[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11750-11771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5471]



[[Page 11749]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Parts 226 and 227



Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Threatened Status and 
Designated Critical Habitat for Ozette Lake, Washington Sockeye Salmon; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 11750]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 226 and 227

[Docket No. 980219043-8043-01; I.D. No. 011498A]
RIN 0648-AK52


Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Threatened Status and 
Designated Critical Habitat for Ozette Lake, Washington Sockeye Salmon

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of west coast 
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations in Washington, Oregon, 
and California and has identified six Evolutionarily Significant Units 
(ESUs) within this range, namely, Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, 
Quinault Lake, Ozette Lake, Baker River, and Lake Pleasant, all in the 
State of Washington. NMFS concluded that the Ozette Lake sockeye is 
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, but that the 
other ESUs, including Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, Quinault Lake, 
Baker River, and Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon, are not in danger of 
extinction, nor are they likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future, thus determining that these ESUs did not 
warrant listing under the ESA. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to 
list Ozette Lake sockeye as threatened under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Ozette Lake sockeye spawn in Ozette Lake and its tributaries in 
Washington. NMFS is also proposing to add Baker River sockeye to the 
candidate species list because, while there is not sufficient 
information available at this time to indicate that Baker River sockeye 
warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS has 
identified specific risk factors and concerns that require further 
consideration prior to making a final determination on the overall 
health of the ESU.
    Only naturally spawned sockeye salmon are being proposed for 
listing. Critical habitat for this ESU is being proposed as the 
species' current freshwater and estuarine range and includes all 
waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding, 
naturally impassable barriers.
    NMFS is requesting public comments and input on the issues 
pertaining to this proposed rule and on integrated local/state/Federal 
conservation measures that might best achieve the purposes of the ESA 
relative to recovering the health of sockeye salmon populations and the 
ecosystems upon which they depend. Should the proposed listings be made 
final, protective regulations under the ESA would be put into effect, 
and a recovery plan would be adopted and implemented.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 1998. The dates 
and locations of public hearings regarding this proposal will be 
published in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Protected 
Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-
2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, or 
Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Sockeye and Petition 
Background

    The ESA actions on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the 
Pacific Northwest are extensive. In April 1990, NMFS received a 
petition to list Snake River, Idaho, sockeye salmon as endangered under 
the ESA, and announced shortly thereafter that a status review would be 
conducted to determine if any Snake River basin sockeye should be 
proposed for listing under the ESA (55 FR 13181). Subsequently, NMFS 
found that the petition presented substantial scientific information 
indicating that the listing may be warranted (55 FR 22942), and, on 
April 5, 1991, it proposed to list Snake River sockeye as endangered 
under the ESA (56 FR 14055). Eight months later, NMFS finalized its 
proposed rule and listed Snake River sockeye salmon as an endangered 
species under the ESA (56 FR 58619, November 20, 1991). Critical 
habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon was designated on December 28, 
1993 (58 FR 68543).
    On September 12, 1994, NMFS announced its intention to conduct a 
more comprehensive status review for west coast sockeye salmon (O. 
nerka) in response to a petition filed by Professional Resource 
Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) on March 14, 1994 (59 FR 46808). PRO-
Salmon petitioned to list Baker River, Washington, sockeye as well as 
eight populations of other species of Pacific salmon under the ESA. In 
this notice, NMFS also requested information and data regarding the 
petitioned stocks, including west coast sockeye, in Idaho, Washington, 
Oregon, and California.
    A NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), consisted of staff from NMFS' 
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, completed a coast-wide status 
review for west coast sockeye salmon (Memorandum to W. Stelle from M. 
Schiewe, October 7, 1997, ``Status Review of Sockeye Salmon From 
Washington and Oregon''). Copies of the memorandum are available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES). Early drafts of the BRT review were 
distributed to state and tribal fisheries managers and peer reviewers 
who are experts in the field to ensure that NMFS' evaluation was 
accurate and complete. The review, summarized below, identifies six 
ESUs of sockeye salmon in Washington and describes the basis for the 
BRT's conclusions regarding the ESA status of each ESU. The BRT also 
provisionally identified three populations of sockeye salmon, Big Bear 
Creek in the Lake Washington Basin, riverine spawning populations in 
various Washington rivers, and the Deschutes River basin in Oregon, 
where insufficient information exists to (1) Define the ESU; (2) assess 
the abundance; or (3) analyze the risks facing the sockeye salmon 
population unit. Sockeye salmon do not presently occur in California, 
although they may have occured historically. Sockeye did occur 
historically in two Oregon basins, but presently only a remnant 
population of uncertain origin persists in the Deschutes River basin. A 
complete status review of west coast sockeye salmon will be published 
in a forthcoming NOAA Technical Memorandum.
    The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document 
refers to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be 
confused with the term Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) described and 
identified according to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Sockeye Salmon Life History

    Sockeye salmon belong to the family Salmonidae and are one of seven 
species of Pacific salmonids in the genus Oncorhynchus. Sockeye salmon 
are anadromous, meaning they migrate from the ocean to spawn in fresh 
water. They are the third most abundant of the seven species of Pacific 
salmon, after pink and chum salmon. Unique in their appearance, the 
adult spawners

[[Page 11751]]

typically turn bright red, with a green head, hence ``red'' salmon, as 
commonly called in Alaska. During the ocean and adult migratory phase 
sockeye often have a bluish back and silver sides, giving rise to 
another common name, ``bluebacks.'' The name ``sockeye'' is thought to 
have been a corruption of the various Indian tribes'' word ``sukkai.'' 
Sockeye salmon exhibit a wide variety of life history patterns that 
reflect varying dependency on the fresh water environment. With the 
exception of certain river-type and sea-type populations, the vast 
majority of sockeye salmon spawn in or near lakes, where the juveniles 
rear for 1 to 3 years prior to migrating to sea. For this reason, the 
major distribution and abundance of large sockeye salmon stocks are 
closely related to the location of rivers that have accessible lakes in 
their watersheds for juvenile rearing (Burgner, 1991). On the Pacific 
coast, sockeye salmon inhabit riverine, marine, and lake environments 
from the Columbia River and its tributaries north and west to the 
Kuskokwim River in western Alaska (Burgner, 1991). There are also O. 
nerka life forms that are non-anadromous, meaning that most members of 
the form spend their entire lives in freshwater. Non-anadromous O. 
nerka in the Pacific Northwest are known as kokanee. Occasionally, a 
proportion of the juveniles in an anadromous sockeye salmon population 
will remain in their rearing lake environment throughout life and will 
be observed on the spawning grounds together with their anadromous 
siblings. Ricker (1938) defined the terms ``residual sockeye'' and 
``residuals'' to identify these resident, non-migratory progeny of 
anadromous sockeye salmon parents. Kokanee and residual or resident 
sockeye salmon are further discussed in the ``Status of Non-anadromous 
O. nerka'' section.
    Among the Pacific salmon, sockeye salmon exhibit the greatest 
diversity in selection of spawning habitat and great variation in river 
entry timing and the duration of holding in lakes prior to spawning. 
The vast majority of sockeye salmon typically spawn in inlet or outlet 
tributaries of lakes or along the shoreline of lakes where upwelling of 
oxygenated water through gravel or sand occurs. However, they may also 
spawn in (1) suitable stream habitat between lakes, (2) along the 
nursery lakeshore on outwash fans of tributaries or where upwelling 
occurs along submerged beaches, and (3) along beaches where the gravel 
or rocky substrate is free of fine sediment and the eggs can be 
oxygenated by wind-driven water circulation. All of these spawning 
habitats may be used by these ``lake-type'' sockeye salmon.
    Growth influences the duration of stay in the nursery lake and is 
influenced by intra- and interspecific competition, food supply, water 
temperature, thermal stratification, migratory movements to avoid 
predation, lake turbidity, and length of the growing season. Lake 
residence time usually increases the farther north a nursery lake is 
located. In Washington and British Columbia, lake residence is normally 
1 or 2 years, whereas in Alaska some fish may remain 3 or, rarely, 4 
years in the nursery lake, prior to smoltification (Burgner, 1991; 
Halupka et al., 1993).
    Adaptation to a greater degree of utilization of lake environments 
for both adult spawning and juvenile rearing has resulted in the 
evolution of complex timing for incubation, fry emergence, spawning, 
and adult lake entry that often involves intricate patterns of adult 
and juvenile migration and orientation not seen in other Oncorhynchus 
species (Burgner, 1991).
    Upon emergence from the substrate, sockeye salmon alevins exhibit a 
varied behavior that appears to reflect local adaptations to spawning 
and rearing habitat. For example, lake-type sockeye salmon juveniles 
move either downstream or upstream to rearing lakes. Periods of 
streambank holding are limited for most juvenile sockeye salmon, as 
emergents in streams above or between connecting lakes use the current 
to travel to the nursery lake. Predation on migrating sockeye salmon 
fry varies considerably with spawning location (lakeshore beach, creek, 
river, or spring area). Sockeye salmon fry mortality due to predation 
by other fish species and birds can be extensive during downstream and 
upstream migration to nursery lake habitat and is only partially 
reduced by the nocturnal migratory movement of some fry populations 
(Burgner, 1991). Juveniles emerging in streams downstream from a 
nursery lake can experience periods of particularly high predation 
compared with other juvenile sockeye. Juvenile sockeye salmon in lakes 
are visual predators, feeding on zooplankton and insect larvae 
(Foerster, 1968; Burgner, 1991). Smolt migration typically occurs 
between sunset and sunrise, beginning in late April and extending 
through early July, with southern stocks migrating the earliest.
    Sockeye salmon also spawn in mainstem rivers without juvenile lake-
rearing habitat (Foerster, 1968; Burgner, 1991). These are referred to 
as ``river-type'' and ``sea-type'' sockeye salmon. In areas where lake-
rearing habitat is unavailable or inaccessible, sockeye salmon may 
utilize river and estuarine habitat for rearing or may forgo an 
extended freshwater rearing period and migrate to sea as underyearlings 
(Birtwell et al., 1987; Wood et al., 1987a; Heifitz et al., 1989; 
Murphy et al., 1988, 1989, and 1991; Lorenz and Eiler, 1989; Eiler et 
al., 1992; Levings et al., 1995; and Wood, 1995). Riverine spawners 
that rear in rivers for 1 or 2 years are termed ``river-type'' sockeye 
salmon. Riverine spawners that migrate as fry to sea or to lower river 
estuaries in the same year, following a brief freshwater rearing period 
of only a few months, are referred to as ``sea-type'' sockeye salmon. 
River-type and sea-type sockeye salmon are common in northern areas and 
may predominate over lake-type sockeye salmon in some river systems 
(Wood et al., 1987a; Eiler et al., 1988; Halupka et al., 1993; Wood, 
1995).
    Once in the ocean, sockeye salmon feed on copepods, euphausiids, 
amphipods, crustacean larvae, fish larvae, squid, and pteropods. The 
greatest increase in length is typically in the first year of ocean 
life, whereas the greatest increase in weight is during the second 
year. Northward migration of juveniles to the Gulf of Alaska occurs in 
a band relatively close to shore, and offshore movement of juveniles 
occurs in late autumn or winter. Among other Pacific salmon, sockeye 
salmon prefer cooler ocean conditions (Burgner, 1991). Lake- or river-
type will spend from 1 to 4 years in the ocean before returning to 
freshwater to spawn.
    Adult sockeye salmon home precisely to their natal stream or lake 
habitat (Hanamura, 1966; Quinn, 1985; and Quinn et al., 1987). Stream 
fidelity in sockeye salmon is thought to be adaptive, since this 
ensures that juveniles will encounter a suitable nursery lake. Wood 
(1995) inferred from protein electrophoresis data that river- and sea-
type sockeye salmon have higher straying rates within river systems 
than lake-type sockeye salmon.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

