (Myers et al., 1998).
The SRT reviewed the analysis that identified the WC Chinook salmon
ESU configuration (Myers et al., 1998) and concurred with the
conclusion. In particular, patterns of genetic variation indicate that
the WC Chinook salmon ESU is substantially reproductively isolated from
other Chinook salmon ESUs, and patterns of life-history, genetic, and
ecological variation indicate that the WC Chinook salmon ESU forms an
important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species.
Most of the new information related to ESU configuration consists
of genetic studies published since 1998. The SRT reviewed all the
available information and concluded that the WC ESU configuration was
unchanged from that identified by Myers et al. (1998).
The SRT also considered the Petitioners' request to consider
partitioning WC Chinook salmon ESU based on run-timing and the
underlying genetic polymorphism (Prince et al., 2017; Thompson et al.,
2020; Thompson 2019; Waples et al., 2022). In general, populations with
different run times in the same basin are more genetically similar than
similar run times in different basins (Moran et al., 2013; Waples et
al., 2004). The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that spring-run Chinook
salmon in the WC ESU do not meet either prong of the NMFS ESU Policy
(Waples 1991): spring-run populations are not substantially
reproductively isolated from the other portions of WC Chinook including
WC fall-run populations, and WC spring-run populations are not a
significant component of the evolutionary legacy of the species as a
whole (SRT 2025). Therefore, NMFS determined the WC Chinook salmon ESU
should not be partitioned based on run timing.
ESU Membership of Hatchery-Origin Chinook Salmon
In 2005, NMFS issued a policy for considering hatchery-origin fish
in ESA-listing determinations (``Hatchery Listing Policy''; 70 FR
37204, June 28, 2005). This policy states that ``In delineating an ESU
to be considered for listing, NMFS will identify all components of the
ESU, including populations of natural fish (natural populations) and
hatchery stocks that are part of the ESU. Hatchery stocks with a level
of genetic divergence relative to the local natural population(s) that
is no more than what occurs within the ESU: (a) are considered part of
the ESU; (b) will be considered in determining whether an ESU should be
listed under the ESA; and (c) will be included in any listing of the
ESU'' (70 FR 37215, June 28, 2005). NMFS recognizes that there are a
number of ways to compute and compare genetic divergence and that it is
not possible to sample all fish within the ESU to precisely determine
the range of genetic diversity within an ESU. In factoring artificial
propagation into the extinction risk assessment for an ESU, NMFS
evaluates potential risks to the naturally-spawned components of the
ESU posed by hatchery programs determined not to be part of the ESU and
look at the potential benefits and risks to the naturally-spawned
components of the ESU posed by hatchery programs determined to be part
of the ESU.
Below, NMFS summarizes information on the current hatchery
practices and the source broodstock for the hatcheries. NMFS consider
hatchery programs for Pacific salmon and steelhead to be either
``integrated'' or ``segregated'' based on the genetic management goals
and protocols for propagating a hatchery broodstock. NMFS would
consider a hatchery
[[Page 7967]]
program to be genetically integrated if a principal goal is to minimize
potential genetic divergence between the hatchery broodstock and a
naturally-spawning population. Genetically integrated programs
systematically include natural-origin fish in the broodstock each year
or generation. NMFS would consider hatchery programs to be genetically
segregated if the principal goal is to produce a reproductively
distinct population primarily, if not exclusively, from adult returns
back to the hatchery. In segregated programs, little or no gene flow
occurs from a naturally spawning population to the hatchery broodstock.
The use of hatcheries to supplement Chinook salmon natural
production began in WC rivers at the turn of the previous century.
Initial hatchery production in the WC was predominantly in the Grays
Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Quinault River basins (Cobb 1930). Much of the
early salmon hatchery production focused on the release of unfed or fed
fry and the success of these releases, although numerically large, was
likely negligible (Myers et al., 1998). Fry releases from WC hatcheries
continued until 1940, when extended hatchery rearing and better
hatchery feeds became available (Wendler and Deschamps 1955). To some
extent, early (pre-1940) programs likely reduced natural Chinook salmon
production and depressed natural run sizes by removing returning
natural-origin adults for use as broodstock and outplanting fry that
had a low fry to adult survival rate. An additional consequence of
these early hatchery programs was the importation of Chinook salmon
from distant areas, predominantly from hatcheries on the Lower Columbia
River, to supplement coastal hatchery egg collection shortfalls. The
importation of out-of-ESU hatchery stocks continued into the late 20th
Century, most notably the establishment of a Cowlitz (Lower Columbia
River ESU) x Umpqua (Oregon Coast ESU) hybrid spring-run at the Sol Duc
Hatchery, and the importation of Lower Columbia River ESU and Puget
Sound ESU fall-run hatchery stocks into Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
(Myers et al. 1998). The majority of the out-of-ESU introductions were
terminated in the 1980s, but the Sol Duc Hatchery spring-run Chinook
salmon program was not discontinued until 2006.
Presently, hatcheries in the WC Chinook salmon ESU are operated by
a variety of entities: the USFWS, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), Tribes, and non-profits. Hatchery production trends
over the last 15 years have focused on larger fall-run programs that
are able to collect sufficient numbers of returning adults to meet
production goals. Out-of-ESU introductions have been eliminated, and
exchanges among hatcheries are limited to within basin or within Water
Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA). WRIA is a designation established by
the Washington Department of Ecology to delineate major watersheds
within the state. A WRIA is typically the size of a major watershed and
larger than the subbasins it contains, but it can be smaller than a
state's largest river systems such as the Chehalis, which is split into
multiple WRIAs. All the hatcheries are operated for harvest goals,
except the Bingham Creek Hatchery which is a conservation hatchery
(Anderson et al., 2020). Hatchery production across the ESU is focused
on the release of subyearling fall-run Chinook salmon, with projected
annual releases of 14.2 million juveniles. The release target for
summer-run Chinook salmon from the Sol Duc Hatchery (fish are also
reared at Lonesome Creek Hatchery and Bear Springs Hatchery prior to
release at Sol Duc Hatchery) is 1.5 million juveniles, though recent
releases have totaled 1.14 million juveniles. The majority of these
releases are marked with a clipped adipose fin, and in most cases a
portion of each hatchery release is coded-wire tagged. External marking
allows the identification of the origin of fish in fisheries, thus
allowing for selective harvest, such that broodstock composition goals
can be reached. Marking also allows for estimation of the proportion of
hatchery fish spawning naturally. The majority of WC Chinook salmon ESU
hatcheries are operated as integrated programs (WDFW 2024). For the
integrated hatcheries, WDFW reported that 10 to 30 percent of the
broodstock utilized was of natural origin (Anderson et al., 2020).
While the SRT noted that four hatcheries (Queets, Quinault, Sol Duc,
and Nemah) are operated as segregated programs--meaning they do not
incorporate natural-origin broodstock--the SRT concluded that these
four hatchery programs meet the criteria to be considered part of the
WC Chinook salmon ESU.
Based on the elimination of out-of-ESU introductions, exchanges
among hatcheries being limited to within-basin or within-WRIA, and the
use of local origin broodstock for integrated hatchery programs, the
SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the 13 WC Chinook salmon hatchery
stocks exhibit a level of genetic divergence relative to the local
natural populations that is no more than what occurs within the ESU and
meet the criteria to be considered part of the WC Chinook salmon ESU.
Determination of Species
Based on the information above, NMFS concludes that the WC Chinook
salmon ESU constitutes a species under the ESA and includes coastal
populations of spring-, summer-, and fall-run Chinook salmon spawning
north of the Columbia River and west of the Elwha River. This includes
the fall-run artificial propagation programs in the Hoko, Waatch, Tsoo-
Yess, Quillayute, Queets, Quinault, Wynoochee, Humptulips, Satsop,
Willapa, Naselle rivers, and the summer-run program in the Sol Duc
River.
