[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1548-1555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00214]



[[Page 1548]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 230104-0002; RTID 0648-XR123]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon and Northern California 
Coastal Chinook Salmon as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered 
Species Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: 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 the 
Oregon Coast (OC) and Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 
(SONCC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (ESUs) as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) or, alternatively, list only the spring-
run Chinook salmon components of the OC ESU and the SONCC ESU as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Petitioners also requested 
that we designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. With 
respect to the request to list the entire OC and SONCC ESUs, we find 
that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial 
information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted. For the 
request to list only the spring-run components of those ESUs, we do not 
find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action is warranted. We will 
conduct status reviews of the OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs to 
determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that 
the status reviews are comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and 
commercial information pertaining to these species from any interested 
party.

DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the 
petitioned action must be received by March 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit data and information relevant to our review 
of the status of Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon and Northern 
California Coastal Chinook salmon, identified by ``Oregon Coast and 
Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal Chinook salmon 
Petition'' or by the docket number, NOAA-NMFS-2022-0116, using 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-2022-0116 in the Search box. 
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: Gary Rule.
    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 
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/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at 
[email protected], (503) 230-5424; or Heather Austin, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, at [email protected], (301) 427-8422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 4, 2022, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition 
from the Native Fish Society, Center for Biological Diversity, and 
Umpqua Watersheds (hereafter, the Petitioners) to list the OC and SONCC 
Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered under the ESA or, 
alternatively, list only spring-run Chinook salmon in both the OC and 
SONCC ESUs as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Petitioners 
also request the designation of critical habitat concurrent with ESA 
listing. 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 make 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 information. 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 OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs in 1999 (64 FR 
50394, September 16, 1999), and we use it exclusively for defining 
distinct population segments of Pacific salmon. A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy 
clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct

[[Page 1549]]

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 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 NMFS and USFWS (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 petition'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).
    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 (50 CFR 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(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).
    At 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 petitioners' 
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 petitioners' 
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

[[Page 1550]]

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).
    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 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 completion of a comprehensive status 
review of Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) populations in Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, and California, we published a proposed rule to list 
seven Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered under the ESA (63 
FR 11482). In this proposed rule, we identified the OC Chinook salmon 
ESU as comprised of coastal populations of spring- and fall-run Chinook 
salmon from the Elk River north to the mouth of the Columbia River. We 
did not propose to list the OC ESU of Chinook salmon under the ESA, 
concluding that the ESU was neither in danger of extinction nor likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
    On September 16, 1999, following an updated status review for four 
Chinook salmon ESUs, we published a final rule to list two Chinook 
salmon ESUs as threatened under the ESA (64 FR 50394). In that final 
rule, we identified the SONCC Chinook salmon ESU as composed of coastal 
populations of spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon from Euchre Creek, 
Oregon, through the Lower Klamath River, California (inclusive) (64 FR 
50394). After assessing information concerning Chinook salmon 
abundance, distribution, population trends, and risks, and after 
considering efforts being made to protect Chinook salmon, we determined 
in that final rule that the SONCC ESU of Chinook salmon did not warrant 
listing under the ESA.
    On September 24, 2019, the Secretary of Commerce received a 
petition from the Native Fish Society, Center for Biological Diversity, 
and Umpqua Watersheds to identify OC spring-run Chinook salmon as a 
separate ESU and list the ESU as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA. On May 4, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from 
Richard K. Nawa to identify SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon as a 
separate ESU and list the ESU as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA.
    We completed a comprehensive analysis of OC and SONCC spring-run 
Chinook salmon populations in response to the petitions and announced 
our 12-month findings on August 17, 2021 (86 FR 45970). Based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available we determined that 
listing the OC and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon populations as 
threatened or endangered ESUs was not warranted. We determined that the 
OC and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon populations do not meet the ESU 
Policy criteria to be classified as ESUs separate from the OC and SONCC 
fall-run Chinook salmon populations and, therefore, do not meet the 
statutory definition of a species under the ESA.

