85178 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1505 

Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754; 

telephone 512–937–7371. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0069 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes the August 

22, 2023, proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 22, 2023, we published a 

proposed rule (88 FR 57046) to list the 

toothless blindcat and widemouth 

blindcat as endangered species under 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 

proposed rule opened a 60-day 

comment period, ending October 23, 

2023. On October 12, 2023, we received 

a request to extend the public comment 

period. With this document, we reopen 

the public comment period for an 

additional 30 days, as specified above in 

DATES. 

For a description of previous Federal 

actions concerning the toothless 

blindcat and widemouth blindcat and 

information on the types of comments 

that would be helpful to us in making 

final determinations on our proposal, 

please refer to the August 22, 2023, 

proposed rule (88 FR 57046 at 57046– 

57047). 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during the reopened 

comment period on our August 22, 

2023, proposed rule to list the toothless 

blindcat and widemouth blindcat. We 

will consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposal will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Our final determinations will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive 

during both comment periods on the 

proposed rule. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during both open comment periods, our 

final determinations may differ from our 

August 22, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 

57046). Based on the new information 

we receive (and, if relevant, any 

comments on that new information), we 

may conclude that one or both of the 

species is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

one or both of the species does not 

warrant listing as either an endangered 

species or a threatened species. In our 

final rule, we will clearly explain our 

rationale and the basis for our final 

decisions, including why we made 

changes, if any, that differ from the 

August 22, 2023, proposal. 

If you already submitted comments or 

information on the August 22, 2023, 

proposed rule, please do not resubmit 

them. Any such comments are 

incorporated as part of the public record 

of the rulemaking proceeding, and we 

will fully consider them in the 

preparation of our final determinations. 

Comments should be as specific as 

possible. Please include sufficient 

information with your submission (such 

as scientific journal articles or other 

publications) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you assert. Please note that submissions 

merely stating support for, or opposition 

to, the action under consideration 

without providing supporting 

information, although noted, will not be 

considered in making a determination, 

as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

that determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials by one of the methods listed 

in ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. If you submit 

information via https://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, as 

well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov at FWS– 

R2–ES–2023–0069. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Austin Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is 

the authority for this action. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26853 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 231201–0285; RTID 0648– 

XR129] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Chinook Salmon on the Washington 

Coast as Threatened or Endangered 

Under the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request 

for information, and initiation of status 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list springrun Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) on the Washington Coast 

(WC) as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or, 

alternatively, list the existing WC 

Chinook salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit (ESU) as currently 

defined (inclusive of all run types) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. The petition also requests that we 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with the listing. We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

the petitioned action to list may be 

warranted. We will conduct an ESU 

analysis and status review to determine 

whether the petitioned action is 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85179 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

data, including traditional ecological 

knowledge pertaining to Chinook 

salmon that spawn north of the 

Columbia River and west of the Elwha 

River from any interested party. 

DATES: Scientific and commercial data 

pertinent to the petitioned action must 

be received by February 5, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit scientific 

and commercial data relevant to our 

review of the status of Chinook salmon 

on the WC, identified by ‘‘Washington 

Coast Chinook Salmon Petition’’ or by 

the docket number NOAA–NMFS– 

2023–0148, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2023–0148 in the Search 

box (note: copying and pasting the 

FDMS Docket Number directly from this 

document may not yield search results). 

Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

• Mail or Hand-Delivery: Protected 

Resources Division, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 

#1100, Portland, OR 97232. Attn: 

Shivonne Nesbit. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Electronic copies of the petition and 

related materials are available from the 

NMFS website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangeredspecies-conservation/candidate-speciesunder-endangered-species-act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shivonne Nesbit, NMFS West Coast 

Region, at shivonne.nesbit@noaa.gov, 

(503) 231–6741; or Margaret Miller, 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources, at 

margaret.h.miller@noaa.gov, (301) 427– 

8457. 

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 the 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 request the 

designation of critical habitat 

concurrent with ESA listing. 

Previously, in 1999, we identified the 

WC Chinook salmon ESU as comprised 

of coastal populations of spring-, 

summer- and fall-run Chinook salmon 

spawning north of the Columbia River 

and west of the Elwha River and 

determined that the ESU did not 

warrant listing as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (63 FR 

14308, March 24, 1999). The Petitioners 

are requesting that spring-run Chinook 

salmon on the WC be considered as a 

separate ESU and listed as threatened or 

endangered. The Petitioners assert that 

new research into the genomic basis for 

premature migration in salmonids 

demonstrates that significant genetic 

differences underlie the spring- and fallrun life history types, and that the 

unique evolutionary lineage of springrun Chinook salmon warrants their 

listing as a separate ESU. The petition 

includes an overview of new research 

into the genomic basis for premature 

migration in salmonids, as well as 

general biological information about 

spring-run Chinook salmon on the WC 

including their distribution and range, 

life history characteristics, habitat 

requirements, as well as basin-level 

population status and trends and factors 

contributing to the populations’ status. 