Assessment of Extinction Risk
The SRT synthesized the best scientific and commercial information
data available regarding the ESU status, which includes information
regarding life history, demographic trends, and susceptibility to
threats, and evaluated the extinction risk for the WC Chinook salmon
ESU. The SRT included in its assessment an evaluation of the likely
effects of hatchery-origin fish on the viability of the ESU. The SRT's
extinction risk assessment reflects the SRT's professional scientific
judgment, guided by the analysis of the demographic risk and threats.
Demographic Risk Analysis
The SRT assessed demographic risk using four key viability
criteria: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. A
summary of NMFS's evaluation follows, with a detailed discussion of the
demographic risk analysis available in SRT (2025). In the demographic
analysis, populations are defined by both river and run timing, based
on the State and Tribal Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI)
naming system with spring-, spring/summer-, summer- and fall-run
timings represented in the ESU. The SASSI inventory uses spring/summer-
run timing for populations whose run timing falls between the defined
spring and summer windows, or where all redds (i.e., shallow nest for
incubating eggs) constructed prior to a specific date (e.g., October
15th) are classified as early-run spawners. In practice, salmon
managers use the combined ``spring/summer'' label because in many
Washington coastal rivers, there is a continuous spectrum of spawning
activity from late August through early October. Because it is often
difficult to distinguish a ``late spring'' fish from an
[[Page 7968]]
``early summer'' fish on the spawning grounds, the October 15th date
serves as the standard management boundary to separate these ``early''
life histories from the dominant fall runs.
For the abundance analysis, the SRT used escapement data from the
WDFW salmon population indicators database (<a href="http://wdfw.wa.gov/score">http://wdfw.wa.gov/score</a>)
and the corresponding population definitions with two exceptions. The
SRT combined two pairs of populations in Willapa Bay (Nemah-Palix and
Naselle-Bear) based on basin size and proximity and to be consistent
with groupings in other data provided by WDFW and Tribes. The SRT also
did not include the Cook Creek population in this analysis due to the
lack of any recent data. This resulted in a total of 27 populations,
with 18 fall populations and 9 spring/summer populations with abundance
time series data. The SRT grouped all populations identified with
spring, summer, or spring/summer timing into a single ``spring/summer
aggregate'' to provide structure for abundance trend analyses and
summaries. The SRT's analysis compared current abundance to historical
abundance and evaluated recent trends in abundance. The SRT calculated
average abundance as a 5-year geometric mean and population trends over
15-year windows. The SRT included the Hoko River population in its
abundance analysis but did not report on its trends or statistics due
to high variability and hatchery influence.
The SRT also assessed the status of the natural-origin component of
the different populations. In general, the risk assessment for an ESU
is based on the status of the natural-origin salmon, and hatchery-
origin salmon are rarely included regardless of the broodstock origin.
Focusing the analysis on natural-origin salmon required breaking
escapement into natural- and hatchery-origin values in basins where
hatchery- and natural-origin spawners co-occurred. The SRT reviewed the
WDFW escapement database, which included 28 populations (Nemah-Palix
and Naselle-Bear were assessed separately). The SRT identified 15
populations where escapement was assumed to be predominantly of natural
origin, 8 populations where hatchery and natural escapement was counted
separately, and 5 populations where escapement was a mix with both
natural and hatchery fish counted together. For the abundance analyses,
NMFS used natural escapement where known and mixed counts of hatchery
and natural fish when separate counts were not available.
The abundance analysis indicated that the WC Chinook salmon ESU is
composed predominantly of fall-run Chinook salmon. Spring/summer-run
contribute a smaller but potentially important number of individuals to
a subset of WC rivers. Recent information on fall-run Chinook salmon
abundance showed that 19 monitored populations had relatively stable
abundances over the 15-year period evaluated (2007-2021). Total returns
for fall-run fish averaged 30,000-40,000 fish per year, whereas spring/
summer-run fish returns were in the 5,000-7,000 range. WC Chinook
salmon abundance trends have remained stable despite declining age-at-
return and relatively high harvest rates. Based on the abundance
analysis, the SRT concluded that abundance presents a low risk to the
viability of the ESU.
The SRT grouped the 28 populations into 3 aggregates for trend
analysis to provide a structured way to manage the complexity of the
data and summarize findings across the ESU: a North-Fall aggregate
extending down to and including the Quinault River populations; a
South-Fall aggregate that includes all Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
populations; and a Spring/Summer aggregate that includes all
populations in the ESU with spring, spring/summer or summer run timing.
Most North-Fall populations show relatively stable trends with the
exception of a peak in the late 1980s. The South-Fall populations did
not display a consistent overall trend, with some populations declining
(e.g., Hoquiam), others stable (e.g., Humptulips), and one increasing
(Nemah/Palix). Many South-Fall populations also exhibited the late
1980s peak seen in the North-Fall populations, as well as two
additional peaks around 1997 and 2004. The Spring/Summer aggregate
natural escapement values tended to be relatively stable over the last
few decades with the exception of the same late 1980s peak shared with
the Fall aggregate populations. There is some indication that the
Clearwater spring/summer and Satsop summer populations may have
declined in abundance since the early 1980s. Total trends for the three
aggregates reflect some of the same patterns seen in the individual
populations with larger escapements in the late 1980s and less
pronounced increases around 2004 and 2010, with relatively stable
populations since the 1990s.
The SRT also evaluated the productivity of WC populations.
Productivity is measured by the ability of natural-origin fish to
replace themselves in the next generation (recruits per spawner). A
ratio of 1.0 recruit per spawner (one spawner producing one adult in
the next generation) means the population is stable; values above 1.0
indicate growth, while values below 1.0 indicate that a population is
declining. The median productivity estimate for WC populations was 3.05
recruits per spawner (SRT 2025). Based on this high productivity, the
SRT concluded that productivity is a low risk but noted a concerning
regional trend of declining average age and size in spawning adults.
The SRT noted that these shifts in age structure can lead to reduced
fecundity and may affect productivity in the future; however, as noted
above, abundance trends have remained relatively stable since the 1990s
despite such shifts.
In terms of spatial structure, WC Chinook salmon populations are
well-distributed across the geographic range of the ESU. Most
populations are considered naturally sustaining and occupy independent
river basins that provide a robust framework for long-term viability.
WC Chinook salmon still occupy nearly their entire historical range
because the region lacks major dams, although numerous smaller culverts
and road crossings can impair tributary access. While these barriers
may reduce spatial structure locally, they generally affect relatively
small areas and are not considered a limitation on spatial structure.
The SRT also found the ESU exhibits considerable phenotypic
diversity, characterized by a wide range of run and spawn timings and
varied ages at maturity. Furthermore, natural-origin fish and diverse
life-history types remain well-distributed across numerous watersheds
throughout the WC ESU.
Overall, the average viable salmon population (abundance,
productivity, spatial structure and diversity) category scores
indicated that most of the populations were considered by the SRT to be
at low risk. Exceptions included the Wynoochee River spring-run
population, which is believed to be extirpated; the Sol Duc River
spring-run population, which is considered to have been established by
non-native hatchery introductions; the Tsoo-Yess River fall-run
population, which may not represent a historical population and largely
consists of hatchery-origin fish; and the Hoko River fall-run
population, which has a large hatchery-origin spawner component.