Evaluation of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS' Files

    The petition contains information and assertions in support of 
listing the OC Chinook salmon ESU and SONCC Chinook salmon ESU, or, 
alternatively, listing only the spring-run components of the OC and 
SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs. Under the spring-run-only alternative, the 
Petitioners state that the entire contents of their previous petitions 
are expressly incorporated in the current petition by reference. As 
described above, in response to the previous petitions we completed a 
comprehensive analysis of OC and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon 
populations and concluded that they do not meet the statutory 
definition of a species under the ESA. The Petitioners do not provide 
any new information to support identifying and listing spring-run only 
OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs as threatened or endangered species 
under the ESA. Based on information provided by the Petitioners, we 
find that the petition does not present substantial scientific and 
commercial information indicating that identifying and listing a 
spring-run only OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs may be warranted. 
Therefore, we will focus on the Petitioner's claims that the previously 
identified OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs warrant listing as a 
threatened or endangered species under the ESA.

OC Chinook Salmon Status and Trends

    Although the Petitioners request that we list the entire OC Chinook 
salmon ESU, which consists of spring-run and fall-run components, the 
Petitioners focus their analysis of status and trends and threats on 
the spring-run component of the ESU. There is very little information 
in the petition about the status and trends and threats facing the 
fall-run component of the ESU.
    The Petitioners assert that spring-run Chinook salmon populations 
in the OC Chinook salmon ESU have suffered significant declines in 
numbers from historical abundance. The Petitioners assert that former 
spring-run populations in the Siuslaw, Coos, and Salmon rivers are 
apparently extirpated and that small, very depressed populations of 
spring-run Chinook salmon remain in the Tillamook, Nestucca, Siletz, 
Alsea, and Coquille Rivers (Percy et al., 1974; Nicholas and Hankin 
1989; Kostow et al., 1995; ODFW 2005; ODFW 2017; ODFW 2018 unpublished 
data; Rasmussen and Nott 2019). The Oregon Department of Fish

[[Page 1551]]

and Wildlife (ODFW, 2005) concluded that the Siletz spring-run Chinook 
salmon population, although small, passed all assessment criteria and 
was not considered at risk. ODFW (2005) further found that spring-run 
Chinook salmon populations in the Coquille and Alsea Rivers were 
sufficiently spatially diverse, independent, and free of hybridization, 
but due to chronically low adult returns were still considered 
potentially at risk. Citing the above information sources and adult 
counts at Winchester Dam, the Petitioners also assert that the North 
Umpqua River supports the only remaining large spring-run Chinook 
salmon population in the OC Chinook salmon ESU, but conclude recent 
surveys by the U.S. Forest Service and viability analyses by other 
researchers (Ratner and Lande, 1996) indicate the South Umpqua River 
run has been severely depleted.
    The Petitioners also call attention to the Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife's Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management 
Plan (CMP) (ODFW, 2014) and fish counts at Winchester Dam (ODFW, 2019) 
in support of their assertions that spring-run Chinook salmon 
populations are at risk of extinction. The CMP is the State of Oregon's 
plan for long-term conservation of naturally-produced salmon, 
steelhead, and trout on the Oregon Coast. The CMP identifies 
populations within the OC Chinook salmon ESU, and recognizes that while 
there are spring-run life history variants present in many of the OC 
Chinook salmon populations, only the North and South Umpqua Rivers 
support runs that are sufficiently isolated to be considered 
independent spring-run Chinook salmon populations (ODFW, 2014). Spring-
run Chinook salmon in the North Umpqua River were found to be viable, 
although with a decreasing trend in abundance (1972-2010). South Umpqua 
spring-run Chinook salmon had a low extinction risk (<5 percent) and an 
increasing trend in abundance (1972-2010), but the population was 
considered non-viable because the current abundance was low and 
carrying capacity estimated to be less than necessary to maintain 
evolutionary potential to persist in future conditions (ODFW, 2014). 
The CMP assessments for OC Chinook salmon populations outside of the 
Umpqua Basin, which use the predominant fall-run Chinook salmon to 
evaluate population viability, found all populations were viable except 
for Elk River.
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a fish 
counting station at Winchester Dam on the North Umpqua River. Although 
the most recent (2011-2018) average Winchester Dam counts of spring-run 
Chinook salmon in the North Umpqua show an improvement over historic 
lows, these counts indicate a decreasing trend of natural-origin adult 
returns over the last 8 years (ODFW, 2019). Fieldwork conducted in 2019 
by an inter-agency team confirmed that abundance of spring-run Chinook 
salmon in the South Umpqua remains low after recent declines (Kruzic, 
2019).
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that a reasonable 
person would conclude current demographic risks indicate that OC 
Chinook salmon may be at risk of extinction and thus their status 
warrants further investigation.