The Petitioners assert that spring-run 

Chinook salmon are facing existential 

threats, and therefore, if NMFS does not 

delineate and list the spring-run WC 

Chinook salmon population as 

threatened and endangered under the 

ESA, the current WC Chinook salmon 

ESU that includes spring-, summer- and 

fall-run populations should be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. Copies of the petition are available 

as described above (see ADDRESSES). 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions, and Evaluation Framework 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 

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

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce makes a finding on 

whether that petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted, and 

to promptly publish such finding in the 

Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information in a petition indicates the 

petitioned action may be warranted (a 

‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species 

concerned during which we will 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data. In such cases, we conclude the 

review with a finding as to whether the 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months of receipt of the petition. 

Because the finding at the 12-month 

stage is based on a more thorough 

review of the available information, as 

compared to the narrow scope of review 

at the 90-day stage, a ‘‘may be 

warranted’’ finding does not prejudge 

the outcome of the status review. 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a species, 

which is defined to also include 

subspecies and, for any vertebrate 

species, any distinct population 

segment (DPS) that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, we 

issued the Policy on Applying the 

Definition of Species Under the 

Endangered Species Act to Pacific 

Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612, 

November 20, 1991), which explains 

that Pacific salmon populations will be 

considered a DPS, and hence a 

‘‘species’’ under the ESA, if it represents 

an ‘‘evolutionarily significant unit’’ of 

the biological species. The two criteria 

for delineating an ESU are: (1) It is 

substantially reproductively isolated 

from other conspecific populations; and 

(2) it represents an important 

component in the evolutionary legacy of 

the species. The ESU Policy was used to 

define the WC Chinook salmon ESU in 

1999 (64 FR 50394, September 16, 

1999), and we use it exclusively for 

defining DPSs of Pacific salmon. A joint 

NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy 

clarifies the Services’ interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘distinct population 

segment’’ for the purposes of listing, 

delisting, and reclassifying a species 

under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996). In announcing this 

policy, the Services indicated that the 

ESU Policy for Pacific salmon was 

consistent with the DPS Policy and that 

NMFS would continue to use the ESU 

Policy for Pacific salmon. 

A species, subspecies, or DPS is 

‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if 

it is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range (ESA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85180 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 

U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the 

ESA and our implementing regulations, 

we determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered based on any 

one or a combination of the following 

five section 4(a)(1) factors: the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address identified 

threats; or any other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the species’ 

existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 

424.11(c)). 

ESA-implementing regulations issued 

jointly by the Services (50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’ in 

the context of reviewing a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species as 

‘‘credible scientific or commercial 

information in support of the 

petitioner’s claims such that a 

reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the action proposed in the 

petition may be warranted. Conclusions 

drawn in the petition without the 

support of credible scientific or 

commercial information will not be 

considered ‘substantial information.’ ’’ 

In reaching the initial (90-day) finding 

on the petition, we consider the 

information described in sections 50 

CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if 

applicable), and information readily 

available at the time the determination 

is made § 424.14(h)(1)(ii). 

Our determination as to whether the 

petition provides substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted will depend in part on the 

degree to which the petition includes 

the following types of information: (1) 

Information on current population 

status and trends and estimates of 

current population sizes and 

distributions, both in captivity and the 

wild, if available; (2) identification of 

the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA that may affect the species and 

where these factors are acting upon the 

species; (3) whether and to what extent 

any or all of the factors alone or in 

combination identified in section 4(a)(1) 

of the ESA may cause the species to be 

an endangered species or threatened 

species (i.e., the species is currently in 

danger of extinction or is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable 

future), and, if so, how high in 

magnitude and how imminent the 

threats to the species and its habitat are; 

(4) information on adequacy of 

regulatory protections and effectiveness 

of conservation activities by States as 

well as other parties, that have been 

initiated or that are ongoing, that may 

protect the species or its habitat; and (5) 

a complete, balanced representation of 

the relevant facts, including information 

that may contradict claims in the 

petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). 

If the petitioner provides 

supplemental information before the 

initial finding is made and states that it 

is part of the petition, the new 

information, along with the previously 

submitted information, is treated as a 

new petition that supersedes the 

original petition, and the statutory 

timeframes will begin when such 

supplemental information is received. 