    To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the 
identified populations of sockeye salmon must be considered ``species'' 
under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991) 
describing how the agency will apply the ESA definition of ``species'' 
to

[[Page 11752]]

anadromous salmonid species. This policy provides that a salmonid 
population will be considered distinct, and hence a species under the 
ESA, if it represents an ESU of the biological species. A population 
must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) It must be 
reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and 
(2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy 
of the biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, 
need not be absolute, but must be strong enough to permit 
evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population 
units. The second criterion is met if the population contributes 
substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a 
whole. Guidance on the application of this policy is contained in a 
scientific paper entitled ``Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the 
Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA 
Technical Memorandum entitled ``Definition of `Species' Under the 
Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' which are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    This Federal Register proposed rule summarizes biological and 
environmental information relevant to determining the nature and extent 
of sockeye salmon ESUs in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The focus of this 
document is on populations in the contiguous United States; however, 
information from Asia, Alaska, and British Columbia was also considered 
to provide a broader context for interpreting results. Further, as ESU 
boundaries are based on biological and environmental information, they 
do not necessarily conform to state or national boundaries, such as the 
U.S./Canada border.

Status of Non-anadromous O. nerka

    Within the range of west coast sockeye, there often exist 
populations of ``resident'' or ``residual'' non-anadromous sockeye 
salmon. Non-anadromous sockeye salmon are commonly referred to as 
``kokanee'' and may also be called ``residual'' or ``resident sockeye 
salmon.'' Kokanee, for purposes of this proposed rule, are defined as 
the self-perpetuating, non-anadromous form of O. nerka that occurs in 
balanced sex-ratio populations and whose parents, for several 
generations back, have spent their whole lives in freshwater. Several 
native and introduced populations of kokanee within the geographic 
range of west coast sockeye salmon may be genetically distinct and 
reproductively isolated from one another and from other O. nerka 
populations. It has long been known that kokanee can produce anadromous 
fish. However, the number of outmigrants that successfully return as 
adults is typically quite low, as the sockeye salmon morphology appears 
to be absent on the kokanee spawning grounds in areas where there is 
relatively easy access to the ocean.
    A portion of the juvenile anadromous sockeye salmon will 
occasionally remain in their lake rearing environment throughout life 
and will be observed on the spawning grounds together with their 
anadromous cohorts. These fish are defined as ``resident sockeye 
salmon'' to indicate that they are the progeny of anadromous sockeye 
salmon parents, spend their adult life in freshwater, but spawn 
together with their anadromous siblings.
    In considering the ESU status of resident forms of O. nerka, the 
key issue is the evaluation of the strength and duration of 
reproductive isolation between resident and anadromous forms. Many 
kokanee populations appear to have been strongly isolated from 
sympatric sockeye salmon populations for long periods of time. Since 
the two forms experience very different selective regimes over their 
life cycle, reproductive isolation provides an opportunity for adaptive 
divergence in sympatry. Kokanee populations that fall in this category 
will generally be considered not part of the sockeye salmon ESUs. On 
the other hand, resident fish appear to be much more closely integrated 
into some sockeye salmon populations.

ESU Determinations

    The ESU determinations described here represent a synthesis of a 
large amount of diverse information. In general, the proposed 
geographic boundaries for each ESU are supported by several different 
types of evidence. However, the diverse data sets are not always 
entirely congruent, and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the 
only ones possible. In some cases, environmental changes occur over a 
transitional zone rather than abruptly.
    Major types of information considered important by the NMFS BRT in 
evaluating ecological/genetic diversity included the following: (1) 
Physical features, such as physiography, geology, hydrology, and 
oceanic and climatic conditions; (2) biological features, including 
vegetation, ichthyogeography, zoogeography, and ``ecoregions'' 
identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (3) life 
history information, such as distributions, patterns and timing of 
spawning and migration (adult and juvenile), fecundity and egg size, 
and growth and age characteristics; and (4) genetic evidence for 
reproductive isolation between populations or groups of populations. 
Genetic data (from protein electrophoresis and DNA markers) were the 
primary evidence considered for the reproductive isolation criterion. 
This evidence was supplemented by inferences about barriers to 
migration created by natural geographic features. Based on the 
examination of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, including the biological effects of human activities, NMFS 
has identified six ESUs of west coast sockeye salmon in this region 
that can be considered ``species'' under the ESA. A brief description 
of the six ESUs follows:
    The ESUs identified by NMFS are the Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, 
Quinault Lake, Ozette Lake, Baker River, and Lake Pleasant. All of 
these ESUs are in Washington. Information required to determine the ESU 
status of sockeye salmon in Big Bear Creek in the Lake Washington Basin 
was inadequate. Sockeye salmon were seen spawning in rivers without 
lake rearing habitat in Washington, and sockeye salmon returned to the 
Deschutes River in Oregon.

(1) Okanogan River

    This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Lake Osoyoos 
through the Okanogan River via the Columbia River and spawn primarily 
in the Canadian section of the Okanogan River above Lake Osoyoos. The 
BRT distinguished Okanogan River sockeye based on (1) the very 
different rearing conditions encountered by juvenile sockeye salmon in 
Lake Osoyoos, (2) the tendency for a large percentage of 3-year-old 
returns to the Okanogan population, (3) the apparent 1-month separation 
in juvenile run-timing between Okanogan and Wenatchee-origin fish, and 
(4) the adaption of Okanogan River sockeye salmon to much higher 
temperatures during adult migration in the Okanogan River. Protein 
electrophoretic data also indicate that this population is genetically 
distinct from other sockeye salmon currently in the Columbia River 
drainage (Winans et al., 1996; Wood et al., 1996; and Thorgaard et al., 
1995).
    Sockeye salmon returns to Lake Osoyoos were severely depleted by 
the early 1900s (Davidson, 1966; Fulton, 1970) with returns to the 
Okanogan River in 1935, 1936 and 1937 amounting to 264, 895 and 2,162 
sockeye salmon respectively (Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) 
et al., 1938). The construction of Grand Coulee Dam, which completely 
blocked the passage

[[Page 11753]]

of sockeye salmon to the upper Columbia River basin, had a major impact 
on sockeye salmon in the Okanogan River. To compensate for the loss of 
habitat resulting from the total blockage of up-river fish passage by 
Grand Coulee Dam, the Federal government initiated the Grand Coulee 
Fish Maintenance Project (GCFMP) in 1939 to maintain fish runs in the 
Columbia River above Rock Island Dam. Between 1939 and 1943 all sockeye 
salmon adults returning to Rock Island Dam were trapped and transported 
to either Lake Wenatchee or Lake Osoyoos, or to one of three national 
fish hatcheries (Leavenworth, Entiat, or Winthrop) for artificial 
propagation (Fish and Hanavan, 1948; Mullan, 1986). After 1944, all 
sockeye salmon passing Rock Island Dam and returning to the Wenatchee 
and Okanogan Rivers were essentially the progeny of relocated stock. 
Mullan (1986) showed that between 1944 and 1948, hatchery-reared 
sockeye salmon constituted 5 to 98 percent of the total run. By the 
mid-1960s, the contribution of hatchery fish as a percentage of all 
returning adult sockeye salmon had decreased to about 10 to 22 percent, 
about one-third of what it had been in the 1940s.
    Releases from the GCFMP were thought to contribute to re-
establishing healthy sockeye salmon populations in the Wenatchee and 
Okanogan River Basins (Chapman et al., 1995), as well as producing 
small populations in the Methow and Entiat Rivers, which previous to 
the GCFMP apparently did not have sockeye salmon populations (Mullan, 
1986; Chapman et al., 1995).
    The overall effect of the GCFMP on the current composition of 
sockeye salmon in this ESU is difficult to determine. Electrophoresis 
analysis of the current Okanogan River sockeye salmon reveals little 
affinity with any of the stocks of sockeye salmon introduced by that 
project or with kokanee currently residing in Lower Arrow Lake above 
Grand Coulee Dam. Artificial propagation efforts at the GCFMP 
hatcheries were abandoned in the 1960s due to ``low benefits to costs 
and catastrophic losses from Infectious Hemopoietic Necrosis [IHN]'' 
(Mullan, 1986).
    Kokanee are reported to occur in Lake Osoyoos, and one known plant 
of 195,000 kokanee from an unknown source stock occurred in this lake 
in the years 1919-1920. Kokanee-sized fish, or residuals with a 
reportedly olive drab or ``typically dark'' coloration, respectively, 
have been observed spawning with sockeye in the Okanogan River. Genetic 
samples of kokanee-sized fish from Lake Osoyoos have not been obtained. 
However, kokanee from Okanogan Lake, above Vaseux Dam and Vaseux Lake 
on the Okanogan River, are genetically quite distinct from Okanogan 
River sockeye salmon (Wood et al., 1994; Thorgaard et al, 1995; Utter, 
1995; Robison, 1995; and Winans et al., 1996).
    The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed 
spawning with sockeye salmon on the Okanogan River are identified as 
resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered part of this sockeye 
salmon ESU. Based on the large genetic difference between Okanagan Lake 
kokanee and Okanogan River sockeye salmon, the BRT decided that 
Okanagan Lake kokanee are not part of the Okanogan sockeye salmon ESU 
(Note--The accepted spelling in Canada is Okanagan, and in the United 
States it is Okanogan. In this document Okanagan will be used when 
referring to geographic features in Canada and Okanogan when referring 
to geographic features in the U.S.) The BRT felt that spawning 
aggregations of sockeye that are occasionally observed downstream from 
Lake Osoyoos and below Enloe Dam on the Similkameen River are most 
likely wanderers from the Okanogan River population and are, therefore, 
to be considered part of this ESU.