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors for OC Chinook Salmon

    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.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    The Petitioners assert that OC Chinook salmon face numerous threats 
to suitable habitat, including impacts from historical and ongoing 
logging practices, agricultural practices, channelization, and 
urbanization. NMFS' OC coho salmon 5-year review (NMFS, 2022) evaluated 
the status of habitat threats over an area almost completely co-
extensive with the range of OC Chinook salmon and concluded that 
degraded habitat conditions in this area continue to be of concern, 
particularly with regard to land use and development activities that 
affect the quality and accessibility of habitats and habitat-forming 
processes.
    The Petitioners assert that habitat degradation due to logging and 
roads reduces stream shade, increases fine sediment levels, reduces 
levels of in-stream large wood, and alters watershed hydrology, which 
is supported by similar conclusions in NMFS' 2011 Final Rule listing OC 
coho salmon under the ESA (76 FR 35755, June 20, 2011), describing 
habitat that is co-extensive with the range of OC Chinook salmon. 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, and spawning. 
Perry and Jones (2017) found that after an initial delay, base 
streamflows were substantially decreased for decades in logged areas as 
compared to pre-logging conditions. The Petitioners also assert that 
timber harvest and road construction harm OC Chinook salmon by altering 
stream flow, increasing sediment loading, contaminant concentrations, 
and temperatures, and decreasing dissolved oxygen. References to NMFS' 
2011 OC coho salmon listing (76 FR 35755, June 20, 2011) and U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management (USBLM) analysis of timber harvest in the 
Siletz River watershed (USBLM, 1996) support their assertion.
    The Petitioners further assert that dams, water diversions, and 
other barriers impact OC Chinook salmon by blocking suitable riverine 
habitat, impeding migration, and reducing water quality and quantity. 
NMFS' 2011 OC coho listing concluded that fish passage has been blocked 
in many streams by improperly designed culverts and is limited in 
estuaries by tide gates in the range of the OC coho salmon ESU. The 
Petitioners assert that large dams significantly reduce the amount of 
spawning and rearing habitat accessible to migrating Chinook salmon. 
However, the Oregon Native Fish Status Report (ODFW, 2005) concluded 
that essentially all potential OC Chinook salmon habitat remains 
accessible (although recognizing this assessment did not capture fine-
scale blockages, such those caused by culverts). The Petitioners also 
assert that dams (large and small), reservoirs, diversions, and other 
barriers can significantly delay upstream and downstream migration. The 
most recent NMFS 5-year review of OC coho salmon (NMFS, 2022) 
recognizes that impeded fish passage and habitat access is a concern in 
many watersheds within their range, although this is not considered a 
primary limiting factor.
    The Petitioners assert that dams and diversions also have the 
potential to decrease downstream flows, and that decreased summer and 
fall baseflows can result in increased water temperatures that are 
harmful to OC

[[Page 1552]]