Primary considerations supporting the SRT's conclusions about
demographic risks included: WC Chinook salmon abundance trends have
remained stable despite declining age-at-return and relatively high
harvest rates; the WC
[[Page 7969]]
ESU consists of numerous, well-distributed spawning populations,
indicating that there is low risk associated with spatial structure;
the presence of spring- and summer-run fish distributed throughout many
of the basins indicates that the ESU as a whole contains considerable
life-history diversity; and the high total harvest rates (discussed
below) are also evidence of relatively high productivity because the
populations are maintaining their abundance despite high harvest rates.
Analysis of Section 4(a)(1) Factors
As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that NMFS must
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any
one or a combination of the following 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. NMFS evaluated whether and the extent to which
each of the foregoing factors contributes to the overall extinction
risk of the WC Chinook salmon ESU. See the status review report (SRT
2025) for a detailed discussion of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. A
summary of NMFS's evaluation follows.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The complex life cycle of Chinook salmon gives rise to complex
habitat needs, particularly during the freshwater phase (Bjornn and
Reiser 1991; Spence et al., 1996; Quinn 2018). Spawning gravels must be
of a certain size and free of sediment to allow successful incubation
of the eggs. Eggs require cool, clean, and well-oxygenated waters for
proper development. Juveniles need abundant food sources, including
insects, crustaceans, and other small fish. Juveniles need places to
hide from predators (mostly birds and bigger fish), such as under logs,
root wads and boulders in the stream, and places to seek refuge from
periodic high flows (side channels and off channel areas) and from warm
summer water temperatures (cold water springs and deep pools).
Returning adults generally do not feed in fresh water but instead rely
on limited energy stores to migrate, mature, and spawn. Like juveniles,
adults also require cool water and places to rest and hide from
predators. Salmon require cool water that is free of contaminants
during all life stages. They also require rearing and migration
corridors with adequate passage conditions (water quality and quantity
available at specific times) to allow access to the various habitats
required to complete their life cycle.
NMFS's previous Federal Register Notices and reports (NMFS 1996,
1997, 1998), as well as numerous other reports and assessments, have
reviewed in detail the effects of historical and ongoing land-
management practices that have altered WC salmon habitat (State of Our
Watersheds reports from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(2016, 2020) and WRIAs limiting factor analysis reports (Smith 1999a,
Smith 1999b, Smith 2000, Smith and Caldwell 2001, Smith and Wenger
2001, Smith 2005)).
A major determinant of trends in salmon abundance is the condition
of the freshwater, estuarine, and ocean habitats on which salmon
depend. While NMFS rarely has sufficient information to predict the
population-scale effects of habitat loss or degradation with precision,
it is clear that habitat availability imposes an upper limit on the
production of salmon, and reduction in habitat area or quality reduces
potential production. Below, NMFS summarizes the land use practices
(forestry, agriculture, urbanization) that have altered or in some
cases eliminated habitat(s) for WC Chinook salmon.
Many of the basins in the WC are forested and managed for timber.
Landownership includes the Olympic National Park (ONP), Olympic
National Forest, Washington State Parks Department, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Quinault Indian Nation, private timber
companies and privately-owned lands. Large portions of the ESU are
located in the ONP. The majority of ONP forests have never been logged
and are characterized as temperate rainforest of coniferous old-growth
forests. Historically, forestry practices in the WC ESU areas outside
the ONP were very permissive and altered watershed processes resulting
in degradation of water quality, water quantity, stream stability and
stream channel complexity (Cederholm et al., 1980; NWIFC 2020; Smith
2005). While timber harvest activity has decreased since its peak over
50 years ago and timber harvest practices and forest management have
improved, the effects of past timber harvest practices and road
building continue, and future timber harvest may pose a threat to
Chinook salmon. Although efforts are underway to address the legacy
effects from historical logging practices, it may take decades for
habitat to recover (Martens et al., 2019). Even with ~25 years of more
protective timber harvest regulations related to riparian zones,
important salmonid habitat components such as instream wood and pools
have not recovered through natural recruitment of wood (Martens and
Devine 2022). The estimated timeline for recovery of these remaining
degradations could range from 100 to 225 years (Devine et al., 2022).
The WC ESU habitat is still considered relatively good and intact
despite many areas being subjected to both historic and current forest
harvest practices largely due to significant portions of high-quality
habitat being protected within the ONP and other federal and state
forest lands. The threat from current and future timber harvest will
depend partly on the Federal, state and tribal forest practices. This
topic is explored in the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
section below.
Agriculture activities result in similar impacts to salmonid
habitat though the magnitude of impact will vary because of the land
conversion that typically occurs with agriculture. Agricultural lands
reflect the practices that began in the late 1800s with the removal of
trees and clearing of lowland forests (NWIFC 2020). Diking soon
followed, with lower estuaries being diked to protect the new farmland
and to increase agriculture productivity. Agricultural impacts include
loss or modification of wetland, estuaries and floodplain habitats;
channelization and loss of stream complexity; riparian removal;
reduction of large woody debris recruitment; reduced bank stability and
sedimentation; reduced streamflow; elevated water temperatures; and
water quality problems stemming from agricultural runoff (e.g.,
nutrients and pesticides). The most intensive agricultural land use
coincides with broad alluvial valleys and the low-lying areas (often
former floodplains) of most watersheds. Because of the land clearings,
agricultural practices are partially responsible for the significant
decrease in large woody debris recruitment in the lower basin. Though
grazing occurs routinely on private lands and by permit on some
federally administered lands (Myers et al., 1998), WC Chinook salmon
predominantly follow an ocean-type life history, meaning juveniles
spend only weeks to a few months rearing in freshwater before migrating
to the marine environment, unlike stream-type juveniles that remain in
freshwater for
[[Page 7970]]
at least one full year. This limits their exposure to the most severe
agricultural impacts, which occur mostly during the summer in lowland
and floodplain areas (e.g., elevated temperatures, low flows, and
contaminants).
Urbanization has led to degraded habitat through stream
channelization, floodplain drainage, and riparian removal (Botkin et
al., 1995). As human populations grow, so does the demand for water,
the risks of increases in peak flow, increases in sediment inputs,
riparian vegetation removal, increased bank protection and water
contamination. High population densities lead to large amounts of
impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, infrastructure such as houses
and buildings) that negatively impact the local watersheds and can
result in loss of salmon habitat. Paved roads, parking lots, rooftops,
or other surfaces that do not absorb rainfall tend to send much more
water to streams, elevating peak flows and contributing pollution to
streams (Booth and Jackson 1997). Although this has not been documented
within the WC ESU, an acute regional example of this phenomenon is that
toxic storm water runoff is leading to high pre-spawn mortality of
adult coho salmon in tributaries to Washington's Puget Sound (Booth and
Steinemann 2006; Peter et al., 2022). As the human population
increases, additional urbanization and habitat modification are likely
to occur. Based on Census Bureau data from 2010-2022, county
populations on the WC have increased 5.8 to 15.5 percent (<a href="https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population/">https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population/</a>). Habitat degradation is more common in the
southern portion of the ESU (Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay), where
residential and agricultural land development is more extensive. The
urbanization level and growth within the WC ESU are relatively small
compared to other areas in Washington State, particularly the major
urban centers of the Puget Sound region. While urbanization on the WC
still causes habitat degradation in local areas, the higher degree of
protection in surrounding public lands like the ONP mitigates the
overall rangewide threat compared to the highly developed areas like
the Puget Sound region.
The WC Chinook salmon life stages most affected by agricultural
practices and urbanization are juveniles and smolts that spend weeks to
months rearing in the affected floodplain and estuarine areas, where
they are susceptible to water contaminants and poor habitat quality. As
noted above, because WC Chinook salmon predominantly follow an ocean-
type life history, juveniles' exposure to the most severe agricultural
impacts is limited. There has been a long history of land-use practices
leading to habitat degradation, but freshwater habitat has been
improving slowly over the past several decades due to stricter land-use
regulations compared to the early 20th century.