(2) Lake Wenatchee

    This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Lake Wenatchee 
through the Wenatchee River via the Columbia River and spawn primarily 
in tributaries above Lake Wenatchee (the White River, Napeequa River, 
and Little Wenatchee River). Virtually all allozyme data indicate that, 
of the populations examined, the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon 
population is genetically very distinctive. The following constitute 
the genetic, environmental, and life history information in 
distinguishing this ESU: (1) Very different environmental conditions 
encountered by sockeye salmon in Lake Wenatchee compared with those in 
Lake Osoyoos, (2) the near absence of 3-year-old sockeye returns to 
Lake Wenatchee, and (3) the apparent 1-month separation in juvenile 
run-timing between Okanogan and Wenatchee-origin fish. Sockeye salmon 
in Lake Wenatchee were severely depleted by the early 1900s (Bryant and 
Parkhurst, 1950; Davidson 1966; and Fulton, 1970), with returns counted 
over Tumwater Dam on the Wenatchee River in 1935, 1936, and 1937 
amounting to 889, 29 and 65 fish, respectively (WDF et al., 1938).
    The overall effect of the GCFMP, described above, on the current 
make-up of sockeye salmon in this ESU is difficult to determine. The 
redistribution and long-term propagation of mixed Arrow Lakes, 
Okanogan, and Wenatchee stocks of sockeye salmon originally captured at 
Rock Island Dam, as well as introductions of Quinault Lake sockeye 
salmon stocks, may have altered the genetic make-up of indigenous 
sockeye salmon in the Lake Wenatchee system, particularly considering 
the low estimated returns of native sockeye salmon to Lake Wenatchee 
immediately prior to the beginning of the GCFMP. However, 
electrophoretic analysis of current Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon 
reveals little affinity among Okanogan River sockeye salmon, Quinault 
Lake sockeye salmon or kokanee from Lower Arrow Lake.
    Spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon that appear in the Entiat 
and Methow Rivers and in Icicle Creek (a tributary of the Wenatchee 
River) were presumed by the BRT to be non-native and the result of 
transplants carried on during the GCFMP. Both the Methow and Entiat 
Rivers had no history of sockeye salmon runs prior to stocking (WDF et 
al., 1938; Mullan, 1986). Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery is located 
on Icicle Creek, and, between 1942 and 1969, more than 1.5 million 
sockeye salmon juveniles (of mixed Columbia, Entiat, Methow Rivers 
heritage) were liberated from this facility into Icicle Creek (Mullan, 
1986; Chapman et al., 1995).
    Kokanee-sized fish with a reportedly olive drab coloration have 
been observed spawning with sockeye salmon in the White, Napeequa, and 
Little Wenatchee Rivers (LaVoy, 1995). More than 23 million Lake 
Whatcom kokanee were released in Lake Wenatchee between 1934 and 1983; 
however, the current genetic make-up of the Lake Wenatchee sockeye 
salmon population reveals little or no affinity with Lake Whatcom 
kokanee. Genetic samples of kokanee-sized fish from Lake Wenatchee have 
not been obtained.
    The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed 
spawning with sockeye salmon on the White and Little Wenatchee Rivers 
are identified as resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered 
part of the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon ESU.

(3) Quinault Lake

    This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Quinault Lake 
and spawn in the mainstem of the upper Quinault River, in tributaries 
of the upper Quinault River, and in a few small tributaries of Quinault 
Lake itself. The BRT felt that Quinault Lake sockeye salmon deserved 
separate ESU status based on the unique life history

[[Page 11754]]

characteristics and the degree of genetic differentiation from other 
sockeye salmon populations.
    The distinctive early river-entry timing, protracted adult-run 
timing, long 3- to 10-month lake-residence period prior to spawning, 
unusually long spawn timing, and genetic differences from other coastal 
Washington sockeye salmon were important factors in identifying this 
ESU. In addition, the relative absence of red skin pigmentation and the 
presence of an olive-green spawning coloration by the majority of the 
Quinault stock appear to be unique among major sockeye salmon stocks in 
Washington (Storm et al., 1990; Boyer, Jr., 1995), although at least 
two sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia appear more green than 
red at spawning (Wood, 1996). The rather large genetic difference 
between U.S. and Vancouver Island sockeye salmon, together with the 
apparently unique life-history characters of Quinault Lake sockeye 
salmon persuaded the BRT to exclude Vancouver Island stocks from this 
ESU.
    Kokanee-sized O. nerka have not been identified within the Quinault 
River Basin.

(4) Ozette Lake

    This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Ozette Lake 
through the Ozette River and currently spawn primarily in lakeshore 
upwelling areas in Ozette Lake (particularly at Allen's Bay and Olsen's 
Beach). Minor spawning may occur below Ozette Lake in the Ozette River 
or in Coal Creek, a tributary of the Ozette River. Sockeye salmon do 
not presently spawn in tributary streams to Ozette Lake, although they 
may have spawned there historically. Genetics, environment, and life 
history were the primary factors in distinguishing this ESU. The BRT 
determined that Ozette Lake sockeye salmon were a separate ESU based on 
the degree of genetic differentiation from other sockeye salmon 
populations and on life history characteristics.
    Ozette Lake sockeye salmon are genetically distinct from all other 
sockeye salmon stocks in the Northwest. Sockeye salmon stocks from west 
coast Vancouver Island were excluded from this ESU partly because of 
the large genetic difference between the two. On the other hand, Ozette 
Lake kokanee proved to be the most genetically distinct O. nerka stock 
examined in the contiguous United States. However, Ozette Lake kokanee 
were closely allied to several sockeye salmon stocks on Vancouver 
Island.
    Kokanee are very numerous in Ozette Lake and spawn in inlet 
tributaries, whereas sockeye salmon spawn on lakeshore upwelling 
beaches. Sockeye have not been observed on the inlet spawning grounds 
of kokanee in Ozette Lake, although there are no physical barriers to 
prevent their entry into these tributaries. On the other hand, kokanee-
sized O. nerka are observed together with sockeye salmon on the sockeye 
salmon spawning beaches at Allen's Bay and Olsen's Beach. One recorded 
plant of over 100,000 kokanee from an unknown source stock occurred in 
1940, and anecdotal references of another kokanee plant in 1958 were 
found.
    Based on the very large genetic difference between Ozette Lake 
kokanee that spawn in tributaries and Ozette Lake sockeye salmon that 
spawn on shoreline beaches, the BRT excluded Ozette Lake kokanee from 
this sockeye salmon ESU. In addition, the BRT concluded that, if 
``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed spawning with sockeye salmon on 
sockeye salmon spawning beaches in Ozette Lake are identified as 
resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered as part of the 
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU.

(5) Baker River

    This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to the barrier dam 
and fish trap on the lower Baker River after migrating through the 
Skagit River. They are trucked to one of three artificial spawning 
beaches above either one or two dams on the Baker River and are held in 
these enclosures until spawning.
    The BRT felt that Baker River sockeye salmon are a separate ESU 
based on genetic, life-history, and environmental characteristics. 
Baker River sockeye salmon are genetically distinct from sockeye salmon 
populations that spawn in the lower Fraser River and are genetically 
distinct from all other native populations of Washington sockeye 
salmon. Prior to inundation behind Upper Baker Dam, Baker Lake was a 
typical cold, oligotrophic, well-oxygenated, glacially turbid sockeye 
salmon nursery lake, in contrast to other sockeye salmon systems under 
review, with the exception of Lake Wenatchee.
    The Birdsview Hatchery population on Grandy Creek in the Skagit 
River Basin was established from Baker Lake sockeye salmon together 
with a probable mixture of Quinault Lake stock and an unknown Fraser 
River stock. This stock was the ultimate source for the apparently 
successful transplants of sockeye salmon to the Lake Washington/Lake 
Sammamish system in the mid-1930s to early 1940s (Royal and Seymour, 
1940; Kolb, 1971).
    Numerous reports indicate that residual or resident sockeye salmon 
began appearing in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon Reservoir following the 
installation of Lower Baker Dam in 1925 (Ward, 1929, 1930, 1932; 
Ricker, 1940; and Kemmerich, 1945). A spring-time recreational kokanee 
fishery exists in Baker Lake, although substantial aggregations of 
spawning kokanee have yet to be identified. The BRT found no historical 
records of kokanee stocking in Baker Lake. However, approximately 40 to 
100 kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn each year in the outlet channel that 
drains the two upper sockeye salmon spawning beaches at Baker Lake.