Chinook salmon. As referenced in the petition, Bottom et al. (1985) 
cited low streamflows and high summer temperatures exacerbated by water 
withdrawals as problems for many streams (notably Tillamook Bay 
tributaries and Alsea, Siletz, Siuslaw, and Umpqua Rivers). The 2022 
NMFS 5-year review of OC coho salmon recognizes water quality and 
quantity as primary or secondary limiting factors for many coastal 
basins, and the Oregon CMP (ODFW, 2014) lists low flows and high 
temperatures as primary limiting factors for OC Chinook salmon.
    The Petitioners also highlight other ongoing anthropogenic 
disturbances that may cause habitat degradation, including gravel 
mining, pollutants, and stream channelization, which is consistent with 
findings in NMFS' 2011 Final Rule to list OC coho salmon and limiting 
factors (particularly reduced habitat complexity) identified in the 
2022 NMFS OC coho salmon 5-year review.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that habitat 
destruction and curtailment of their range may be posing a threat to 
the continued existence of OC Chinook salmon.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Petitioners assert that existing Federal and State regulatory 
mechanisms are not sufficient to protect and recover OC Chinook salmon 
and their habitat. Although the Petitioners found harvest to be a 
concern above, the focus of their discussion in this section is on 
regulatory mechanisms for habitat protection.
    The Petitioners state that co-occurrence of OC Chinook salmon with 
other ESA-listed species does afford them some habitat benefits where 
their ranges overlap. The range of Chinook salmon overlaps 
substantially with listed OC coho salmon and therefore falls almost 
entirely within OC coho salmon designated critical habitat. However, 
the Petitioners assert that there is little evidence that improved 
habitat protections under the ESA since OC coho salmon were listed have 
resulted in actions sufficient to lead to recovery of either species.
    The Petitioners assert that the USBLM's resource management plans 
do not provide adequate protection for OC Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners assert that allowable logging practices and aquatic 
conservation strategies under the resource management plans do not 
effectively protect OC Chinook salmon habitat. The Petitioners cite 
NMFS' comments in its review of the draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for the revision of the resource management plans (NMFS, 
2015b) and later comments by conservation groups (NFS, 2015; American 
Rivers et al., 2016) to support their claim that the resource 
management plans are not sufficient to adequately maintain and restore 
riparian and aquatic habitat necessary for conservation of anadromous 
fish.
    The Petitioners also assert that the U.S. Forest Service's forest 
plans do not provide adequate protection for OC Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners contend that the National Forest Management Act does not 
effectively limit long-term impacts to salmon habitat in Oregon Coast 
watersheds because it does not prohibit the U.S. Forest Service from 
carrying out management actions and projects that harm the species or 
habitat. Petitioners also assert that National Forest Plans have 
limited ability to protect OC Chinook salmon habitat because National 
Forest lands make up a small portion of Oregon Coast watersheds 
relative to private lands.
    The Petitioners further assert that the licensing process for non-
Federal hydropower projects does not necessarily provide adequate 
protections for OC Chinook salmon. The Federal Power Act mandates that 
when issuing licenses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission include 
conditions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected 
by hydropower projects. The Petitioners assert that although the 
Commission must seek recommendations from the USFWS and NMFS, the 
Commission can reject such measures if they determine there is not 
substantial evidence of need, and the timeline of most licenses (30-50 
years) limits the opportunity for future improvements. Petitioners also 
assert that water quality protections under the Coastal Zone Management 
Act and Clean Water Act are not adequately protective of OC Chinook 
salmon habitat. The Petitioners cite to NOAA's and the Environmental 
Protection Agency's findings that Oregon's coastal nonpoint pollution 
control program is inadequate (NOAA and EPA, 2013), and NMFS' 
conclusion that Clean Water Act programs are not sufficient to protect 
Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat (NMFS, 2015).
    The Petitioners additionally assert that State forest management is 
also not adequately protective of salmon habitat. The Petitioners cite 
NMFS' comments, from the 2011 Final Rule listing OC coho salmon under 
the ESA (76 FR 35755, June 20, 2011), that the Oregon Forest Practices 
Act may not adequately protect OC coho salmon habitat in support of 
their assertion that it is therefore unlikely to protect OC Chinook 
salmon habitat. The Petitioners further point to an evaluation by 
Talberth and Fernandez (2015), which found the Oregon Forest Practices 
Act does not provide stream buffers in all areas adequate to protect 
water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife and allows clearcutting 
in areas prone to landslides and with cold-water fish habitat, in 
support of their conclusion that the Act does not adequately limit 
harmful clearcutting practices. The Petitioners also assert that the 
2010 Northwest Oregon Forest Management Plan and the Elliot Forest 
Management Plan do not contain sufficient measures to manage or protect 
OC Chinook salmon and, in support of this claim, reference NMFS' 2011 
OC coho listing Final Rule which stated NMFS was unable to conclude 
these plans provide for OC coho salmon habitat capable of supporting 
viable populations during both good and poor marine conditions.
    The Petitioners point out that there have been various State 
watershed and salmon management plans with goals for protecting and 
recovering salmon, including the 1991 Coastal Chinook Salmon Plan, 1997 
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, Siletz and Alsea River 
Basin Fish Management Plans, 2006 Oregon Conservation Strategy, and 
2014 Coastal Multispecies Conservation and Management Plan. However, 
Petitioners assert that despite all of these plans, OC Chinook salmon 
populations have continued to decline or remain at depressed levels, 
and State land managers continue to allow logging and other activities 
and programs that may harm salmon and degrade their habitat, indicating 
these plans are inadequate to protect OC Chinook salmon.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we conclude there is 
sufficient indication that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms may be posing a threat to the continued existence of OC 
Chinook salmon.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Hatcheries
    The Petitioners assert that fish hatcheries have negative impacts 
on OC Chinook salmon by causing competition in the wild between 
hatchery and wild fish, supporting mixed-stock fisheries that have 
disproportionately harmed wild Chinook salmon, and promoting