See 50 CFR 424.14(g). 

We may also consider information 

readily available at the time the 

determination is made 

(§ 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). We are not required 

to consider any supporting materials 

cited by the petitioner if the petitioner 

does not provide electronic or hard 

copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. 

copyright law, or appropriate excerpts 

or quotations from those materials (e.g., 

publications, maps, reports, letters from 

authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii) 

and 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6). 

The ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information’’ standard must 

be applied in light of any prior reviews 

or findings we have made on the listing 

status of the species that is the subject 

of the petition. Where we have already 

conducted a finding on, or review of, 

the listing status of that species 

(whether in response to a petition or on 

our own initiative), we will evaluate any 

petition received thereafter seeking to 

list, delist, or reclassify that species to 

determine whether a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude that the action 

proposed in the petition may be 

warranted despite the previous review 

or finding. Where the prior review 

resulted in a final agency action—such 

as a final listing determination, 90-day 

not-substantial finding, or 12-month 

not-warranted finding—a petitioned 

action will generally not be considered 

to present substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

the action may be warranted unless the 

petition provides new information or 

analysis not previously considered. See 

50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). 

During the 90-day finding stage, we 

do not conduct additional research, and 

we do not solicit information from 

parties outside the agency to help us in 

evaluating the petition. We will accept 

the Petitioner’s sources and 

characterizations of the information 

presented if they appear to be based on 

accepted scientific principles, unless we 

have specific information in our files 

that indicates the petition’s information 

is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or 

otherwise irrelevant to the requested 

action. Information that is susceptible to 

more than one interpretation or that is 

contradicted by other available 

information will not be dismissed at the 

90-day finding stage, so long as it is 

reliable and a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude it supports the 

petitioner’s assertions. In other words, 

conclusive information indicating that 

the species may meet the ESA’s 

requirements for listing is not required 

to make a positive 90-day finding. We 

will not conclude that a lack of specific 

information alone necessitates a 

negative 90-day finding if a reasonable 

person conducting an impartial 

scientific review would conclude that 

the unknown information itself suggests 

the species may be at risk of extinction 

presently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

To make a 90-day finding on a 

petition to list a species, we evaluate 

whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the subject 

species may be either threatened or 

endangered, as defined by the ESA. 

First, we evaluate whether the 

information presented in the petition, in 

light of the information readily available 

in our files, indicates that the petitioned 

entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ eligible for 

listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate 

whether the information indicates that 

the species faces an extinction risk such 

that listing, delisting, or reclassification 

may be warranted; this may be indicated 

in information expressly discussing the 

species’ status and trends, or in 

information describing impacts and 

threats to the species. We evaluate any 

information on specific demographic 

factors pertinent to evaluating 

extinction risk for the species (e.g., 

population abundance and trends, 

productivity, spatial structure, age 

structure, sex ratio, diversity, current 

and historical range, habitat integrity or 

fragmentation), and the potential 

contribution of identified demographic 

risks to extinction risk for the species. 

We then evaluate the potential links 

between these demographic risks and 

the causative impacts and threats 

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

Information presented on impacts or 

threats should be specific to the species 

and should reasonably suggest that one 

or more of these factors may be 

operative threats that act or have acted 

on the species to the point that it may 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85181 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Broad statements about generalized 

threats to the species, or identification 

of factors that could negatively impact 

a species, alone, do not constitute 

substantial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted. We look for 

information indicating that not only is 

the particular species exposed to a 

factor, but that the species may be 

responding in a negative fashion; then 

we assess the potential significance of 

that negative response. 

Many petitions identify risk 

classifications made by 

nongovernmental organizations, such as 

the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the 

American Fisheries Society, or 

NatureServe, as evidence of extinction 

risk for a species. Risk classifications by 

such organizations or made under other 

Federal or State statutes may be 

informative, but such classification 

alone may not provide the rationale for 

a positive 90-day finding under the 

ESA. For example, as explained by 

NatureServe, their assessments of a 

species’ conservation status do ‘‘not 

constitute a recommendation by 

NatureServe for listing under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act’’ because 

NatureServe assessments ‘‘have 

different criteria, evidence 

requirements, purposes and taxonomic 

coverage than government lists of 

endangered and threatened species, and 

therefore these two types of lists should 

not be expected to coincide’’ (https://

explorer.natureserve.org/ 

AboutTheData/DataTypes/ 

ConservationStatusCategories). 