(6) Lake Pleasant

    A majority of the BRT concluded that Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon 
constituted a separate ESU, while a minority thought that insufficient 
information exists to accurately describe this ESU. Allozyme data for 
Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon indicate genetic distinctiveness from 
other sockeye salmon populations. Sockeye salmon in this population 
enter the Quillayute River in May through September and hold in the Sol 
Duc River before entering Lake Pleasant, usually in early November, 
when sufficient water depth is available in Lake Creek. Spawning occurs 
on beaches from late November to early January. Kemmerich (1945) 
indicated that native sockeye occurred in Lake Pleasant prior to 1932 
and that they were of an ``individual size comparable with the size of 
the fish of the Lake Quinault and Columbia River runs;'' however, 
sockeye salmon currently in Lake Pleasant are said to be small, no 
bigger than 2 to 3 pounds (0.9 to 1.4 kg) (Haymes, 1995). Adult male 
and female Lake Pleasant sockeye have an average fork length of 460 mm 
or less for all ages combined, which is the smallest body size of any 
anadromous O. nerka population in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, 
in some brood years, a majority of Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon spend 2 
years in freshwater prior to migrating to sea. More than 500,000 
sockeye salmon fry from Baker Lake and the Birdsview Hatchery in the 
Skagit River Basin were released in Lake Pleasant in the 1930s; 
however, electrophoretic analysis of current Lake Pleasant sockeye 
salmon reveals little genetic affinity with Baker Lake sockeye salmon. 
It is assumed that the poisoning of Lake Pleasant during ``lake 
rehabilitation'' activities in the 1950s and 1960s may have impacted 
one or two broodyears of sockeye salmon in Lake Pleasant. Sockeye 
salmon escapement to Lake Pleasant was

[[Page 11755]]

between 760 and 1,500 fish in the early 1960s, indicating that ``lake 
rehabilitation'' failed to eliminate sockeye salmon from this system. 
Although kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn together with sockeye salmon on 
the beaches in Lake Pleasant, the BRT found only anecdotal references 
to kokanee being stocked in Lake Pleasant during the 1930s.
    The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed 
spawning with sockeye salmon on sockeye salmon spawning beaches in Lake 
Pleasant are identified as resident sockeye salmon, they are to be 
considered part of the Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon ESU.

Other Sockeye Salmon Populations

(1) Big Bear Creek

    The BRT did not describe the population of sockeye salmon that 
currently spawn in Big Bear Creek and its two tributaries, Cottage Lake 
and Evans Creeks. The BRT agreed that the available evidence does not 
clearly resolve this issue. In spite of various uncertainties, about 
half of the BRT felt that the current sockeye salmon population in Big 
Bear and Cottage Lake Creeks is a separate ESU that represents either 
an indigenous Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish sockeye salmon population 
or a native kokanee population that has naturally re-established 
anadromy. About half the BRT members felt that the available 
information was insufficient to describe the population of sockeye 
salmon in Big Bear Creek as an ESU. This issue is particularly 
difficult due to the equivocal nature of historical accounts concerning 
the presence and distribution of sockeye salmon within the Lake 
Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin.
    Genetically, Big Bear and Cottage Lake Creek sockeye salmon are 
quite distinct from other stocks of sockeye salmon in the Lake 
Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin; they are genetically more similar to 
Okanogan River sockeye salmon than they are to any other sockeye salmon 
population examined. It was acknowledged that the genetic 
distinctiveness of the current Big Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek 
sockeye salmon, as revealed through analysis of allozyme data, could 
have resulted from genetic change following the recorded return of 2 
adults in October 1940 after a transplant of Baker Lake stock sockeye 
salmon in 1937, or it could be indicative of a native population of O. 
nerka indigenous to the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin.
    A native kokanee population once spawned in Big Bear Creek and its 
tributaries, although it is uncertain whether a remnant of this native 
stock still exists in this drainage. Big Bear Creek was once the 
largest producer of kokanee for artificial propagation in Washington, 
although relatively few kokanee currently spawn there. Currently a 
small number of kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn in Big Bear Creek together 
with sockeye salmon. The spawn timing of kokanee in Big Bear Creek is 
currently much later than the only remaining recognized native kokanee 
stock in the Lake Washington Basin (early entry Issaquah Creek 
kokanee). There were over 35 million Lake Whatcom kokanee fry released 
in Big Bear Creek between 1917 and 1969, and what effect this stocking 
program had on the native kokanee is open to speculation. In addition, 
potential genetic interactions of these introduced kokanee with sockeye 
salmon are unknown.
    Based on the available data, the BRT determined that the Bear Creek 
sockeye salmon population unit did not meet the criteria necessary to 
be defined as an ESU.

(2) Riverine-Spawning Sockeye Salmon

    Spawning ground survey data of the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife and numerous anecdotal references dating back to the turn 
of the century indicate that riverine spawning aggregations of sockeye 
salmon exist in certain rivers within Washington that lack lake-rearing 
habitat. Consistent riverine spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon 
have been documented over a period of decades in the North and South 
Fork Nooksack, Skagit, Sauk, North Fork Stillaguamish, Samish 
(Hendrick, 1995), and Green Rivers. Riverine-spawning sockeye salmon 
have also been reported in the Nisqually, Skokomish, Dungeness, 
Calawah, Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater Rivers, and are occasionally seen 
in small numbers in a number of other rivers and streams in Washington.
    Protein electrophoretic data for riverine-spawners from the 
Nooksack, upper Skagit, and Sauk Rivers indicate that these 
aggregations are genetically similar to one another and genetically 
distinct from other sockeye salmon in Washington.
    The BRT considered five scenarios that might explain river spawning 
aggregations of sockeye salmon in Washington representing (1) multiple 
U.S. populations, (2) one U. S. population, (3) strays from U. S. lake-
type sockeye, (4) strays from British Columbia lake-type sockeye 
salmon, and (5) strays from river-type populations in British Columbia. 
Genetic data for river-spawning sockeye salmon in the Nooksack, Skagit, 
and Sauk Rivers do not support scenario (3). The disjunct timing and 
geographic distance between individual aggregations of riverine-
spawning sockeye salmon suggest that more than one process may be 
responsible for the occurrence of these aggregations.
    The small size of the spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon 
periodically reported in rivers without lake-rearing habitat in 
Washington raises the question of historical population size and 
persistence of Pacific salmon over evolutionarily significant time 
scales. Because many populations of Pacific salmon show large temporal 
fluctuations in abundance, Waples (1991) argued in the NMFS 
``Definition of Species'' paper that there must be some size below 
which a spawning population is unlikely to persist in isolation for a 
long period of time. The fact that small spawning aggregations are 
regularly observed may reflect a dynamic process of extinction, 
straying, and recolonization. Such small populations are unlikely to be 
ESU's, although a collection of them might be.
    However, Waples went on to say that ``[i]n making this evaluation, 
the possibility should be considered that small populations observed at 
present are still in existence precisely because they evolved 
mechanisms for persisting at low abundance.'' (Waples, 1991)
    The BRT acknowledged the evolutionary importance of existing river/
sea-type sockeye in British Columbia and Alaska but felt that the 
evidence was insufficient to determine whether sockeye salmon seen in 
rivers without lake rearing habitat in Washington were distinct 
populations. Whether riverine-spawning sockeye in Washington can be 
defined as an ESU remains an open question.

(3) Deschutes River (Oregon)

    The BRT concluded that sockeye salmon that historically migrated up 
the Deschutes River via the Columbia River to spawn in Suttle Lake were 
a separate ESU, but it is uncertain whether remnants of this ESU exist. 
Fish passage into and out of Suttle Lake was blocked sometime around 
1930. Currently, sockeye adults that are consistently seen each year in 
the Deschutes River below the regulatory dam downstream from Pelton Dam 
may be derived from (1) a self-sustaining population of sockeye that 
spawn below Pelton Dam on the Deschutes River, (2) strays from 
elsewhere in the Columbia River, or (3) outmigration of smolts from 
populations of ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka that exist

[[Page 11756]]

above the Pelton/Round Butte Dam complex. Two kokanee populations are 
present above the dams, one population resides in Suttle Lake and 
spawns in the lake inlet stream (Link Creek), and a second population 
resides in Lake Billy Chinook, behind Round Butte Dam, and spawns in 
the upper Metolius River. Both kokanee populations have a distinctive 
blue-black body coloration that distinguishes them from hatchery 
kokanee that are released in Lake Simtustus and in other Deschutes 
River Basin lakes.
    Allozyme data for Deschutes River sockeye salmon does not exist; 
however, mtDNA data (Brannon, 1996), suggests the possibility that Lake 
Billy Chinook kokanee and Deschutes River sockeye salmon are related. 
Protein electrophoretic data indicate that kokanee in Suttle Lake and 
in Lake Billy Chinook cluster together genetically (NMFS unpublished 
data). Over 1.2 million sockeye salmon were planted in the Metolius 
River and its tributaries before 1962, and a significant portion of the 
adult sockeye salmon returns recorded at the Pelton Dam fish trap, 
starting in 1956, may have been descended from these plantings.
    The majority of the BRT concluded that a remnant component of this 
historical run cannot be identified with any certainty. A minority of 
the BRT felt that the extensive transplant history of non-native 
sockeye salmon into this basin explains the continued occurrence of 
anadromous O. nerka in the Deschutes River Basin and, as the 
descendants of transplants, these sockeye salmon are not an ESA issue. 
The majority of the BRT agreed that the possibility exists that recent 
sockeye salmon in the Deschutes River may result from some remnant 
migrants of residualized sockeye salmon or kokanee. Whether Deschutes 
River sockeye salmon can be described as an ESU remains an open 
question.

Status of Sockeye Salmon ESUs

    The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532 NMFS considers a variety of information in 
evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU. Important considerations 
include (1) absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal 
distributions, (2) current abundance in relation to historical 
abundance and carrying capacity of the habitat, (3) trends in 
abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd counts or on estimates 
of spawner-recruit ratios, (4) natural and human-influenced factors 
that cause variability in survival and abundance, (5) possible threats 
to genetic integrity (e.g., selective fisheries and interactions 
between hatchery and natural fish), and (6) recent events (e.g., a 
drought or a change in management) that have predictable short-term 
consequences for abundance of the ESU. Additional risk factors, such as 
disease prevalence or changes in life-history traits, may also be 
considered in evaluating risk to populations.