[[Page 1553]]

hybridization between spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners assert that hatchery programs within the OC Chinook salmon 
ESU are intended for fisheries augmentation, and there are no 
conservation or reintroduction hatchery programs at this time.
    The Oregon CMP (ODFW, 2014) has recognized hatcheries as a primary 
limiting factor for OC Chinook salmon in the Elk River, a secondary 
risk factor for stocks in the Salmon River, and a potential limiting 
factor for other OC Chinook salmon populations in the ESU. The risk 
associated with hatcheries as a limiting factor for these populations 
is primarily due to the potential genetic impacts of hatchery fish 
interbreeding with natural-origin fish on spawning grounds, although 
not specifically interbreeding between fall- and spring-run Chinook 
salmon. The potential for competition between naturally-produced and 
hatchery-origin fish is also recognized. However, the specific effects 
of coastal hatchery programs have not been systematically assessed 
(ODFW, 2014).
Climate Change and Ocean Conditions
    The Petitioners also assert that ongoing threats of poor ocean 
conditions and climate change are likely to threaten the continued 
existence of OC Chinook salmon. As described in NMFS' 5-year reviews 
(Stout et al., 2012; NMFS, 2016; NMFS, 2022) and ESA listing of OC coho 
salmon (76 FR 35755, June 20, 2011), variability in ocean conditions in 
the Pacific Northwest is a concern for the persistence of Oregon Coast 
salmonids because it is uncertain how populations will fare in periods 
of poor ocean survival when freshwater and estuarine habitats are 
degraded. The Petitioners also cite these NMFS sources to support their 
assertions that predicted effects of climate change are expected to 
negatively affect Oregon Coast salmonids through many different 
pathways, and cite the Oregon CMP (ODFW, 2014) in support of their 
statement that regional changes in climate and weather patterns will 
negatively impact Oregon coastal aquatic ecosystems and salmonids.
    The Petitioners also assert that predicted climate change impacts 
on streamflows will be exacerbated by continued forest land use 
practices. The Petitioners cite studies demonstrating recent declines 
in Pacific Northwest streamflows and predicting increasing temperatures 
in downstream reaches (Luce and Holden, 2009; Isaak et al., 2018) in 
support of their assertion that decreases in streamflow caused by 
logging will exacerbate streamflow decreases and temperature increases 
likely to occur due to climate change.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we conclude that hatcheries 
and climate change may be posing threats to the continued existence of 
OC Chinook salmon.