The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that this factor presents a low
risk to the rangewide viability of the WC Chinook salmon ESU, now and
for the foreseeable future. The SRT observed that the ESU's populations
remain stable and productive despite historical and ongoing degradation
from forestry, agriculture, and urbanization in some areas. The SRT
noted that freshwater habitat conditions are considered relatively
good, particularly because the headwaters of many northern populations
are protected within the ONP and other public forest lands.
Furthermore, improved land-use regulations since the early 20th century
are contributing to slow habitat recovery.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
WC Chinook salmon are harvested in commercial, recreational, and
tribal fisheries in the ocean and fresh water. Federal, state, and
tribal agencies use harvest restrictions to reduce impacts, with the
intent of ensuring enough adult fish return to spawn and maintain
healthy run sizes. In ocean fisheries, Chinook salmon populations co-
mingle, and non-selective harvest tends to disproportionately impact
less productive stocks. Harvest type, timing, and location can also
alter size, age structure, and migration timing for both smolts and
adults.
Fisheries off Washington are planned via complex processes
involving NMFS, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the states of
Washington and Oregon, Tribes, and other stakeholders. Ocean fisheries
are conducted in accordance with legal obligations under the Pacific
Salmon Treaty (PST); treaties; court decisions between Tribes, the
United States, and states; and conservation measures of the ESA and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Fishery
managers rely on stock assessment methods and models developed by the
Pacific Salmon Commission's Chinook Technical Committee (CTC), which
operates under the PST to determine sustainable harvest levels. The PST
and the CTC provide a structured assessment process that includes the
use of ``indicator stocks'' (such as the Queets River fall run) to
precisely estimate survival, exploitation, and total escapement.
Harvest rates for WC fall-run Chinook salmon have been consistent
and relatively high for the past 40 years (SRT 2025). Harvest reduces
the total adult fall-run size by approximately 50 percent for each
return year. There is no clear temporal trend in total mortality in
either ocean or terminal (generally in-estuary or in-river harvest)
fisheries over that period (SRT 2025). The SRT noted that high total
harvest rates, although a source of some concern, are also evidence of
relatively high productivity, because the populations are maintaining
their abundance despite high harvest rates.
There is limited information about the ocean exploitation of
spring/summer run stocks (SRT 2025). However, based on the timing of
Chinook salmon returning to freshwater to spawn, it is believed that
spring-run salmon return before the majority of ocean fisheries target
them in their spawning year. The available information indicates that
the overall harvest mortality for spring-run Chinook salmon is less
than for fall-run, but the magnitude of the difference cannot be
determined quantitatively with available data (SRT 2025).
The WC ESU's stable abundance under harvest rates often exceeding
50 percent suggests its populations have the productivity to withstand
these exploitation levels. The SRT observed that the ESU's populations
remain stable and productive despite these rates. The SRT also noted
changes to harvest management including a shift from historical
overutilization to a more scientific and collaborative management
framework including rigorous annual planning to ensure conservation
goals are met. Improvements in external marking (adipose fin clipping)
and coded-wire tagging allow managers to identify fish origin in real-
time. This enables selective harvest, allowing for higher fishing
opportunities on hatchery fish while protecting natural-origin
spawners.
The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that overutilization presents a
low risk to the rangewide viability of the WC Chinook salmon ESU, now
and for the foreseeable future.
Disease
Chinook salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral,
and parasitic organisms in spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries,
migratory routes, and the marine environment. Increased physiological
stress and physical injury in migrating salmonids
[[Page 7971]]
may increase their susceptibility to pathogens (Matthews et al., 1986,
Maule et al., 1988). The presence of adequate water quantity and
quality during late summer is a critical factor in controlling disease
epidemics for salmonids. As water quantity and quality diminish and
freshwater habitat becomes more degraded, many previously infected
salmonid populations may experience large mortalities because added
physiological stress can trigger the onset of disease. These factors
(common in various rivers and streams) may increase anadromous salmonid
susceptibility and exposure to disease (Holt et al., 1975; Wood and
WDFW 1979).
Common diseases that affect Chinook salmon on the WC include
amoebic gill disease, bacterial coldwater disease, bacterial kidney
disease, columnaris, furunculosis, Ich, and trichodiniasis. Fish
hatcheries are commonly associated with fish diseases, in part because
of the high densities and rearing conditions they subject salmon to,
but also because hatcheries, in contrast to natural systems, are
actively monitored for pathogens. Fish hatcheries in WC operate
following ``The Salmonid Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries Co-
Managers of Washington State'' (revised July 2006). This policy is
designed to protect fish populations from management activities that
could cause the importation, dissemination, and amplification of
pathogens known to adversely affect salmonids. Additionally, the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) member tribes created a
``Tribal Fish Health Program'' (1988) to meet the growing fish health
needs of their salmon enhancement and supplementation programs. The
program's goal is to assist tribes in rearing and releasing healthy
fish that will help to sustain tribal fisheries and/or restore wild
populations.
The SRT concluded that disease prevalence in the WC ESU remains
within naturally expected levels. Although several diseases were
identified, the SRT found no evidence of population-level impacts;
consequently, disease was categorized as a low-level threat to the ESU.
Consistent with the SRT's assessment, NMFS concludes that disease poses
a low risk to the WC Chinook salmon ESU, now and in the foreseeable
future.
Predation
Depending on the life history stage, salmon are prey for other
fishes, birds, and marine mammals. The four common marine mammal
predators are harbor seals, fish-eating killer whales, California sea
lions, and Steller sea lions. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
of 1972 has led to the recovery and increase in populations of harbor
seals, Steller sea lions, and California sea lions in the northeastern
Pacific. Research suggests that predation pressure on salmon and
steelhead from seals, sea lions, and killer whales has been increasing
in the Northeast Pacific Ocean over the past few decades (Chasco et
al., 2017). A recent study along the coast of Washington investigated
Stellar sea lion consumption of ocean age-0 Chinook salmon and reported
increased consumption suggesting Steller sea lions contribute to low
early marine survival rates of Chinook salmon at a higher rate than
previously thought (Lewis et al., 2025). Studies indicate that
pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) prey on a wide variety of fish species,
and salmonids appear to be a minor part of their diet. Fish-eating
killer whales (Orcinus orca) consume a wide variety of fish and squid,
but salmon are their primary prey (Ford et al., 1998, 2000, Ford and
Ellis 2006; Ford et al., 2016; Hanson et al., 2021). Ford et al. (2016)
found that most of the salmon consumed by the whales were Chinook
salmon (nearly 80 percent).
Freshwater predators of salmon include fishes, birds, and mammals,
representing both native and non-native species (Sanderson et al.,
2009). Of particular concern is the introduction of warm-water fishes,
which were introduced to provide recreational fishing opportunities. In
the Chehalis River, smallmouth bass are distributed throughout the
main-stem and occupy tributary habitat, including the Skookumchuck,
Newaukum, and South Fork Chehalis Rivers. These areas are where most
spring-run Chinook spawn, and smallmouth bass are known to prey on
young salmonids, especially Chinook salmon (Carey et al., 2011; Fritts
and Pearsons 2008).
Although introduced smallmouth bass are present in the Chehalis
River, NMFS found no evidence to indicate that freshwater predation is
a rangewide concern for the viability of the WC Chinook salmon ESU. The
relative impacts of marine predation on individual anadromous salmonid
populations are not well understood. However, anadromous salmonids have
historically coexisted with both marine and freshwater predators.