Previous Assessments

    In considering the status of the ESUs, NMFS evaluated both 
qualitative and quantitative information.
    Qualitative evaluations: These evaluations included aspects of 
several of the risk considerations outlined above, as well as recent, 
published assessments of population status by agencies or conservation 
groups of the status of west coast sockeye salmon stocks (Nehlsen et 
al., 1991; WDF et al., 1993). Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmonid 
stocks throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and 
enumerated stocks found to be extinct or at risk of extinction. Stocks 
that do not appear in their summary were either not at risk of 
extinction or not classifiable due to insufficient information. They 
classified stocks as extinct, possibly extinct, at high risk of 
extinction, at moderate risk of extinction, or of special concern. They 
considered it likely that stocks at high risk of extinction have 
reached the threshold for classification as endangered under the ESA. 
Stocks were placed in this category if they had declined from 
historical levels and were continuing to decline, or had spawning 
escapements less than two hundred. Stocks were classified as at 
moderate risk of extinction if they had declined from historic levels 
but presently appear to be stable at a level above two hundred 
spawners. They felt that stocks in this category had reached the 
threshold for threatened under the ESA. They classified stocks as of 
special concern if a relatively minor disturbance could threaten them, 
insufficient data were available for them, they were influenced by 
large releases of hatchery fish, or they possessed some unique 
character. For sockeye salmon, they classified twenty-two stocks as 
follows: sixteen extinct, one possibly extinct, two high risk, one 
moderate risk, and two special concern.
    WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in 
Washington on the basis of stock origin (``native,'' ``non-native,'' 
``mixed,'' or ``unknown''), production type (``wild,'' ``composite,'' 
or ``unknown''), and status (``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' 
or ``unknown''). Status categories were defined as healthy: 
``experiencing production levels consistent with its available habitat 
and within the natural variations in survival for the stock;'' 
depressed: ``production is below expected levels . . . but above the 
level where permanent damage to the stock is likely;'' and critical: 
``experiencing production levels that are so low that permanent damage 
to the stock is likely or has already occurred.'' Of the nine sockeye 
salmon stocks identified, three (Quinault, Wenatchee, and Okanogan) 
were classified as healthy, four (Cedar, Lake Washington and Sammamish 
Tributaries, Lake Washington Beach, and Ozette) as depressed, one 
(Baker) as critical, and one (Lake Pleasant) as unknown.
    There are problems in applying results of these studies to ESA 
evaluations. One problem is the definition of categories used to 
classify stock status. Nehlsen et al. (1991) used categories intended 
to relate to ESA ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' status; however they 
applied their own interpretations of these terms to individual stocks, 
not to ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993) used general terms 
describing status of stocks that cannot be directly related to the 
considerations important in ESA evaluations. For example, the WDF et 
al. (1993) definition of healthy could conceivably include a stock that 
is at substantial extinction risk due to loss of habitat, hatchery fish 
interactions, and/or environmental variation, although this does not 
appear to be the case for any west coast sockeye salmon stocks. Another 
problem is the selection of stocks or populations to include in the 
review. Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not evaluate, or even identify, 
stocks not perceived to be at risk, so it is difficult to determine the 
proportion of stocks they considered to be at risk in any given area. 
There is also disagreement regarding status of some stocks; for 
example, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (1996) disagrees 
with Nehlsen et al's (1991) classification of Alturas and Stanley 
Lakes' populations as extinct.
    Quantitative evaluations: This type of evaluation included 
comparisons of current and historical abundance of west coast sockeye 
salmon, calculation of recent trends in escapement, and evaluation of 
the proportion of natural

[[Page 11757]]

spawning attributable to hatchery fish. Historical abundance 
information for these ESUs is largely anecdotal, although estimates 
based on commercial harvest are available for some coastal populations 
(Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938). Time series data were available for many 
populations, but data extent and quality varied among ESUs. NMFS 
compiled and analyzed this information to provide several summary 
statistics of natural spawning abundance, including (where available) 
recent total spawning run size and escapement, percent annual change in 
total escapement, recent naturally produced spawning run size and 
escapement, and average percentage of natural spawners that were of 
hatchery origin. Information on harvest and stock abundance was 
compiled from a variety of state, Federal, and tribal agency records 
(Foy et al., 1995a, b). Additional data were provided directly to NMFS 
by state and tribal agencies and private organizations. NMFS believes 
these records to be complete in terms of long-term adult abundance for 
sockeye salmon in the region covered. Principal data sources were adult 
counts at dams or weirs and spawner surveys.
    Computed statistics: To represent current run size or escapement 
where recent data were available, NMFS computed the geometric mean of 
the most recent 5 years reported (or fewer years if the data series is 
shorter than 5 years), while trying to use only estimates that reflect 
the total abundance for an entire river basin or tributary, avoiding 
index counts or dam counts that represent only a small portion of 
available habitat.
    Where adequate data were available, trends in total escapement (or 
run size if escapement data were not available) were calculated for all 
data sets with more than 7 years of data, based on total escapement or 
an escapement index (such as fish per mile from a stream survey). 
Separate trends were estimated for each full data series and for the 
1985-1994 period within each data series. As an indication of overall 
trend in individual sockeye salmon populations, NMFS calculated average 
(over the available data series) percent annual change in adult spawner 
indices within each river basin. No attempt was made to account for the 
influence of hatchery produced fish on these estimates, so the 
estimated trends include the progeny of natural spawning hatchery fish.
    The following summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative 
assessments to describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each 
steelhead ESU. Aspects of several of these risk considerations are 
common to all sockeye salmon ESUs. These are discussed in general below 
for each ESU, and more specific discussion can be found in the status 
review. After evaluating patterns of abundance and other risk factors 
for sockeye salmon from these ESUs, the BRT reached the following 
conclusions.

Risk Assessment Conclusions

    NMFS has determined that, if recent conditions continue into the 
future, one ESU (Ozette Lake) is likely to become endangered, and three 
ESUs (Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, and Quinault Lake) may not come 
under significant danger of becoming extinct or endangered. For the 
sixth ESU (Lake Pleasant), there was insufficient information to reach 
a conclusion regarding risk of extinction. NMFS also proposes to add 
Baker River sockeye to the list of candidate species in order to 
further review its status and the efficacy of existing conservation 
efforts.
    Consideration was also given to the status of the three sockeye 
salmon population units which had not been defined as ESUs. For one of 
these (riverine-spawning sockeye salmon in Washington) there was 
insufficient information to reach any conclusions regarding risk of 
extinction. For the other two population units (Bear Creek and 
Deschutes River sockeye salmon), NMFS concluded that Bear Creek sockeye 
salmon were not in danger of extinction nor likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future, but NMFS concluded that the anadromous 
component of the Deschutes River sockeye salmon population unit is 
clearly in danger of extinction if not already extinct.
    The following paragraphs summarize the conclusions for each ESU or 
other population unit. These conclusions are tempered by uncertainties 
in certain critical information. For several units, there are kokanee 
(either native or introduced) populations using the same water bodies 
as sockeye salmon; potential interbreeding and ecological interactions 
could affect population dynamics and (in the case of non-native 
kokanee) genetic integrity of the sockeye salmon populations. With few 
exceptions, adult abundance data do not represent direct counts of 
adults destined to a single spawning area, so estimates of total 
population abundance and trends in abundance must be interpreted with 
some caution.

(1) Okanogan River

    The major abundance data series for Okanogan River sockeye salmon 
consist of spawner surveys conducted in the Okanogan River above Lake 
Osoyoos since the late 1940s, counts of adults passing Wells Dam since 
1967, and records of tribal harvest (Colville and Okanogan) since the 
late 1940s. Longer term data were available for dams lower on the 
Columbia River (notably Rock Island Dam counts starting in 1933), but 
these counts represent a combination of this ESU with the Wenatchee 
population and other historical ESUs from the upper Columbia River 
above Grand Coulee Dam.
    Blockage and disruption of freshwater habitat pose some risk for 
this ESU. Adult passage is blocked by dams above Lake Osoyoos, 
prohibiting access to former habitat in Vaseux, Skaha, and Okanagan 
Lakes (Chapman et al., 1995). (However, it is not known whether sockeye 
salmon in these upper lakes belonged to the same ESU as those in Lake 
Osoyoos.) Other problems in the Okanogan River include inadequately 
screened water diversions and high summer water temperatures (Chapman 
et al., 1995) and channelization of spawning habitat in Canada. Mullan 
(1986) stated that hydroelectric dams accounted for the general decline 
of sockeye salmon in the mainstem Columbia River, while Chapman et al. 
(1995) suggested that hydropower dams have ``probably'' reduced runs of 
sockeye salmon to the Columbia River, particularly to Lake Osoyoos.
    The most recent 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was 
about 11,000 adults, based on 1992-1996 counts at Wells Dam. No 
historical abundance estimates specific to this ESU are available. 
However, analyses conducted in the late 1930s indicated that less than 
15 percent of the total sockeye run in the upper Columbia River went 
into Lakes Osoyoos and Wenatchee (Chapman et al., 1995). At that time, 
the total run to Rock Island Dam averaged about 15,000, suggesting a 
combined total of less than 2,250 adults returning to the Okanogan 
River and Lake Wenatchee ESUs. Thus, abundance for the Okanogan River 
ESU during the late 1930s was clearly substantially lower than recent 
abundance. Trend estimates for this stock differ depending on the data 
series used, but the recent (1986-1995) trend has been steeply downward 
(declining at 2 to 20 percent per year); however, this trend is heavily 
influenced by high abundance in 1985 and low points in 1990, 1994, and 
1995, which may reflect environmental fluctuations. The long-term trend 
(since 1960) for this stock has been relatively flat (-3 to +2 percent 
annual change).
    For the entire Columbia River basin, there has been a considerable 
decline in