SONCC Chinook Salmon Status and Trends

    Although the Petitioners request that we list the entire SONCC 
Chinook salmon ESU, which consists of spring-run and fall-run 
components, the Petitioners focus their analysis of status and trends 
and threats on the spring-run component of the ESU. There is very 
little information in the petition about the status and trends and 
threats facing the fall-run component of the ESU.
    The Petitioners assert that spring-run Chinook salmon populations 
in the SONCC Chinook salmon ESU have suffered significant declines in 
numbers from historical abundance. The Petitioners cite findings by 
Nicholas and Hankin (1989) that all spring-run Chinook salmon 
populations on the Oregon coast are smaller than fall-run populations 
and are depressed from historical population sizes. The Petitioners 
present data from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 
that indicate a 25-year decline in abundance of spring-run Chinook 
salmon on the Rogue River (1981-2006) (ODFW, 2019). During a 10-year 
period (1970-1979) that spans the construction of the William Jess Dam 
(1977) on the Rogue River, an average of 28,052 adult spring-run 
Chinook salmon were counted annually. ODFW (2019) estimated that there 
were 10,240 adult spring-run Chinook salmon in 2017 and that the annual 
average for the years 2008-2017 was 9,663.
    The Petitioners note that following ODFW's adoption of the Rogue 
Spring Chinook Conservation Plan in 2007, the average annual abundance 
of natural-origin adult spring-run Chinook salmon increased from 7,596 
to 9,663 in 2017. The Petitioners assert that this increase of spring-
run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River was likely a result of the 
removal of the Gold Hill, Savage Rapids, and Gold Ray dams, which 
allowed heterozygous and homozygous fall-run Chinook salmon to ascend 
upriver rapidly and spawn with homozygous spring-run Chinook. In the 
Final Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Comprehensive 
Assessment and Update, ODFW found that while the status of spring-run 
Chinook salmon improved over the past decade the 10-year average is 
below the desired threshold of 15,000 naturally produced adult spring-
run Chinook salmon returning to the Rogue River annually (ODFW, 2019). 
The Petitioners also call attention to the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery and 
Genetic Management Plan that reports the smolt to adult return rate of 
Cole M. Rivers Hatchery spring-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River 
has been below 1 percent since 2002 (ODFW, 2016). The Petitioners 
assert that the smolt to adult return rate for natural fish is also 
likely low.
    The Petitioners further assert that the abundance of spring-run 
Chinook salmon in the Rogue River may actually be lower than reported. 
Hess et al. (2016), Prince et al. (2017) and Thompson et al. (2019) 
have studied the relationship between genetic material from a portion 
of the genome that includes the Greb1L gene (otherwise referred to as 
the Greb1L region of the genome) and run-timing in Chinook salmon and 
steelhead. The authors characterized the Greb1L region as two alleles 
(different forms) and three genotypes (different combinations of the 
alleles): Individuals with two early run-timing alleles (early-run 
homozygotes), individuals with two late run-timing alleles (late-run 
homozygotes), and individuals with one allele for the early and one for 
the late run-timing (heterozygotes). Thompson et al. (2019) asserted 
that there is a considerable amount of interbreeding between spring-run 
and fall-run Chinook salmon in the Rogue River as a result of dam 
construction. Thompson et al. (2019) analyzed samples from 2004 and 
reported that many of the spring-run Chinook salmon counted at Gold Ray 
dam were in fact heterozygotes.
    The Petitioners also call attention to a declining trend in 
abundance of adult spring-run Chinook salmon in the Smith River. The 
Petitioners cite data from snorkel surveys of spring-run Chinook salmon 
in the South Fork, Middle Fork, and North Fork of the Smith River from 
1982 to 2018 (Hanson, 2018). Hanson (2018) found that the number of 
adult spring-run Chinook salmon counted per mile (density) has been 
declining since survey counts peaked in 1996 at a density of 2.5 salmon 
per mile. Hanson (2018) reported that adult spring-run Chinook salmon 
densities have remained at less than 0.3 salmon per mile since 2007 
(Hanson, 2018). The Petitioners assert that this decline in spring-run 
Chinook salmon indicates that the population within the Smith River is 
threatened with extinction.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we conclude that SONCC 
Chinook salmon

[[Page 1554]]

populations may be at risk of extinction and thus their status warrants 
further investigation.

