Proposed Rule2023-00214
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
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 11, 2023
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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.
<bullet> 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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbbcbaa9a2f5a9aeb7be9bb5b4babaf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9beb8aba0f7abacb5bc99b7b6b8b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>, (503) 230-5424; or Heather Austin, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a121f1b0e121f08541b0f090e13143a14151b1b541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb7babeabb7baadf1beaaacabb6b19fb1b0bebef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>, (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'' (<a href="https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories">https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories</a>). 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 11, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.