[[Page 11758]]

sockeye salmon abundance since the turn of the century. Columbia River 
commercial sockeye salmon landings that commonly exceeded 1,000,000 
pounds in the late 1800s and early 1900s had been reduced to about 
150,000 pounds by the late 1980s (Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), 
1991). Since 1988, harvest has been fewer than 3,500 fish each year. 
The TAC (1991) attributes this decline to habitat degradation and 
blockage, overharvest, hydroelectric development, and nursery lake 
management practices. The two remaining productive stocks (Okanogan and 
Wenatchee) occupy less than 4 percent of historical nursery lake 
habitat in the upper Columbia River basin.
    Both Okanogan and Wenatchee runs have been highly variable over 
time. For harvest purposes, these two ESUs are managed as a single 
unit, with an escapement goal of 65,000 adults returning to Priest 
Rapids Dam (TAC, 1991). This goal has been achieved only ten times 
since 1970 and has been met in 2 years between 1992 and 1996. 
Examination of the historical trend in total sockeye salmon escapement 
to the upper Columbia River shows very low abundance (averaging less 
than 20,000 annually) during the 1930s and early 1940s, followed by an 
increase to well over 100,000 per year in the mid-1950s. Since the mid-
1940s, abundance has fluctuated widely, with noticeable low points 
reached in 1949, 1961-62, 1978, and 1994. The escapement of about 9,000 
fish to Priest Rapids Dam in 1995 was the lowest since 1945, but 1996 
escapement (preliminary estimate, Fish Passage Center 1996) was 
considerably higher, although still far below the goal. Escapement to 
Wells Dam (i.e., this ESU) was at its lowest recorded value in 1994, 
but increased in both 1995 and 1996.
    Past and present artificial propagation of sockeye salmon poses 
some risk to the genetic integrity of this ESU. The GCFMP interbred 
fish from this ESU with those from adjacent basins for several years, 
with unknown impacts on the genetic composition of this ESU. Current 
artificial propagation efforts use local stocks and are designed to 
maintain genetic diversity, but there is some risk of genetic change 
resulting from domestication. There is only one record of introduction 
of sockeye salmon from outside the Columbia River Basin into this ESU: 
395,420 mixed Quinault Lake/Rock Island Dam stock released in 1942 
(Mullan, 1986). Records of kokanee transplants are most likely 
incomplete.
    In previous assessments of this stock, Nehlsen et al. (1991) 
considered Okanogan River sockeye salmon to be of special concern 
because of ``present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range,'' including mainstem passage, 
flow, and predation problems, whereas WDF et al. (1993) classified this 
stock as of native origin, wild production, and healthy status, but 
WDFW (1996) suggested that this ``native'' classification will be 
changed to ``mixed'' in the future.
    Low abundance, downward trends and wide fluctuations in abundance, 
land use practices, and variable ocean productivity were perceived as 
resulting in low to moderate or increasing risk for this ESU. Other 
major concerns regarding health of this ESU were restriction and 
channelization of spawning habitat in Canada, hydro system impediments 
to migration, and high water temperature problems in the lower Okanogan 
River.
    Positive indicators for the ESU were escapement above 10,000, which 
is probably a substantial fraction of historical abundance, and the 
limited amount of recent hatchery production within the ESU. Recent 
changes in hydro system management (increases in flow and spill in the 
mainstem Columbia River) and harvest management (restrictions in 
commercial harvest to protect Snake River sockeye salmon) were regarded 
as beneficial to the status of this ESU. NMFS concluded unanimously 
that the Okanogan River sockeye salmon ESU is not presently in danger 
of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. However, the very low returns in the three most recent years 
suggest that the status of this ESU bears close monitoring and its 
status should be reconsidered if abundance remains low.

(2) Lake Wenatchee

    The major abundance data series for Wenatchee River sockeye salmon 
consist of spawner surveys conducted in the Little Wenatchee River and 
the White River since the late 1940s, counts of adults passing Tumwater 
Dam (sporadic counts 1935 to present), and reconstructions based on 
adult passage counts at Priest Rapids, Rock Island, and Rocky Reach 
Dams (early 1960s to present). Longer term data are available for dams 
lower on the Columbia River (notably Rock Island Dam counts starting in 
1933), but these counts represent a combination of this ESU with the 
Okanogan River ESU and other historical potential ESUs from the upper 
Columbia River above Grand Coulee Dam.
    There are no substantial blockages of sockeye salmon habitat in the 
Wenatchee basin, and habitat condition in the basin is generally 
regarded as good, although production is limited by the oligotrophic 
nature of Lake Wenatchee (Chapman et al., 1995). Mullan (1986) and 
Chapman et al. (1995) concluded that the main freshwater habitat 
problem presently facing this ESU is hydropower dams in the mainstem 
Columbia River, which have probably reduced the runs of sockeye salmon.
    The most recent 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was 
about 19,000 adults, based on the 1992-1996 difference in adult passage 
counts at Priest Rapids and Rocky Reach Dams. No historical abundance 
estimates specific to this ESU are available. However, as discussed 
above for the Okanogan River ESU, abundance of the Lake Wenatchee ESU 
during the late 1930s was clearly substantially lower than recent 
abundance. The recent (1986-1995) trend in abundance has been downward 
(declining at 10 percent per year), but this trend is heavily 
influenced by 2 years of very low abundance in 1994 and 1995. The long-
term (1961-1996) trend for this stock is flat. Escapement to this ESU 
in 1995 (counts at Priest Rapids Dam minus those at Rocky Reach Dam) 
was the lowest since counting began in 1962, but 1996 escapement was 
somewhat higher. Other risk factors common to this ESU and other 
Columbia River Basin sockeye salmon populations were discussed under 
the Okanogan River ESU above.
    Past and present artificial propagation of sockeye salmon poses 
some risk to the genetic integrity of this ESU. As for the Okanogan 
River ESU, the GCFMP interbred fish from this ESU with those from 
adjacent basins for several years and introduced many sockeye salmon 
descended from Quinault Lake stock (Mullan 1986), with unknown impacts 
on the genetic composition of this ESU. Current artificial propagation 
efforts use local stocks and are designed to maintain natural genetic 
diversity, but there is some risk of genetic change resulting from 
domestication. Hatchery-raised kokanee have been released in Lake 
Wenatchee, including native Lake Wenatchee stock and non-native Lake 
Whatcom stock (Mullan, 1986). The effect of Lake Whatcom kokanee 
introductions on the genetic integrity of this ESU is unknown.
    Previous assessments of this ESU are similar to those for the 
Okanogan River ESU. Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered Wenatchee River 
sockeye salmon to be of special concern because of ``present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range,'' including mainstem passage, flow, and

[[Page 11759]]

predation problems. WDF et al. (1993) classified this stock as of mixed 
origin, wild production, and healthy status. Huntington et al. (1996) 
identified this stock as ``healthy--Level I,'' indicating that current 
abundance is high relative to what would be expected without human 
impacts.
    Low abundance, downward trends and wide fluctuations in abundance, 
and variable ocean productivity were perceived as resulting in low to 
moderate risk for the ESU. Other major concerns regarding the health of 
this ESU were the effects of hatchery production, hydro system 
impediments to migration, and potential interbreeding with non-native 
kokanee on genetic integrity of the unit.
    Positive indicators for the ESU were escapement above 10,000 and 
the limited amount of recent hatchery production within the ESU. Recent 
changes in hydro system management (increases in flow and spill in the 
mainstem Columbia River) and harvest management (restrictions in 
commercial harvest to protect Snake River sockeye salmon) were regarded 
as beneficial to the status of this ESU. Based on this information, 
NMFS concluded that the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon ESU is not 
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. However, on the basis of 
extremely low abundance in the 3 most recent years, NMFS concluded that 
this ESU bears close monitoring and its status should be reconsidered 
if abundance remains low.

(3) Quinault Lake

    The major abundance data series for Quinault River sockeye salmon 
consists of escapement estimates derived from hydroacoustic surveys 
conducted in Quinault Lake since the mid-1970s, supplemented with 
earlier estimates (beginning in 1967) based on spawner surveys. The 
most recent (1991-1995) 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU 
was about 32,000 adults, with a run size of about 39,000. Approximate 
historical estimates indicate escapements ranging between 20,000 and 
250,000 in the early 1920s, and run sizes ranging between 50,000 and 
500,000 in the early 1900s (Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938). Comparison of 
these estimates indicates that recent abundance is probably near the 
lower end of the historical abundance range for this ESU.
    This ESU has been substantially affected by habitat problems, 
notably those resulting from forest management activities in the upper 
watershed outside Olympic National Park. Early inhabitants of the area 
described the upper Quinault River as flowing between narrow, heavily 
wooded banks, but, by the 1920s, the river was in a wide valley with 
frequent course changes and much siltation and scouring of gravels 
during winter and spring freshets (Davidson and Barnaby, 1936; Quinault 
Indian Nation (QIN), 1981); resultant loss of spawning habitat in the 
Quinault River above Quinault Lake has continued to recent times (QIN, 
1981).
    While stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over time (recent 
escapements ranging from a low of 7,500 in 1970 to 69,000 in 1968), 
overall trend has been relatively flat. For the full data series (1967-
1995), abundance has increased by an average of about 1 percent per 
year; for the 1986-1995 period, abundance declined by about 3 percent 
per year.
    Artificial propagation of sockeye salmon in the Quinault River 
basin has a long history. Releases have been primarily native Quinault 
Lake stock, although Alaskan sockeye salmon eggs were brought into the 
system prior to 1920. The genetic effects of this introduction are 
unknown. Since 1973, all releases have been of local stock, but there 
is some risk of genetic change resulting from unnatural selective 
pressures.
    In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify 
Quinault Lake sockeye salmon as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993) 
classified this stock as of native origin, wild production, and healthy 
status.
    All risk factors were perceived as very low or low for this ESU. 
However, NMFS had two concerns about the overall health of this ESU. 
The ESU is presently near the lower end of its historical abundance 
range, a fact that may be largely attributed to severe habitat 
degradation in the upper river that contributes to poor spawning 
habitat quality and possible impacts on juvenile rearing habitat in 
Quinault Lake. The influence of hatchery production on genetic 
integrity is also a potential concern for the ESU.
    On the positive side, NMFS noted that recent escapement averaged 
above 30,000; harvest management has been responsive to stock status; 
and recent restrictions in logging to protect terrestrial species 
should have a beneficial effect on habitat conditions. The NMFS 
concluded unanimously that the Quinault Lake sockeye salmon ESU is not 
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future.