Additionally, species classifications 

under IUCN and the ESA are not 

equivalent; data standards, criteria used 

to evaluate species, and treatment of 

uncertainty are also not necessarily the 

same. Thus, when a petition cites such 

classifications, we will evaluate the 

source of information that the 

classification is based upon in light of 

the standards on extinction risk and 

impacts or threats discussed above. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 9, 1998, following the 

completion of a comprehensive status 

review of Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

populations in Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, and California, we identified a 

total of 15 ESUs of Chinook salmon and 

published a proposed rule to list 7 

Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (63 FR 

11482). We also identified the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU as comprised of 

coastal populations of spring-, summerand fall-run Chinook salmon spawning 

north of the Columbia River and west of 

the Elwha River. We 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, we made the determination 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). 

Evaluation of Petition and Information 

Readily Available in NMFS’ Files 

The petition contains information and 

assertions in support of listing Chinook 

salmon under the two alternatives 

requested by the Petitioners. As 

discussed above, based on biological, 

genetic, and ecological information 

compiled and reviewed as part of a 

previous West Coast Chinook salmon 

status review (Myers et al., 1998), we 

included all spring-, summer- and fallrun Chinook salmon populations in 

river basins north of the Columbia River 

and west of the Elwha River in the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU (63 FR 11482, 

March 9, 1998). While run-timing was 

recognized as having a heritable basis, 

review of genetic data at that time did 

not identify clear sub-groups associated 

with migration timing within the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU. Spring- and fallrun Chinook salmon were found to be 

separate ESUs in other areas (e.g., in the 

upper Columbia River, Snake River, and 

Sacramento River drainages). However, 

in coastal areas, life-history and genetic 

differences between runs were found to 

be modest, with spring- and fall-run fish 

exhibiting similar ocean distribution 

patterns and genetic characteristics 

(Myers et al., 1998). 

The Petitioners present new 

information on the genomics of runtiming and assert that the spring-run 

populations of the WC Chinook salmon 

ESU meet the two ESU criteria outlined 

by the above-described ESU policy. 

Relying on inferred evidence from 

outside the WC ESU, the Petitioners 

assert that spring-run Chinook salmon 

in the WC ESU have been sufficiently 

isolated from fall-run Chinook salmon 

for evolutionarily important differences 

to have arisen and been maintained. The 

Petitioners present genetic evidence 

from populations outside the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU to suggest the 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

on the WC may qualify as a separate 

ESU from the fall-run populations. The 

Petitioners assert that findings from 

recently published articles on the 

evolutionary basis of premature 

migration in Pacific salmon (Prince et 

al., 2017; Narum et al., 2018; and 

Thompson et al., 2019; Koch and Narum 

2020; Thompson et al., 2020; Willis et 

al., 2021; Waples et al., 2022) indicate 

that spring-run Chinook salmon in the 

WC ESU should be considered a 

separate ESU. Specifically, Prince et al., 

(2017) reported on a survey of genetic 

variation between mature (fall-run) and 

premature (spring- and summer-run) 

migrating populations of steelhead and 

Chinook salmon from California, 

Oregon, and Washington. Thompson et 

al., (2019) provide additional 

information about genetic 

differentiation between mature- and 

premature-migrating Chinook salmon in 

the Rogue River, Oregon, and in the 

Klamath River, California, particularly 

in response to anthropogenic changes. 

The Petitioners suggest that the results 

of these studies indicate that premature 

migration arose from a single 

evolutionary event within the species 

and, if lost, is not likely to re-evolve in 

time frames relevant to conservation 

planning. Petitioners further assert that 

spring-run Chinook salmon have a 

unique evolutionary history that is 

distinct from fall-run Chinook salmon in 

the same watersheds (Prince et al., 2017; 

Thompson et al., 2020). 

The Petitioners also assert that the 

Chinook salmon spring-run life history 

represents an important component of 

the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

In support of this assertion, the 

Petitioners describe specific ecological 

(Quinn et al., 2016) and evolutionary 

benefits of the life history variation 

provided by spring-run populations 

within the WC Chinook salmon ESU. 

The Petitioners describe how spring-run 

Chinook salmon tend to spawn higher 

up in the watershed than fall-run and 

how this adds to the spatial distribution 

of the species. We find that the petition 

presents scientific or commercial 

information indicating that spring-run 

Chinook salmon on the WC may qualify 

as an ESU pursuant to our ESU Policy. 

WC Chinook Salmon Status and Trends 

The Petitioners’ listing request is 

focused on spring-run Chinook salmon 

declines in abundance, and they 

provide their analysis on the viability of 

and threats facing spring-run 

populations. Less information is 

provided regarding the fall-run 

populations. 

The Petitioners assert that spring-run 

Chinook salmon populations in the WC 

ESU have suffered significant declines 

in numbers from historical abundance. 