Studies focused on pinniped predation of WC salmonids suggest salmonids
are a minor component of their diet. While farther-ranging salmonids
like WC Chinook are at greater risk of killer whale predation, the
available information led the SRT to conclude that predation is a low
risk for the ESU.
Given that the WC Chinook salmon populations lack large dams or
barriers and exhibit relatively stable abundance trends, it is unlikely
that predation levels have increased significantly since the last
status review. The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that marine and
freshwater predation pose a low risk to the rangewide viability of the
WC Chinook salmon ESU, now and for the foreseeable future.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, regulations,
treaties, and measures affect the abundance and survival of the WC
Chinook salmon ESU and the quality of their habitat. NMFS (1998) found
that the serious depletion of some salmonids was an indication that
existing regulatory mechanisms had largely failed to prevent the
depletion. The SRT reviewed existing regulatory mechanisms as part of
the status review report and noted the implementation of several
programs that have substantially reduced historical risks to the WC
Chinook salmon ESU and prevented depletion.
For example, as described under the habitat factor (section
4(a)(1)(A); see The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range section below), most of the basins
in the WC are forested and managed for timber. Currently, the Northwest
Forest Plan (NWFP) guides the management of Federal forest lands in the
Pacific Northwest, along with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy that
includes components that collectively ensure that Federal land
management actions achieve a set of objectives, which includes salmon
habitat conservation. The Olympic National Forest Plan guides the
natural resource management activities in the Forest and establishes
management standards including the long-term maintenance of late
successional forest habitat and an emphasis on riparian habitat, fish
habitat and water quality. The rules that govern forest management on
non-Federal lands include the Washington State Forest Practices Act and
the Washington State Forest Practices Rules (Title 222 WAC) that
provide rules and guidelines for lands to be managed consistent with
sound policies of natural resource protection. These rules are designed
to protect public resources such as water quality and fish habitat
while maintaining a viable timber industry.
Additionally, WC tribes each manage their trust resources for
environmental,
[[Page 7972]]
cultural, and economic benefits. The tribes work with the tribal
councils to develop tribal ordinances and regulations, carry out
resource management, and design and implement habitat management,
protection, and restoration. The NWIFC is a natural resources
management organization that provides service support for 20 treaty
Indian tribes in western Washington. The role of the NWIFC is to assist
member tribes as natural resources co-managers, including support in
biometrics, fish health and salmon management.
The State of Washington established salmon recovery regions to
develop salmon habitat recovery strategies and to recruit organizations
to conduct habitat restoration and protection projects. In 2007, the WC
Sustainable Salmon Partnership (WCSSP) was formed and, unlike other
regions in Washington, the organization's genesis was not in response
to ESA listings but rather in an effort to prevent the need for future
listings. The State of Washington describes their approach to salmon
recovery as the ``Washington Way,'' emphasizing local expertise,
collaboration, and a bottom-up approach to habitat restoration and
management. This approach involves working with tribal, local, state,
Federal, and non-profit partners to address the complex challenges
facing salmon populations. The focus is on improving salmon habitat,
including removing barriers, restoring wetlands and estuaries, and
managing water quality and temperature.
In summary, conservation efforts for the WC ESU are driven by a
collaborative framework involving Federal, state, and tribal entities,
alongside local and non-profit partners. Federal efforts, like the NWFP
and its Aquatic Conservation Strategy, guide management on Federal
lands, emphasizing riparian and water quality protection. At the state
level, Washington has implemented the Forest Practices Act and
established salmon recovery regions, leading to the formation of the
Coast Salmon Partnership that develops and implements habitat recovery
strategies. Concurrently, tribes play an active role as co-managers,
undertaking essential habitat management, protection, and restoration
projects. These collective efforts focus on a variety of actions,
including removing fish passage barriers, restoring floodplain and
estuarine habitat, reforming hatchery practices to prioritize
conservation, and continually improving regulatory mechanisms to ensure
the WC ESU's long-term sustainability.
The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms poses a low risk to the rangewide viability of
the WC Chinook salmon ESUs. In the range of WC Chinook salmon, the
regulation of some activities and land uses will alter past harmful
practices, resulting in habitat improvements. Similarly, existing
regulations governing Chinook salmon harvest have improved the WC ESU's
likelihood of persistence (SRT 2025). The PST and the CTC provide a
structured assessment process to estimate survival, exploitation, and
total escapement. Advances in external marking and coded-wire tagging
enable managers to identify a fish's origin facilitating selective
harvest strategies. These selective fisheries maximize harvest
opportunities for hatchery-origin fish while protecting natural-origin
spawners.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Proposed Dam
In general, the WC ESU is unencumbered by large manmade barriers
(e.g., dams); however, the Chehalis River Basin Flood Control Zone
District (FCZD) has proposed a new flood retention dam and temporary
reservoir (Proposed Project) on the mainstem of the Chehalis River. The
Proposed Project is designed to store floodwater during major floods
and then slowly release the water. When not operated for floodwater
retention, the Chehalis River would flow through the structure's low-
level outlet at its normal rate of flow and volume and allow fish to
pass upstream and downstream.
The proposed temporary reservoir would inundate an area that
overlaps with historical spring-run Chinook salmon spawning habitat.
Redds in the temporary reservoir would be subject to deep-water
inundation leading to decreased dissolved oxygen levels and egg loss.
The WDFW conducted redd surveys for several years within the upper
Chehalis River mainstem and tributaries, including the reservoir
inundation area, and reported that between 1 and 24 spring-run Chinook
salmon redds were observed within the temporary inundation area.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers determined that the Proposed Project may have significant
impacts on the environment and released a draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) on the Proposed Project in 2020. In response to the
draft EIS, FCZD made numerous changes to the Proposed Project design
including site realignment, volitional fish passage during dam
construction, reduction of the inundation zone, addition of a conduit
design for fish passage during reservoir drawdown, and the addition of
vegetative management plan. Additionally, FCZD developed a draft
mitigation plan in 2022 that identified mitigation actions to offset
potential impacts to salmon and to improve currently degraded habitat
conditions.
Based on the improved Proposed Project described above and the
SRT's analysis, NMFS concludes that the Proposed Project poses a low
risk to the WC Chinook salmon ESU.
Environmental Variation
Pacific salmon depend on a sequential series of freshwater,
estuarine, and marine habitats as they complete their complex life
cycles, all of which are being affected by environmental variation.
Changes in the ecosystem are predicted to impact Pacific salmon by a
variety of mechanisms throughout their life cycle, and these impacts
are complex and vary among species, ESUs, and habitats (Crozier et al.,
2008, 2019; Crozier and Siegel 2023). For U.S. West Coast salmon and
steelhead, expected changes to freshwater habitats include increased
air and stream temperatures and changes in seasonal (but not
necessarily annual mean) rainfall patterns, with larger and more
extreme storms and droughts. These increased temperatures will result
in more winter precipitation falling as rain than snow at intermediate
elevations, which alters both seasonal streamflow and water
temperatures. Within the range of WC Chinook salmon, experts predict
stream temperatures to rise, winter flows to increase, and summer flows
to decrease compared to current patterns. Additionally, the loss of
glaciers in the Olympic Mountains is impacting the region's hydrology.
Between 1900 and 2015, the mountains lost roughly half of their glacial
and snowfield coverage (Fountain et al., 2022). Modeling based on
climate projections suggests that glaciers in the Olympic Mountains
will largely disappear by 2070 due to rising air temperatures (Fountain
et al., 2022). The loss of glacial melt, combined with decreased summer
precipitation, has caused a decline in summer flows in local rivers. In
marine habitats, NMFS expects the food webs that support salmon to
change in response to factors including increased temperatures,
acidification, and the strength and timing of wind-driven upwelling,
although how these changes will affect salmon growth and survival is
difficult to predict.