(4) Ozette Lake

    The major abundance data series for Ozette River sockeye salmon 
consist of escapement estimates derived from counts at a weir located 
at the outlet of Ozette Lake. Counting has occurred in most years since 
1977 (Dlugokenski et al., 1981; WDF et al., 1993). The most recent 
(1992-1996) 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was about 
700. Historical estimates indicate run sizes of a few thousand sockeye 
salmon in 1926 (Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938), with a peak recorded 
harvest of nearly 18,000 in 1949 (WDF, 1974). Subsequently, commercial 
harvest declined steeply to only a few hundred fish in the mid-1960s 
and was ended in 1974. A small ceremonial and subsistence fishery 
continued up until 1981 (Dlugokenski et al., 1981); there has been no 
direct fishery on this stock since 1982 (WDF et al., 1993). Assuming 
that Ozette River harvest consisted of sockeye salmon destined to spawn 
in this system, comparison of these estimates indicates that recent 
abundance is substantially below the historical abundance range for 
this ESU.
    A recent National Park Service Technical Report (Jacobs et al., 
1996) reported the conclusions of a review panel concerning the status 
and management of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake. The panel was 
unanimous in expressing great concern about the future of this 
population, but was unable to identify a single set of factors 
contributing to the population decline. The panel concluded that 
declines were likely the result of a contribution of factors, possibly 
including introduced species, predation, loss of tributary populations, 
decline in quality of beach-spawning habitat, temporarily unfavorable 
oceanic conditions, excessive historical harvests, and introduced 
diseases. They felt that intra-and inter-specific competition was 
unlikely as a contributing factor.
    Harvest of sockeye salmon in the Ozette River fluctuated 
considerably over time, which would indicate similar fluctuations in 
spawner abundance if harvest rates were fairly constant. Based on the 
full weir-count series (1977-1995), abundance has decreased by an 
average of about 3 percent per year; for the 1986-1995 period, the 
decrease averaged 10 percent per year. However, in recent years the 
stock has exhibited dominance by a single brood cycle returning every 4 
years (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996), and this dominant cycle has remained 
stable between 1,700 and 2,200 adults; declines are apparent only in 
the smaller returns during off-cycle years.

[[Page 11760]]

    Artificial propagation has not been extensive in this basin, but 
many of the releases have been non-indigenous stocks. Genetic effects 
of these introductions are unknown. Recent hatchery production in 
Ozette Lake has been primarily from local stock, with the exception of 
120,000 Quinault Lake sockeye salmon juveniles released in 1983. The 
release of 14,398 kokanee/sockeye salmon hybrids in 1991-1992 (Makah 
Fisheries Management Department, 1995; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
1995) may have had deleterious effects on genetic integrity of the ESU 
because Ozette Lake kokanee are genetically dissimilar to Ozette Lake 
sockeye salmon.
    In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Ozette 
sockeye salmon as at moderate risk of extinction, citing logging and 
overfishing in the 1940s and 1950s as major causes of the decline. WDF 
et al. (1993) classified this stock as of native origin, wild 
production, and depressed status.
    Perceived risks ranged from low to moderate for genetic integrity 
and variable ocean productivity, from low to moderate and increasing 
for downward trends and population fluctuations, and from moderate to 
increasing for abundance considerations. Current escapements averaging 
below 1,000 adults per year imply a moderate degree of risk from small-
population genetic and demographic variability, with little room for 
further declines before abundances would be critically low. Other 
concerns include siltation of beach spawning habitat, very low 
abundance compared to harvest in the 1950s, and potential genetic 
effects of present hatchery production and past interbreeding with 
genetically dissimilar kokanee. NMFS concluded that the Ozette Lake 
sockeye salmon ESU is not presently in danger of extinction, but, if 
present conditions continue into the future, it is likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future.

(5) Baker River

    The major abundance data series for Baker River sockeye salmon 
consist of escapement estimates derived from counts of adults arriving 
at a trap below Lower Baker Dam beginning in 1926. The most recent 5-
year average annual escapement for this ESU was about 2,700 adults. 
Historical estimates indicate escapements to average 20,000 near the 
turn of the century, with a pre-dam low of 5,000 in 1916 (Rounsefell 
and Kelez, 1938), although WDFW data suggest that the 20,000 figure is 
a peak value, not an average (Sprague, 1996a). Comparison of these 
estimates indicates that recent average abundance is probably near the 
lower end of the historical abundance range for this ESU. However 
escapement in 1994 (16,000 fish) was near the turn-of-the-century 
average.
    Currently, spawning is restricted to artificial spawning 
``beaches'' at the upper end of Baker Lake (in operation since 1957) 
and just below Upper Baker Dam (beach constructed in 1990). Spawning on 
the beaches is natural, and fry are released to rear in Baker Lake. 
Before 1925, sockeye salmon had free access to Baker Lake and its 
tributaries. Lower Baker Dam (constructed 1925) created Lake Shannon 
and blocked access to this area, but passage structures were provided. 
Upper Baker Dam, completed in 1959, increased the size of Baker Lake, 
inundating most natural spawning habitat; this was mitigated by 
construction of artificial spawning beaches. In most years, all 
returning adults are trapped below Lower Baker Dam and transported to 
the artificial beaches, with no spawning occurring in natural habitat 
(WDF et al., 1993). The only recent exception to this was in 1994, when 
the large number of returning adults exceeded artificial habitat 
capacity, and excess spawners were allowed to enter Baker Lake and its 
tributaries (Ames, 1995). At the time of this report, no quantitative 
reports regarding offspring resulting from this spawning ``experiment'' 
are available (WDFW 1996).
    The artificial nature of spawning habitat, the use of net-pens for 
juvenile rearing, and reliance on artificial upstream and downstream 
transportation pose a certain degree of risk to the ESU. These human 
interventions in the life cycle have undoubtedly changed selective 
pressures on the population from those under which it evolved its 
presumably unique characteristics, and thus pose some risk to the long-
term evolutionary potential of the ESU. There have been continuing 
potential problems with siltation at the newer (lower) spawning beach 
(WDF et al., 1993), and recent proposals to close the two upper beaches 
in favor of production at the lower beach would thus be likely to 
increase the risk of spawning failure in some years. The future use of 
the upper beaches is uncertain (WDFW, 1996). Problems with operations 
of downstream smolt bypass systems have been documented, and there may 
be limitations to juvenile sockeye production due to lake productivity 
and interactions with other salmonids (WDF et al., 1993). Infectious 
haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) has also been a recent problem for this 
stock (Sprague, 1995).
    Artificial production in this ESU began in 1896 with a state 
hatchery on Baker Lake; hatchery efforts at Baker Lake ended in 1933, 
by which time the hatchery was being operated by the U.S. Bureau of 
Fisheries. Current propagation efforts rely primarily on the spawning 
beaches and net-pen rearing. Lake Whatcom kokanee were recently 
introduced to Lake Shannon (Knutzen, 1995). Genetic consequences of 
these releases and rearing programs are unknown, but there is some risk 
of genetic change resulting from unnatural selective pressures.
    In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Baker 
River sockeye salmon as at high risk of extinction, and WDF et al. 
(1993) classified this stock as of native origin, artificial 
production, and critical status.
    NMFS had several concerns about the overall health of this ESU, 
focusing on high fluctuations in abundance, lack of natural spawning 
habitat, and the vulnerability of spawning beaches to water quality 
problems. Large fluctuations in abundance were a substantial concern. 
It is also likely that this stock would go extinct if present human 
intervention were halted and problems related to that intervention pose 
some risk to the population. In particular, NMFS concluded that the 
proposed change in management to concentrate spawning in a single 
spawning beach could substantially increase risk to the population 
related to abundance and habitat capacity and to water quality and 
disease. NMFS concluded that the Baker sockeye salmon ESU is not 
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future if present conditions continue. 
However, because of lack of natural spawning habitat and the 
vulnerability of the entire population to problems in artificial 
habitats, NMFS concluded that this ESU bears close monitoring and its 
status should be reconsidered if abundance remains low. Therefore, NMFS 
proposes to add the Baker River Sockeye ESU to the list of candidate 
species.

(6) Lake Pleasant

    Although no recent complete escapement estimates are available for 
this stock, NMFS recently received some spawner-survey data for the 
period 1987 to 1996 (Mosley, 1995; Tierney, 1997). Peak spawner counts 
ranged from a low of 90 (1991--a year with limited sampling) to highs 
above 2,000 (1987 and 1992). Abundance fluctuated widely during this 
period, with a slight negative trend overall.

[[Page 11761]]

    Complete counts at a trapping station on Lake Creek in the early 
1960s showed escapements of sockeye salmon ranging from 763 to 1,485 
fish, and 65,000 sockeye salmon smolts were reported to have 
outmigrated in 1958 (Crutchfield et al. 1965). This stock supports 
small sport and tribal commercial fisheries, with probably fewer than 
100 fish caught per year in each fishery (WDF et al., 1993). Sockeye 
salmon from Grandy Creek stock were released in 1933 and 1937; no 
sockeye salmon have been introduced since then.
    In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify 
Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993) 
classified this stock as of native origin, wild production, and unknown 
status.
    Although escapement monitoring data are sparse, escapements 
(represented by peak spawner counts) in the late 1980s and 1990s appear 
roughly comparable to habitat capacity for this small lake. Some 
concerns were expressed regarding potential urbanization of habitat and 
effects of sport harvest during the migration delay in the Sol Duc 
River. It was noted that recent restrictions in logging to protect 
terrestrial species should have a beneficial effect on habitat 
conditions, although little or no old growth forest is present in the 
watershed.
    NMFS concluded that there was insufficient information to 
adequately assess extinction risk for the Lake Pleasant ESU.

Analyses of Biological Information for Other Population Units

    While the units discussed below are not presently considered to 
constitute ESUs, NMFS briefly examined available information regarding 
population status and extinction risk. Three other sockeye salmon 
stocks (Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and Lake Washington beach 
spawners) are apparently introduced from outside the Lake Washington 
drainage and have not been included in a recognized ESU at this time.

(1) Big Bear Creek

    Abundance data for Big Bear Creek sockeye salmon are derived from 
spawner surveys conducted by WDFW from 1982 to the present (WDF et al., 
1993; Ames, 1996). The most recent (1991-1995) 5-year average annual 
escapement for this unit was about 11,400 adults. No historical 
estimates are available, but comparing habitat areas in these basins 
with other sockeye salmon populations suggests that current production 
is probably a substantial proportion of freshwater habitat capacity. 
Habitat in this basin is subject to effects of urbanization.
    Stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over time, with recent 
escapements ranging from a low of 1,800 in 1989 to 39,700 in 1994. 
There has been little overall trend in this unit; for the full data 
series (1982-1995), abundance has decreased by an average of about 7 
percent per year; for the 1986-1995 period, abundance decreased by 
about 4 percent per year. 1995 escapement was the second lowest on 
record, but 1994 was the highest.
    Releases of non-native sockeye salmon in this area have occurred on 
Big Bear and North Creeks (tributaries of the Sammamish River), using 
Grandy Creek stock from the Skagit River and Cultus Lake stock from 
British Columbia, respectively. There have been extensive introductions 
of kokanee in this area, a substantial proportion of which were from 
Lake Whatcom. Genetic interactions of these kokanee with sockeye salmon 
are unknown.
    In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify 
this stock as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993) classified this stock as 
of unknown origin, wild production, and depressed status.
    NMFS felt that the extreme fluctuations in recent abundances and 
potential effects of urbanization in the watershed suggest that the 
status of this populations bears close monitoring. Recent average 
abundance has been relatively high, with escapement between 10,000 and 
20,000. Recent development of a county growth management plan was seen 
as a possible benefit to freshwater habitat for this population. NMFS 
concluded that, if the Big Bear Creek sockeye salmon were determined to 
be an ESU, it would not be presently in danger of extinction, nor is it 
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if present 
conditions continue.