The Petitioners cited findings by 

Nicholas and Hankin (1989) that all 

spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

on the WC are depressed from historical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85182 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

population sizes. Historically, springrun Chinook salmon were abundant in 

the Chehalis, Quinault, Queets, and Hoh 

basins on the WC. The Petitioners use 

estimated in-river run size data from the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC 2018) for the Chehalis, Queets, 

and Hoh basins and unpublished data 

from the Quinault Indian Nation for the 

Upper Quinault River. For all four 

basins, the data purportedly 

demonstrate downward population 

trends for spring-run Chinook salmon. 

The Petitioners also cite catch data from 

Tribal gillnet fishery records from 1953– 

1970 provided by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) and assert that the spring-run 

populations declined more rapidly than 

the fall-run populations during this time 

period. The petitioners attribute this 

decline to a rapid rise in the ocean 

salmon fisheries, both commercial and 

recreational. In particular, they note the 

growth in the troll fisheries off the WC 

as a factor contributing to the decline of 

all populations of WC Chinook springrun salmon populations. The Petitioners 

assert that the spatial and temporal 

patterns of the fisheries (commercial, 

recreational, and tribal) are likely a 

major factor that affected the spring-run 

populations of the WC Chinook salmon. 

A previous West Coast Chinook 

salmon status review (Myers et al., 

1998) concluded that the long-term 

trends for most populations in this WC 

ESU were upward; however, several 

smaller populations (associated run 

types is unclear) were experiencing 

sharply downward trends. The status 

review concluded that fall-run 

populations were predominant and 

tended to be at a lower risk than springor summer-runs. The status review 

concluded that Chinook salmon in this 

ESU were not in danger of extinction 

nor were they likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. However, it has been 

over 20 years since this status review 

was published and recent information 

on its status is incomplete. 

The data in our files indicates that the 

WC Chinook salmon ESU consists of 

numerous fall-run populations and a 

smaller number of spring/summer-run 

populations. Overall abundance has 

been variable over the past several 

decades, but most populations do not 

have significant trends. The spring/ 

summer-run populations make up about 

10 percent of the total ESU abundance, 

and most populations are small with a 

few hundred or fewer spawners 

annually. If the spring/summer runs on 

the WC were to be considered a separate 

ESU, the extinction risk associated with 

these small populations would warrant 

evaluation. If both spring/summer- and 

fall-run were to be considered part of 

the same ESU, the contribution of runtiming diversity to that ESU’s viability 

would warrant further evaluation based 

on updated science related to the 

genetic basis of run-timing. 

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

for Washington Coast Chinook Salmon 

The Petitioners assert that all five ESA 

section 4(a)(1) factors contribute to the 

need to list spring-run Chinook salmon 

on the WC or, alternatively, the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU (inclusive of all 

run types) as a threatened or endangered 

species under the ESA. While the 

petition presents information on each of 

the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, we find 

that the information presented, 

including information within our files, 

regarding the destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of the species habitat or 

range; the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species continued existence is 

substantial enough to make a 

determination that a reasonable person 

would conclude that the species may 

warrant listing as endangered or 

threatened based on these factors alone. 

As such, we focus our below discussion 

on the evidence and present our 

evaluation of the information regarding 

these factors and their impact on the 

extinction risk of the species. Each of 

these factors is discussed in further 

detail below. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

The Petitioners assert that WC 

Chinook salmon face numerous threats 

to suitable habitat, including impacts 

from historical and ongoing logging 

practices, road development, dams, 

water diversions, migration barriers, 

pollutants, and channelization. 

The Petitioners assert that habitat 

degradation due to logging and road 

development alters streamflow, 

sediment loading, sediment transport 

and deposition, channel stability and 

shape, substrate composition, stream 

temperatures, water quality, and 

riparian conditions within a watershed. 

This is supported by similar 

conclusions in NMFS’ 1998 

determination for the WC chinook 

salmon ESU that evaluated the status of 

habitat threats over an area within the 

range of the WC Chinook salmon ESU 

and concluded that degraded habitat 

conditions in this area continue to be of 

concern, largely related to forestry 

practice (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998). 

The Petitioners specifically assert that 

extensive logging can be harmful to 

Chinook salmon populations by causing 

depletion of summer and early fall 

streamflows needed for adult migration, 

holding, spawning, and rearing. Perry 

and Jones (2017) found that after an 

initial delay, base streamflows were 

substantially decreased for decades in 

logged areas as compared to streamflows 

under pre-logging conditions. 