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors for SONCC Chinook Salmon

    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.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    The Petitioners assert that SONCC Chinook salmon face numerous 
threats to suitable habitat, including impacts from dams, logging 
practices, road building, and mining operations. The Army Corps of 
Engineers completed construction of William Jess Dam/Lost Creek 
Reservoir on the upper Rogue River in 1977. The Petitioners cite the 
Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan Comprehensive Assessment 
and Update (ODFW, 2019) in support of their assertion that artificially 
enhanced summer stream flows from Lost Creek Reservoir are adversely 
affecting Chinook salmon. ODFW (2019) found that enhanced summer stream 
flows allow fall-run Chinook salmon to spawn upstream in habitat that 
historically was utilized primarily by Chinook salmon.
    The Petitioners assert that artificially augmented high flows in 
August and September in the Rogue River may reduce egg to fry survival 
of spring-run Chinook salmon. If spring-run Chinook salmon spawn during 
high river flows in September, redds may be dewatered and embryos 
desiccated when releases from the Lost Creek Reservoir decrease during 
the reservoir fill season, which begins in January (ODFW, 2019). ODFW 
(2019) states that egg to fry survival has likely decreased as a result 
of redds being dewatered.
    The Petitioners also assert that other anthropogenic disturbances 
have degraded Chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Rogue and Smith 
Rivers. Specifically, the Petitioners assert that increased fine 
sediments due to logging, road building, and mining have adversely 
affected spawning habitat which is supported by similar conclusions in 
NMFS' 1997 final rule listing the SONCC coho salmon ESU under the ESA 
(62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997), describing habitat that is co-extensive 
with the range of SONCC Chinook salmon.
    NMFS' most recent SONCC coho salmon 5-year review (NMFS, 2016) 
evaluated the status of habitat threats over an area that includes the 
range of SONCC Chinook salmon and concluded that degraded habitat 
conditions in this area continue to be of concern, particularly with 
regard to insufficient instream flow, unsuitable water temperatures, 
and insufficient rearing habitat due to a lack of floodplain and 
channel structure. While restoration and regulatory actions have been 
undertaken to improve freshwater and estuary habitat conditions in the 
SONCC coho salmon ESU, habitat concerns remain throughout the range of 
the ESU particularly in regards to water quality, water quantity, and 
rearing habitat.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we conclude that habitat 
destruction and curtailment of their range may be posing a threat to 
the continued existence of SONCC Chinook salmon.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Petitioners assert that existing Federal and State regulatory 
mechanisms are not sufficient to protect and recover SONCC Chinook 
salmon and their habitat. The Petitioners state that the Oregon Native 
Fish Conservation Policy, The Rogue Spring Chinook Salmon Conservation 
Plan, and the Coles M. Rivers Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan do 
not provide safeguards to stabilize or reverse increases in Chinook 
salmon heterozygous for run timing. The Petitioners assert that 
insufficient measures have been taken to prevent the interbreeding 
between naturally produced Chinook salmon and hatchery produced Chinook 
salmon from the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery. The Petitioners further assert 
that the Rogue Fall Chinook Conservation Plan (ODFW, 2007) does not 
adequately address the risks of interbreeding with spring-run fish as a 
result of artificially augmented summer flows (ODFW, 2013).
    The Petitioners note that Chinook salmon on the Rogue River are not 
listed as threatened or endangered under the Oregon State Endangered 
Species Act. The Petitioners assert that while the Rogue Spring Chinook 
Species Management Unit/SONCC ESU is on the Oregon Sensitive Species 
List, the designation does not provide regulatory protection for SONCC 
Chinook salmon.
    The Petitioners assert that the Oregon Forest Practices Act and 
California forest practice rules do not provide adequate habitat 
protections for SONCC Chinook salmon. In support of their assertions 
the Petitioners refer to NMFS' 5-year review for SONCC coho salmon 
(NMFS, 2016). NMFS' (2016) SONCC coho salmon 5-year review evaluated 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms over an area in large 
part co-extensive with the range of SONCC Chinook salmon and concluded 
that the Oregon Forest Practices Act does not provide adequate 
protection for SONCC coho salmon. NMFS (2016) noted that particular 
areas of concern include: (1) whether the widths of riparian management 
areas (RMAs) are sufficient to fully protect riparian functions and 
stream habitats; (2) whether operations allowed within RMAs will 
degrade stream habitats; (3) operations on high-risk landslide sites; 
and (4) watershed-scale effects. NMFS (2016) similarly expressed 
concerns with the adequacy of California's forest practice rules to 
provide protection for SONCC coho salmon. Specifically, NMFS 
recommended the addition of the following standards to California's 
forest practice rules: (1) provide Class II-S (standard) streams with 
the same protections afforded Class II-L (large) streams, (2) include 
provisions to ensure hydrologic disconnection between logging roads and 
streams, and (3) include provisions to avoid hauling logs on 
hydrologically connected streams during winter periods. Furthermore, 
NMFS concluded that the effects of past and present timber harvest 
activities in California continue to be an ongoing threat to the SONCC 
coho salmon ESU.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms may be posing a threat to the 
continued existence of SONCC Chinook salmon.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Hatcheries
    The Petitioners assert that the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery threatens 
the future viability of Chinook salmon in the Rogue River. The 
Petitioners assert that operation of the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery poses 
a risk to natural origin