[[Page 7973]]
Crozier et al. (2019) undertook a comprehensive climate
vulnerability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead along the
U.S. West Coast, focusing on ESUs that have received or are candidates
for protection under the ESA. Crozier et al. (2019) reported that
Chinook salmon populations with subyearling life histories (like WC
Chinook salmon) produced relatively low vulnerability scores during the
early life history and juvenile freshwater stages due to limited
rearing in freshwater in summer, when thermal impacts, hydrologic
regime shifts, and low-flow impacts are expected to be highest. The WC
Chinook salmon ESU was not included in the Crozier et al. (2019)
assessment, so the SRT evaluated the WC ESU vulnerability to changing
environmental conditions using results for ESUs that had similar life
histories, geographic ranges, and human land use activities (e.g.,
extensive forestry and limited urban areas). For early life history,
estuary, and adult freshwater life stages, the SRT used listed Chinook
salmon ESUs that had overlapping adult river entry timing (spring and
fall runs), fall spawn timing, limited freshwater residency and
extended estuarine residency in the larger estuaries and predicted low-
moderate sensitivity for these attributes (early life history, estuary,
and adult freshwater stages) for the WC Chinook salmon ESU. For the
marine stage sensitivity, the SRT compared the WC ESU to other Chinook
salmon ESUs with overlapping marine distribution and found their diets,
length of ocean residency, and factors affecting mortality are expected
to be comparable; thus, the WC ESU scored similarly for marine stage
sensitivity (low-moderate). The SRT ranked the cumulative life cycle
effects for the WC ESU as low-moderate vulnerability.
The SRT was concerned that rising stream temperatures and lower
flows during summer would be detrimental to the spring-run life
history, since juveniles and adults spend some or all of the summer in
freshwater systems that are predicted to be exposed to higher
temperatures and lower stream flows. Populations characterized by late-
summer/early-fall smolt outmigration may also be more vulnerable than
those with early-summer outmigration. The SRT concluded that although
portions of the ESU will be negatively impacted by increased summer
stream temperatures and low stream flows, the ESU as a whole is
buffered against these predicted changes, in part because juveniles
predominately (>90%) exhibit an ocean-type life history strategy and
therefore will have limited exposure to changes in summer stream
conditions. The SRT also noted that the ESU consists of 28 major
populations and additional smaller populations that are distributed
among multiple coastal streams, many of which are predicted to remain
at appropriate temperatures for salmon even in the face of changing
environmental conditions.
The SRT also noted that a major difficulty in evaluating the WC ESU
is the large heterogeneity in topography, land use, and hatchery
production and how to weigh this variation across the entire ESU. For
example, the new Coast Salmon Partnership climate resilience index
online tool (Adams and Zimmerman 2024) indicates that most basins on
the north WC (north of the Chehalis basin) have high climate
resilience, while those in the Chehalis and Willapa Bay basins are much
lower. At smaller spatial scales, Beechie et al. (2021) showed that
although the Chehalis River drainage had lost or degraded beaver pond,
side channel and floodplain habits, it varied greatly by sub-basin. The
SRT also noted that there remains considerable uncertainty about the
localized effects of environmental variation on the WC ESU and
predicted future stream temperatures in many of the coastal streams
should remain within suitable ranges for salmon. In other words, it is
difficult to predict with much certainty how widespread stream
temperature changes will be in these coastal ESUs, how long and to what
extent thermal refugia will persist, and how the species might respond
to the predicted effects of environmental variation on freshwater
habitats.
In marine habitats, the effects of sea level rise are largely
restricted to estuarine environments, but changes in sea surface
temperature, upwelling, currents, and ocean acidification, all of which
influence salmon productivity, are expected in estuarine and ocean
habitats. Crozier et al. (2019) reported that high levels of projected
changes in sea surface temperature and ocean acidification will be
compounded by regional variations in sea level rise, flooding, and
changes in upwelling. Crozier et al. (2019) noted that, while coastal
areas may benefit from oceanic buffering effects that can reduce
extreme climate impacts, the complexity of marine food webs and
inconsistencies in projections for ocean currents and upwelling add
considerable uncertainty to predicting the full biological consequences
on salmon growth and survival. Prolonged periods of poor ocean survival
observed during warm decades suggest that rising ocean temperatures
could lead to negative impacts for salmon populations (Crozier et al.,
2019).
The SRT concluded that the effects of future predicted
environmental conditions may pose a moderate risk to WC Chinook salmon
ESU. However, the SRT utilized surrogate species to assess
environmental vulnerability, categorizing the sensitivity of overall,
juvenile, and adult life stages as low-to-moderate. The team also noted
that there remains considerable uncertainty about the localized effects
of environmental variation and how it might affect WC Chinook salmon
survival. Additionally, the SRT noted that the ESU consists of 28 major
populations and additional smaller populations that are distributed
among multiple coastal streams, many of which are predicted to remain
at appropriate temperatures for salmon even in the face of changing
environmental conditions. NMFS concludes that the effects of future
predicted environmental conditions fall within the lower bounds of a
moderate risk to WC Chinook salmon ESU.
Hatcheries
Hatcheries are another factor identified as a threat in the
coastwide Chinook salmon status review (Myers et al., 1998). In
general, hatchery programs can provide demographic benefits to salmon
and steelhead, such as increases in abundance during periods of low
natural abundance (e.g., Berejikian et al., 2009; Janowitz-Koch et al.,
2019; Koch et al., 2022). Hatcheries may also help preserve genetic
resources until limiting factors can be addressed (e.g., Flagg et al.,
1995; Kalinowski et al., 2012). However, these reviews have also
concluded that long-term use of artificial propagation poses risks to
natural productivity and diversity. Hatchery programs can affect
natural-origin populations of salmon and steelhead in a variety of
ways, including competition (for spawning sites and food) and predation
effects, disease effects, genetic effects (e.g., domestication
selection or introgression due to stock transfers), and facility
effects (e.g., water withdrawals, effluent discharge). The magnitude
and type of risk depend on the status of affected populations and on
specific practices in the hatchery program.
Current hatchery practices on the WC include using local origin
broodstock, the elimination of out-of-ESU introductions, and exchanges
among hatcheries being limited to within-basin or within-WRIA. In
Washington, there are two types of hatchery programs--integrated and
segregated (Harbison et al., 2022).
[[Page 7974]]
In general, segregated hatchery programs are harvest oriented and
not intended to interact (spawn) with natural-origin populations in the
hatchery or on the spawning grounds. Within the WC, there are a few
segregated hatchery programs. Two of the segregated programs, the Lake
Quinault Tribal Hatchery and the Salmon River Fish Culture Facility,
are owned and operated by the Quinault Indian Nation. Multiple stocks
were used to begin the Lake Quinault Tribal Hatchery fall Chinook
salmon program including Quinault, Queets, and Hoh River stocks, as
well as introductions from Puget Sound, so this hatchery is managed as
a segregated program. Originally established with non-native stocks in
the 1970s and 1980s, the Salmon River Fish Culture Facility has
transitioned to an integrated management strategy. The program now
collects 60-65 pairs of local adults annually using gill nets in the
mainstem Queets and Clearwater Rivers. The Sol Duc Chinook salmon
summer-run hatchery programs (including Lonesome Creek and Bear
Springs) are a cooperative effort between the Quileute Tribe and the
WDFW and use aspects of both segregated and integrated hatchery
practices. The goal of the program is to enhance the summer-run Chinook
population in the Sol Duc River through artificial production while
also supporting natural escapement and providing fishing opportunities.