The Petitioners further assert that 

large and small dams, water diversions, 

and other migration barriers impact WC 

Chinook salmon by significantly 

reducing the amount of spawning and 

rearing habitat, altering downstream 

river flows and temperature regimes, 

and delaying and impeding migration. 

Petitioners specifically describe dams in 

the Chehalis River that were built 

without fish passage and that have 

blocked access to historical habitats. 

The Petitioners also highlight other 

ongoing anthropogenic disturbances 

that may cause habitat degradation 

including pollutants and 

channelization. The Petitioners cite 

numerous studies (Sedell and Froggatt 

1984, Hulse et al., 2002, and Lestelle et 

al., 2005) that describe habitat impacts 

including decreased habitat complexity, 

decreased summer flows and water 

quality, and increased water 

temperatures. 

The Petitioners cite Myers et al., 

(1998), noting that all basins in the ESU 

were affected by habitat degradation, 

largely related to forestry practices, and 

that only the Queets and Quinault River 

basins were determined not to have 

substantial habitat problems. While the 

Petitioners provide general descriptions 

of ongoing habitat degradation from 

various sources, they do not provide 

specific information that would suggest 

that habitat conditions overall have 

markedly deteriorated since our last 

review in the 1990s. In fact, while we 

know that individual instances of 

habitat modification have taken place 

since the 1990s, over the past couple of 

decades conditions may have improved 

as a result of new forest harvest 

regulations, fish passage requirements, 

and habitat restoration efforts. However, 

it is reasonable to assume that the 

persistence of degraded habitat 

conditions may be exerting sustained 

negative effects on Chinook salmon on 

the WC, and disproportionately so on 

spring-run populations. Consequently, 

changes in overall habitat condition and 

distribution are inconclusive and may 

be open to interpretation. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Petitioners assert that existing 

international, Federal and State 

regulatory mechanisms are not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85183 

sufficient to protect and ensure recovery 

of spring-run Chinook salmon occurring 

on the WC and their habitat. With 

respect to international regulatory 

mechanisms, the Petitioners assert that 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty does not 

require consideration of the condition of 

individual populations or the impacts 

on spring-run Chinook salmon 

populations from the WC in the 

determination of harvest allocations. 

The Petitioners state that, at the Federal 

level, the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the ESA, the 

National Forest Management Act and 

Northwest Forest Plan, Olympic 

National Park, the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) do not 

adequately protect spring-run Chinook 

salmon on the WC. Petitioners note that 

although the NEPA process requires 

Federal agencies to identify potential 

environmental impacts, NEPA analyses 

do not prohibit agencies from choosing 

project alternatives that may adversely 

affect spring-run Chinook salmon on the 

WC or their habitats. As a result, 

Petitioners assert that the NEPA process 

often affords little to no protections or 

alternatives to avoid harm to spring-run 

Chinook salmon. The Petitioners cite a 

proposed new dam on the mainstem of 

the Chehalis River as an example of a 

project that may adversely affect springrun Chinook salmon on the WC. The 

proposed dam is designed to hold back 

flows and create a temporary reservoir 

when flows exceed a threshold level to 

ameliorate flooding downstream. When 

formed, the temporary reservoir would 

inundate more than 6 miles of the upper 

mainstem Chehalis River and the lower 

reaches of several major tributaries. The 

area of inundation would encompass 

historical spring-run Chinook salmon 

spawning grounds in the upper river 

(Phinney and Bucknell 1975; 

Weyerhaeuser 1994; Lestelle et al., 

2019). The Petitioners note that, under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

determined that the proposed dam 

project may have significant impacts on 

the environment and released a draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

on the proposed dam project in 2020. 

The draft EIS used an Ecosystem 

Diagnosis and Treatment model 

(McConnaha et al., 2017; ACOE 2020) to 

analyze the potential impacts of the 

proposed dam and concluded that 

during the 5-year construction period 

Chinook salmon returning to the upper 

mainstem river could be reduced by up 

to 80 percent. The draft EIS also 

concluded that impacts from the 

proposed dam at a basin-wide scale 

were predicted to be minimal for most 

modeled species and that habitat in the 

upper watershed above Crim Creek is 

currently beneficial salmonid habitat 

that can provide a buffer against future 

potential degradation (ACOE 2020). The 

final EIS has not been completed. 

Petitioners assert that the spring-run 

Chinook salmon on the WC could be 

better protected under the ESA through 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP). 