[[Page 1555]]

Chinook salmon due to multiple factors including competition, 
predation, disease, and interbreeding. The Petitioners assert that the 
release of an average of 1.6 million Chinook salmon annually from the 
Cole M. Rivers Hatchery results in increased competition between 
naturally produced Chinook salmon and the more abundant artificially 
produced salmonids. As previously mentioned the Petitioners assert that 
hatchery produced coho salmon and steelhead prey upon natural origin 
Chinook salmon fry. The Petitioners further note that the hatchery is a 
known source of disease in Chinook salmon. Amandi et al. (1982) found 
that Chinook salmon in the Cole M. Rivers Hatchery were found to be 
infected with F. columnaris and that pathogen concentrations in the 
outflow from the hatchery were greater than concentrations from the 
other water bodies sampled. ODFW (2019) reported that it is unknown if 
the infected salmon were infected with F. columnaris before entering 
the hatchery or if the salmon contracted F. columnaris after entering 
the hatchery.
Climate Change and Ocean Conditions
    The Petitioners also assert that ongoing threats of poor ocean 
conditions and climate change are likely to threaten the continued 
existence of SONCC Chinook salmon. As described in NMFS' Oregon Coast 
coho salmon 5-year review (Stout et al., 2012; 76 FR 35755, June 20, 
2011), variability in ocean conditions in the Pacific Northwest is a 
concern for the persistence of coastal Oregon Chinook salmon. The 
Petitioners also cite Stout et al. (2012) in support of assertions that 
predicted effects of climate change are expected to negatively affect 
coastal Oregon salmonids through many different factors. The 
Petitioners cite the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (ODFW, 2014) in 
support of their assertions that regional changes in climate and 
weather patterns will negatively impact SONCC coastal aquatic 
ecosystems and salmonids. The Petitioners cite Reiman and Isaaks (2010) 
to support their assertions that variable weather and warming events 
will become more frequent in the Pacific Northwest and continue to 
threaten SONCC Chinook salmon.
    Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as 
information readily available in our files, we find that hatcheries and 
climate change may be posing threats to the continued existence of 
SONCC Chinook salmon.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well 
as information readily available in our files, we conclude that the 
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that 
the petitioned action to list the OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA may be warranted, and that the 
petition does not present substantial scientific and commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action to list only the 
spring-run components of the OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs may be 
warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA 
and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will 
commence a status review to determine whether the OC Chinook salmon ESU 
or the SONCC Chinook salmon ESU is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of their range, or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. After the conclusion of the status 
review, we will make a finding as to whether listing the OC or SONCC 
Chinook salmon ESU as endangered or threatened is warranted as required 
by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.

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 information on the OC and SONCC 
Chinook salmon ESUs. 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 OC and SONCC Chinook salmon 
ESUs. 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.
    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: January 4, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-00214 Filed 1-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P