The long-term goal of the program is to become a fully integrated
program, where the hatchery fish are as similar as possible to the wild
fish. Nemah Hatchery is owned and operated by WDFW and consists of a
mixed composite stock comprised of native fish and introductions from
numerous out-of-basin sources. Transfers of hatchery stocks from out of
the basin have been curtailed in the last few decades. The genetic
legacy of non-native introductions has not been determined but could be
considerable. The program is run as a segregated program.
The majority of hatcheries on the WC are integrated programs
designed to maintain a close genetic relationship with the naturally-
spawning population. To reduce risks from hatchery programs, the WDFW
Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Policy (2021) has thresholds
of allowable levels of proportion of hatchery origin spawners for
segregated programs (the proportion of hatchery-origin fish spawning
naturally), as well as proportion of natural influence for integrated
programs (the proportion of natural-origin fish utilized in the
hatchery broodstock). For these integrated hatcheries, WDFW reported
that 10-30 percent of the broodstock utilized were of natural origin
(Anderson et al., 2020). The influence of hatchery-origin adults
spawning naturally has been monitored to a limited extent. In general,
the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners is higher in rivers in
Willapa Bay, which contains the largest hatchery programs in the ESU.
Based on the design and operation of the WC ESU Chinook hatchery
programs, the SRT concluded that hatcheries pose a low risk to WC
populations except for in Willapa Bay where hatcheries pose a moderate
risk. The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that hatcheries pose a low
risk to the rangewide viability of the WC Chinook salmon ESU now and
for the foreseeable future.
Rangewide Risk of Extinction
The SRT's determination of rangewide extinction risk to the WC
Chinook salmon ESU used the categories of high, moderate, and low risk
of extinction. The risk levels are defined as:
(1) High risk: A species or ESU with a high risk of extinction is
at or near a level of abundance, productivity, diversity, and/or
spatial structure that places its continued existence in question. The
demographics of a species or ESU at such a high level of risk may be
highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic and/or
depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or ESU may be at high risk
of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement
to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat; disease epidemic) that are likely to create
such imminent demographic risks.
(2) Moderate risk: A species or ESU is at moderate risk of
extinction if it exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is more
likely than not to reach a high level of extinction risk in the
foreseeable future. A species or ESU may be at moderate risk of
extinction due to projected threats and/or declining trends in
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The
appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or DPS is
more likely than not to become at high risk in the future depends on
various case- and species-specific factors. For example, the time
horizon may reflect certain life-history characteristics (e.g., long
generation time or late age-at-maturity) and may also reflect the
timeframe or rate over which identified threats are likely to impact
the biological status of the species or ESU (e.g., rate of disease
spread). The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period that
status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined
limits of statistical confidence.
(3) Low risk: A species or ESU is at low risk if it is not at
moderate or high risk of extinction.
The SRT considered the foreseeable future for the WC Chinook salmon
ESU to extend over a time period of 30 to 80 years. The shorter end of
this time period corresponds to approximately 10 Chinook salmon
generations, which the SRT concluded was a reasonable time period over
which to consider current demographic trends. The SRT considered the
longer end of this time period (80 years) a timeframe over which
scientific studies of the impacts of changing environmental conditions
on salmonid freshwater and ocean habitat are available. For example,
the SRT utilized analyses of predicted future stream temperatures and
stream flow that ranged from approximately 40 to 80 years in the
future.
The SRT unanimously concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the WC Chinook
salmon ESU is at low risk of extinction now and over the foreseeable
future. The primary factors leading to this conclusion include a large
overall annual natural-origin spawner abundance of >30,000 spawners
with stable abundance trends in diverse geographic groupings. The high
total harvest rates (often exceeding 50 percent for most populations),
although a source of some concern, are also evidence of relatively high
productivity because the populations are maintaining their abundance
despite high harvest rates. The presence of spring- and summer-run fish
distributed throughout many of the basins indicates that the ESU as a
whole contains considerable life-history diversity. An analysis of the
spatial structure and diversity factors also indicates low risk.
In its evaluation of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA, NMFS finds that, overall, the factors contribute to a low
extinction risk rangewide now and in the foreseeable future. For the
habitat factor (section 4(a)(1)(A)), there is a long history of land-
use practices leading to habitat degradation, but freshwater habitat
appears to be improving due to restoration efforts and stricter land-
use regulations compared to the 20th century (see Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section). Despite considerable changes
to the landscape due to forestry, agriculture, and urbanization,
habitat conditions are
[[Page 7975]]
relatively good. The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the threat
from habitat loss and modification poses a low risk to the rangewide
viability of the WC Chinook ESU now and in the foreseeable future.
For the overutilization factor (section 4(a)(1)(B)), although some
SRT members were concerned about harvest rates that occasionally exceed
50 percent for some populations, NMFS finds that fishery management has
responded to changes in status of individual populations and reduced
harvest rates as necessary to maintain the number of adults escaping to
spawning grounds.
For the disease and predation factor (section 4(a)(1)(C)), the SRT
concluded that disease prevalence in the WC ESU remains within
naturally expected levels. The SRT identified predation by nonnative
small-mouth bass as a factor potentially limiting the viability of the
Chehalis River population, but otherwise predation by nonnative species
poses a low risk to the ESU rangewide. Despite concerns over marine
mammal predation, the SRT determined that stable abundance trends and
the absence of large dams mitigate this threat. NMFS agrees with their
conclusion that disease and predation pose a low risk to the WC ESU.
For the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms factor
(section 4(a)(1)(D)), the SRT noted that regulatory protection of
streams and riparian habitat has improved since the previous 1998
status review. The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees, that current
Federal, state, and tribal management plans and state-led recovery
strategies provide a robust framework that collectively addresses
historical threats and concluded that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms poses a low risk.
For other natural and manmade factors (section 4(a)(1)(E)), the SRT
concluded, and NMFS agrees, that the proposed flood control dam and
hatchery programs pose a low risk to the rangewide viability of the WC
Chinook salmon ESU. For environmental variation, the SRT noted that
portions of the ESU will be negatively impacted by increased summer
stream temperatures and low flows but that there remains considerable
uncertainty about the localized effects. Additionally, the SRT noted
that the ESU consists of 28 populations that are distributed among
multiple coastal streams, many of which are predicted to remain at
appropriate temperatures for salmon even in the face of environmental
variation. The SRT also considered the effects of environmental
variation on marine ecosystems and concluded that the WC Chinook salmon
ESU is predicted to have a moderate sensitivity to marine climate
effects, but noted the complexity of ocean food webs and their response
to changing conditions, as well as the indirect nature of impacts
through prey availability and predator distribution, make direct
predictions of salmon survival difficult. On balance, although the SRT
concluded that portions of the ESU will be negatively impacted by
changing environmental conditions, the ESU as a whole is likely
buffered against these predicted changes for the foreseeable future.
Although there are concerns about environmental variation, the risk
associated with environmental variability alone is insufficient to
support a finding that the ESU is at moderate or high risk of
extinction.
Altogether, considering the analysis of the viability of the ESU
and the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, NMFS finds
that the WC Chinook salmon ESU is at a low risk of extinction rangewide
now and in the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
As noted in the introduction above, the definitions in section 3 of
the ESA of both ``threatened species'' and ``endangered species''
contain the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR). This
phrase provides an independent basis for listing: A species may be
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range or a species may
be endangered or threatened throughout only an SPR. Thus, in construing
the statutory definitions of threatened and endangered species, NMFS is
required to give some independent meaning to the SPR phrase to avoid
rendering it superfluous to the ``throughout all'' language (see
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)).