Petitioners assert that the National 

Forest Management Act does not 

effectively limit the long-term impacts 

on salmonid habitat in Washington 

coastal watersheds from activities like 

logging, road-building, and mining. In 

1990, the USFS adopted a Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for 

the Olympic National Forest, which 

aimed to increase fish production 

potential through habitat enhancement 

projects. In 1998, the LRMP was 

amended to be consistent with the 

Northwest Forest Plan that includes an 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

intended to maintain and protect native 

fish and their habitat (Thomas et al., 

1993; Reeves et al., 2006). The ACS 

included designation of riparian 

management zones, activity-specific 

management standards, watershed 

assessments, watershed restoration, and 

identification of key watersheds. Among 

other things, the ACS requires the USFS 

to ‘‘maintain and restore the sediment 

regime under which aquatic ecosystems 

evolved’’ (USDA 1994). The Petitioners 

assert that there is little evidence to 

suggest that the habitat improvements 

described in the LRMP or ACS have 

resulted in increased salmon 

production. 

Petitioners assert further that portions 

of spring-run Chinook salmon 

populations spawn and rear within the 

Olympic National Park, benefiting from 

relatively pristine aquatic habitat 

conditions (Halofsky et al., 2011). 

However, maintenance and repair of 

park roads adjacent to rivers have 

caused significant impacts on fish and 

aquatic life. Petitioners also note that 

spring-run Chinook salmon habitat in 

the park is still impacted by legacy 

effects of past logging and roads, leading 

to ongoing impairment of salmonid 

habitat, and that logging roads and 

associated channel crossings are still 

major issues for fish habitat quality 

(Halofsky et al., 2011). 

Petitioners call attention to Section 

404 of the CWA as not adequately 

protecting spring-run Chinook salmon 

on the WC, particularly with respect to 

nonpoint sources of pollution like 

logging and farming (WDOE 2016; 

NIFWC 2020). The Petitioners assert 

that, in many areas, the Environmental 

Protection Agency-approved CWA water 

quality standards are not being met. In 

addition, Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) have not yet been developed 

and approved for many water bodies 

where the salmon are found; as a result, 

nonpoint source pollution is driving 

water quality issues in those water 

bodies. 

Petitioners assert that FERC has 

provided inadequate protection for 

anadromous fish during its licensing, 

and relicensing processes. Petitioners 

use the Wynoochee Dam in the Chehalis 

River basin as an example. Wynoochee 

Dam was constructed in 1972 for flood 

control, irrigation, and industrial water 

storage; a powerhouse was added by 

Tacoma Power for hydroelectric energy 

in 1994. A FERC permit was issued for 

the dam in 1987, at which time there 

were no federally listed species. Tacoma 

Power operates a fish collection facility 

downstream, but the Petitioners assert 

that there are no requirements to ensure 

adequate downstream flows or water 

quality for the benefit of salmonids 

downstream of the dam. 

The Petitioners reference several 

Washington state laws, initiatives, 

plans, and programs. This includes 

Washington state laws for salmon 

recovery and fish passage, the 

Washington Forest Practices Act, and 

the Washington State Environmental 

Policy Act; the Salmon Recovery 

Funding Board and affiliated Salmon 

Recovery Funding Program; the Grays 

Harbor Basin Salmon Management Plan; 

the Chehalis Basin Strategy; the 

Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon 

Plan; the State Wildlife Action Plan; and 

the salmon monitoring program 

conducted by WDFW and tribal 

biologists. However, the Petitioners 

assert that, despite the extensive efforts 

of these state and tribal management 

entities to protect the fisheries-related 

resources of the Washington coastal 

river basins, the wild spring-run 

Chinook salmon populations in those 

basins are in decline and are threatened 

with extinction. 

We conclude that regulations are 

dynamic and are frequently modified 

over time. In general, since the listing of 

multiple species of salmon and 

steelhead along the West Coast in the 

1990s, regulations have been revised to 

better protect these anadromous species. 

However, to the degree that habitat 

degradation can be an indicator of 

regulatory inadequacy, and given that 

we have found above that habitat 

degradation may be a threat to WC 

Chinook salmon, it stands to reason that 

regulatory mechanisms may be 

inadequate to protect WC Chinook 

salmon. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85184 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Climate Change and Ocean Conditions 

The Petitioners assert climate change 

is impacting the quantity and quality of 

habitat for WC Chinook salmon, 

especially spring-run populations, with 

the melting of glaciers on the Olympic 

Peninsula, changes in precipitation 

patterns, lower summer stream flows, 

higher water temperatures, and 

reduction in food due to changing ocean 

conditions. Citing the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021 

report, Petitioners call out the last four 

decades of successive air temperature 

increases, and the projected rise in 

global temperatures. Petitioners also 

assert that climate change will 

profoundly affect the Pacific Northwest. 