The range of a species is considered to be the general geographical
area within which that species can be found. Under the 2014 Policy
regarding the interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' (``SPR Policy''; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), which was issued
jointly by NMFS and USFWS, a species' range includes those areas used
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if they are not
used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats).
If NMFS finds that a species is facing low extinction risk
throughout its range (i.e., not warranted for listing), NMFS must
consider whether the species may have a higher risk of extinction in a
SPR. In addition, if NMFS finds that a species is threatened rangewide,
NMFS must also consider whether the species may be endangered in an
SPR, which would result in the higher-level listing of the species as
endangered (see CBD v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020)).
Having concluded that the WC Chinook salmon ESU is at low risk of
extinction now and in the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range, NMFS requested that the SRT conduct an assessment to determine
whether the ESU may be at greater risk of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future in any identified SPR. The SRT's SPR analysis
consisted of identifying and evaluating portions of the range where
members of the ESU are both potentially at moderate or high risk of
extinction and are important to the overall ESU's long-term viability,
yet not so important as to be determinative of its overall current or
foreseeable status. In other words, the goal of the SPR evaluation was
to determine if there are biologically important portions of the range
that are currently at high or moderate risk but that are not so
important that their status would lead to the entire ESU being at high
or moderate risk.
Because a species' range can theoretically be divided into an
infinite number of portions, the SRT first discussed and identified
populations or geographic areas that had a reasonable likelihood of
being at moderate or high risk of extinction and a reasonable
likelihood of being biologically significant to the species. Unless a
population or geographic area met both of these conditions, the SRT did
not consider it further in the analysis as they could not form the
basis for a proposed listing. The SRT then discussed and evaluated
multiple scenarios for these higher-risk portions based on both
geography and the range of biological (life-history) types. In
evaluating whether a portion was biologically significant, the SRT
considered whether the species within that portion was important to the
ESU's long-term viability but not so important that their status would
drive current or foreseeable ESU-wide extinction risk. The team
identified four areas with a reasonable likelihood of being somewhat
higher risk than the ESU rangewide and biologically significant to the
ESU:
(1) The northern coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Populations
within this portion of the range are characterized by small population
sizes, small watershed spawning areas, and substantial hatchery
influence, factors that all indicate that these populations are at
somewhat higher risk than the ESU as
[[Page 7976]]
a whole. These small watersheds likely depend on a combination of
hatchery production and strays from other populations within the WC ESU
to sustain their long-term abundance, meaning the survival of these
smaller populations is dependent on the other populations within the
ESU, and therefore this population would not be deemed important to the
long-term viability of the ESU. The SRT concluded, and NMFS agrees,
that the northern coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca populations are not
biologically significant so are not considered to be an SPR.
(2) Southern coastal areas of the ESU, including Willapa Bay. These
areas are characterized by lower gradient streams that are likely more
susceptible to warming temperatures predicted by future environmental
variation. They are largely in private land ownership, with greater
potential for development and habitat degradation compared to areas
protected in ONP or other public lands. Populations in the Willapa Bay
area either have a high proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning
grounds (>50 percent in recent returns) or have an unknown hatchery
contribution. Such conditions led to greater risk scores than in other
portions of the ESU. However, despite these threats, the overall fall-
run Chinook salmon population abundance (~2,000 spawners) in this area
has been relatively stable. The contribution of natural-origin spawners
to the overall ESU abundance from Southern coastal areas of the ESU,
including Willapa Bay, are also relatively minor. The SRT concluded,
and NMFS agrees, that these populations are not biologically
significant so are not considered to be an SPR.
(3) The upper Chehalis Basin (upstream of the cities of Chehalis
and Centralia) includes both spring- and fall-run populations of
Chinook salmon. In contrast to other basins in the range of the ESU,
the upper Chehalis River drains the lower elevation Willapa Hills
rather than the Olympic Mountains. As such, this basin is more
vulnerable to changing environmental conditions (e.g., rising stream
temperatures and lower flows during summer), especially the spring-run
population. Further, the flood control dam proposed for the upper
Chehalis River will likely have a negative impact on spring-run
spawning habitat (see Proposed Dam section). The SRT noted that there
are multiple spring-run populations in the ESU, some nearly as abundant
as those in the upper Chehalis River. The SRT's consensus was that
Chinook salmon in the upper Chehalis, especially the spring-run
population, are at somewhat higher risk from habitat degradation and
environmental variation, but given the abundance, productivity, and
genetic information currently available, the SRT concluded, and NMFS
agrees, that the upper Chehalis basin populations are ultimately at low
risk of extinction.
(4) Early-returning (spring- and summer-run) populations throughout
the ESU were also considered to be at somewhat higher risk than the
entire ESU. The abundance of early-run Chinook salmon in each river,
and collectively among all the rivers, is considerably lower than that
of fall-run. Only the Hoh and Chehalis rivers typically have more than
1,000 early-run spawners. The SRT considered that early-returning life
history exposes returning adults to increased summer temperatures and
decreased summer flows during their extended holding in freshwater
during the summer, especially with changing environmental conditions
observed over the last few decades and the changes predicted for the
future. The SRT also noted that early-run habitat is distributed across
many watersheds in the ESU. Many of these areas are on protected
federal lands and, due to higher elevations and forest cover, are
expected to be less vulnerable to rising temperatures caused by
environmental variation. Additionally, trends in early-run abundance
are mostly stable to positive, and overall early-run abundance is
similar to what it was before the initial ESA status review in the late
1990s. The SRT also found that the risks from threats to early-run
Chinook salmon were very similar to the ESU as a whole and ultimately
concluded that WC Chinook in this portion are at low risk of
extinction. Additionally, a review of spawning and rearing habitat
utilized by spring- and summer-run Chinook salmon, mainly found in ONP
and Upper Chehalis River, indicated that very little habitat was used
solely by summer- or spring-run Chinook salmon. In other words, the
majority of summer- and spring-run geography is shared with fall-run
fish. Consistent with the ESA, the 2014 SPR Policy defines ``range'' in
geographic terms, and the selection of portions for consideration
should be premised at least in part on a geographically oriented
rationale. Although run timing might provide an appropriate basis for
delineating portions under certain circumstances, here, the early-
returning populations lack sufficient spatial segregation from the
late-returning populations to be considered a valid portion for the
purposes of SPR analysis under the ESA.
The SRT did not identify any other potential portions for analysis
that had a likelihood of being at somewhat higher risk than the ESU
rangewide and biologically significant to the ESU. Given the best
available information, the SRT concluded, and NMFS concurs, that there
are no portions of the WC Chinook salmon ESU that are both biologically
significant to the long-term viability of the ESU and facing higher
extinction risk than the ESU rangewide. Therefore, NMFS concludes that
Chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction
nor are they likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
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. NMFS has independently reviewed the best
available scientific and commercial information including the petition,
public comments submitted on the 90-day findings (88 FR 85178, December
7, 2023), the WC status review report, and other published and
unpublished information, and have consulted with species experts and
individuals familiar with the WC Chinook salmon ESU.
The determination set forth here is based on a synthesis and
integration of the foregoing information. Based on all of the above,
NMFS concludes that Chinook salmon spring-run populations on the WC do
not meet the definition of a species. NMFS also concludes that Chinook
salmon in this ESU, inclusive of all run types, are not presently in
danger of extinction nor are they likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or significant portion of their
range. NMFS did not find any portion of the range where members of the
ESU were both significant to the ESU and in danger of extinction
presently or in the foreseeable future. Consequently, the WC ESU does
not warrant listing under the ESA.
This is a final action, and, therefore, NMFS is not soliciting
public comments.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
[[Page 7977]]
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 17, 2026.
Sarah Malloy,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-03292 Filed 2-17-26; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 19, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.