With a focus on the Olympic Peninsula, 

impacts such as warming, sea level rise, 

erosion, and changes in stream flows 

will not be uncommon (Halofsky et al., 

2011; Dalton et al., 2016). Petitioners 

state freshwater habitat changes due to 

climate change will adversely affect WC 

Chinook salmon, especially spring-run 

populations. Citing Halofsky et al., 

2011, the Petitioners note it is uncertain 

whether salmon populations can adapt 

quickly enough to cope with the 

combined effects of anthropogenic 

climate change. Using a 2011 NMFS 

study as support, the Petitioners also 

assert that throughout the life cycle of 

salmon along the WC, the main 

predicted effects include warmer, drier 

summers, reduced snowpack, lower 

summer flows, higher summer stream 

temperatures, and increased winter 

floods. The Petitioners assert that 

climate change is altering offshore and 

nearshore habitat of the WC including 

warming sea surface temperatures (Mote 

and Salathe 2010; Miller et al., 2013; 

USFWS 2020), upwelling pattern 

changes (Miller et al., 2013), and 

increased acidification (Miller et al., 

2013) leading to limited ocean 

productivity for salmon (Ford 2022). 

The Petitioners assert that ongoing 

threats of poor ocean conditions and 

climate change are likely to threaten the 

continued existence of WC Chinook 

salmon, including spring-run 

populations. As described in NMFS’ 5- 

year reviews (Stout et al., 2012; NMFS 

2016; NMFS 2022) variability in ocean 

conditions in the Pacific Northwest is a 

concern for the persistence of WC 

salmon because it is uncertain how 

populations will fare in periods of poor 

ocean survival when freshwater and 

estuarine habitats are degraded. 

Petitioners also assert there are 

correlations between oceanic changes 

and salmon abundance in the Pacific 

Northwest, and concerns about how 

prolonged periods of poor marine 

survival due to unfavorable ocean 

conditions may impact the population 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity of WC 

salmonids (Stout et al., 2010). 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the information 

contained in the petition, as well as 

information readily available in our 

files, we conclude that substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the petitioned action to 

list spring-run Chinook salmon on the 

WC as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA or, alternatively, list the WC 

Chinook salmon ESU (inclusive of all 

run types) as a threatened or endangered 

species under the ESA may be 

warranted. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and 

NMFS’ implementing regulations (50 

CFR424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a 

status review of Chinook salmon on the 

WC. During our status review, we will 

include an ESU analysis to determine 

the appropriate ESU(s) and evaluate the 

ESU containing spring-run fish to 

determine if listing as a threatened or 

endangered species is warranted. As 

required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

ESA, within 12 months of the receipt of 

the petition, we will make a finding as 

to whether listing WC Chinook salmon 

under the ESA is warranted. 

Information Solicited 

To ensure that our status reviews are 

informed by the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we are opening a 

60-day public comment period to solicit 

relevant new information since the 1998 

status review (Myers et al., 1998) or 

information not considered before on 

populations of Chinook salmon within 

the previously identified WC Chinook 

salmon ESU, which consists of Chinook 

salmon that spawn north of the 

Columbia River and west of the Elwha 

River. We request information from the 

public, concerned governmental 

agencies, Native American tribes, the 

scientific community, agricultural and 

forestry groups, conservation groups, 

fishing groups, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning the current 

and/or historical status of Chinook 

salmon on the WC. Specifically, we 

request information regarding: (1) 

species abundance; (2) species 

productivity; (3) species distribution or 

population spatial structure; (4) patterns 

of phenotypic, genotypic, and life 

history diversity; (5) habitat conditions 

and associated limiting factors and 

threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to 

protect and restore the species and their 

habitats; (7) information on the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, whether protections are 

being implemented, and whether they 

are proving effective in conserving the 

species; (8) data concerning the status 

and trends of identified limiting factors 

or threats; (9) information on targeted 

harvest (commercial and recreational) 

and bycatch of the species; (10) other 

new information, data, or corrections 

including, but not limited to, taxonomic 

or nomenclatural changes; and (11) 

information concerning the impacts of 

environmental variability and climate 

change on survival, recruitment, 

distribution, and/or extinction risk; and 

traditional ecological knowledge related 

to any of the previous 11 categories of 

information regarding this species. 

We request that all information be 

accompanied by: (1) supporting 

documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, or reprints of 

pertinent publications; and (2) the 

submitter’s name, and any association, 

institution, or business that the person 

represents. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (See 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: December 4, 2023. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26852 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 231201–0284; RTID 0648– 

XD436] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska; 

Proposed 2024 and 2025 Harvest 

Specifications for Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; harvest 

specifications and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2024 and 

2025 harvest specifications, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1