(2) Riverine Spawning Sockeye Salmon

    Beyond WDFW Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Data (Egan, 1977, 1995, 
1997) and anecdotal reports of small numbers of sockeye salmon observed 
regularly spawning in some of the Puget Sound and coastal Washington 
rivers with no access to lake rearing habitat, NMFS has no information 
on overall abundance or trends for these stocks. Thus, there was 
insufficient information to reach any conclusion regarding the status 
of this sockeye salmon population unit.

(3) Deschutes River (Oregon)

    Counts of sockeye salmon adults reaching Pelton Dam on the 
Deschutes River have been made during most years since the mid-1950s. 
The most recent (1990-1994) 5-year average annual escapement was only 9 
adults. No accurate estimates of historical abundance are available for 
this unit, but a substantial run is known to have spawned in Suttle 
Lake prior to construction of a dam in the 1930s, and is believed to 
have continued to spawn in the Metolius River after that time (Columbia 
Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), 1990; Olsen et al., 1994; 
and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1995a). Since construction 
of Pelton Dam, abundance has reached peaks of about 300 fish in several 
years (1962, 1963, 1973, 1976--Fish Commission of Oregon, 1967, 
O'Connor et al., 1993). NMFS has made no evaluation of abundance of 
kokanee in the Deschutes River basin, which may be part of the same 
evolutionary unit as sockeye salmon in this basin. Sockeye salmon 
derived from the GCFMP were introduced into Suttle Lake and the 
Metolius River between 1937 and 1961.
    Sockeye salmon stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over 
time (recent escapements ranging from a low of 1 in 1993 to 340 in 
1963), but there has been a substantial decline over the years for 
which data are available. For the full data series (1957-1994), 
abundance decreased by an average of about 3 percent per year; for the 
1985-1994 period, abundance declined by about 13 percent per year. 
Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Deschutes River sockeye as at high 
risk of extinction.
    NMFS concluded that, if anadromous sockeye salmon recently seen in 
the lower Deschutes River are remnants of the historical Deschutes 
River ESU, then the ESU clearly is in danger of extinction due to 
extremely low population abundance. If there is an ESU that includes 
sockeye salmon and native kokanee above Round Butte Dam, further 
evaluation of the kokanee stock and its relationship to the sockeye 
salmon would need to be completed before any conclusions regarding 
extinction risk could be made. If these sockeye salmon originated from 
stocks outside the Deschutes River Basin, they are not subject to 
protection under the ESA. NMFS will need additional information 
pertaining to the origin of this sockeye salmon population unit to make 
a conclusion in this case.

Existing Protective Efforts

    Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is 
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account 
state or local efforts being made to protect a species. Under

[[Page 11762]]

section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA, the Secretary must also evaluate, among 
other things, existing regulatory mechanisms. During the status review 
for west coast steelhead and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed 
protective efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local 
watershed initiatives. NMFS has summarized some of the major efforts in 
a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to 
the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead under the 
Endangered Species Act.'' (NMFS, 1996). Many of these efforts have also 
significant potential for promoting the conservation of west coast 
sockeye salmon. This document is available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES). Some of the principal efforts within the range of sockeye 
salmon populations reviewed in this proposed rule, and those that 
specifically affect Ozette Lake sockeye salmon, are described briefly 
in this section.

Northwest Forest Plan

    The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal interagency 
cooperative program, signed and implemented in April 1994 and 
documented in the Record of Decision for Amendments to U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) and in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Planning 
Documents Within the Range of the Spotted Owl. The NFP represents a 
coordinated ecosystem management strategy for Federal lands 
administered by the USFS and BLM within the range of the Northern 
spotted owl (which overlaps to some extent with the range of sockeye 
salmon). The NFP region-wide management direction either amended or was 
incorporated into approximately 26 land and resource management plans 
(LRMPs) and two regional guides.
    The most significant element of the NFP for anadromous fish is its 
Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a regional scale aquatic ecosystem 
conservation strategy that includes the following: (1) Special land 
allocations, such as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-
successional reserves, to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special 
requirements for project planning and design in the form of standards 
and guidelines; and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration, 
and monitoring processes. These ACS components collectively ensure that 
Federal land management actions achieve a set of nine ACS objectives, 
which include salmon habitat conservation. In recognition of over 300 
``at-risk'' Pacific salmonid stocks within the NFP area (Nehlsen et 
al,. 1991), the ACS was developed by aquatic scientists, with NMFS 
participation, to restore and maintain the ecological health of 
watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. The ACS strives to 
maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales 
to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and 
resources and to restore currently degraded habitats. The approach 
seeks to prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal 
lands over broad landscapes.

Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative

    In 1991, the Washington treaty tribes, Washington Department of 
Fisheries, and Washington Department of Wildlife created this 
initiative to address wild stock status and recovery. The first step in 
this initiative was to develop an inventory of the status of all salmon 
and steelhead stocks which was completed in 1993 with publication of 
the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory report. Based on this report, 
the state and tribes have identified several salmon stocks in 
``critical'' condition and have prioritized the development of recovery 
and management plans for them. The final stage of implementing the 
policy will be plans to monitor and evaluate the success of individual 
recovery efforts.

Washington Wild Salmonid Policy

    The Washington State Legislature passed a bill in June of 1993, 
(ESHB 1309) which required WDFW, in conjunction with Indian tribes, to 
develop wild salmonid policies that ``ensure that department actions 
and programs are consistent with the goals of rebuilding wild stock 
populations to levels that permit commercial and recreational fishing 
opportunities.'' The joint policy will provide broad management 
principles and guidelines for habitat protection, escapement 
objectives, harvest management, genetic conservation, and other 
management issues related to both anadromous and resident salmonids. 
The joint policy will be used as the basis to review and modify current 
management goals, objectives, and strategies related to wild stocks. A 
final Environmental Impact Statement, which analyzes the environmental 
effects of the proposed policy, has been adopted by the Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Commission, and WDFW is scheduled to consider final action 
on the policy in the near future. Once the policy is adopted, full 
reviews of hatchery and harvest programs are planned to ensure 
consistency with the policy.

Baker River Committee

    This ad hoc group of co-managers and private utilities was formed 
in 1985 in response to record low returns of adult sockeye returning to 
Baker River. The committee's mandate is to arrest the precipitous 
decline in coho and sockeye salmon populations in the Baker River 
system. Their goal is to restore these populations, as well as to 
successfully restore steelhead populations in the Baker River 
watershed. Members of the committee include state, Federal, tribal and 
private land managers, fisheries agencies and licensees. The committee 
has implemented conservation measures that have likely contributed to 
the highest adult and juvenile abundance since the period before the 
dams were constructed in this watershed.

Harvest Restrictions

    The peak harvest of sockeye salmon in the Ozette Lake area was 
18,000 fish in 1949 (WDF 1974). Commercial harvest ended in 1974, and 
since 1982, there has not been any directed harvest on Ozette lake 
sockeye salmon.
    NMFS concludes that the existing protective efforts described above 
are inadequate to alter the proposed status determination for the Lake 
Ozette sockeye salmon ESU. However, during the period between 
publication of this proposed rule and of a final rule, NMFS will 
continue to solicit information regarding protective efforts (see 
Public Comments Solicited) and will work with Federal, state, and 
tribal fisheries managers to evaluate the efficacy of the various 
salmonid conservation efforts. If, during this process, NMFS determines 
existing protective efforts are likely to affect the status of Ozette 
Lake sockeye salmon, NMFS may modify this listing proposal.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one 
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 
NMFS has determined that all of these factors have played a role in the 
decline of west coast sockeye salmon, in particular the destruction and 
modification of habitat, overutilization for recreational purposes, and 
natural and human-made factors. The following discussion summarizes 
findings regarding factors for decline across the range of west coast 
sockeye. While these factors have been treated here in general terms, 
it is important to underscore that impacts from certain factors are 
more acute for specific ESUs. For example, impacts from hydropower 
development are more

[[Page 11763]]

pervasive for ESUs in the upper Columbia River Basin than for some 
coastal ESUs. For a detailed review of factors affecting all Pacific 
salmonids, please refer to the NMFS report: Factors For Decline: A 
Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 
Under the Endangered Species Act, August, 1996 (see ADDRESSES).
    Sockeye salmon on the west coast of the United States have 
experienced declines in abundance in the past several decades as a 
result of natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and 
urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water 
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower 
have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible habitat. 
Studies indicate that in most western states, about 80 to 90 percent of 
the historical riparian habitat has been eliminated. Further, it has 
been estimated that, during the last 200 years, the lower 48 states 
have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the majority of 
the rest are severely degraded. Washington and Oregon's wetlands are 
estimated to have diminished by one-third. Sedimentation from land use 
activities is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation in 
the range of west coast sockeye salmon.
    Sockeye salmon have supported important commercial fisheries 
through much of their range (recreational fisheries are also 
significant in parts of their range). Harvest restrictions to protect 
sockeye in the Columbia River Basin have reduced harvest rates for 
these sockeye. Sockeye salmon from the Washington coast and Puget Sound 
are harvested in Puget Sound and nearshore fisheries targeting larger 
sockeye populations originating in British Columbia.
    Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have 
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river and lake 
systems, thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by 
salmonids. Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas 
experiencing dwindling sockeye run sizes.
    Natural climatic conditions have served to exacerbate the problems 
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. 
Persistent drought conditions have reduced the already limited 
spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Further, climatic conditions 
appear to have resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during 
more productive periods, may help (to a small degree) offset degraded 
freshwater habitat conditions.
    In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery 
programs have been implemented throughout the range of sockeye on the 
West Coast. While some of these programs have been successful in 
providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on 
native, naturally reproducing stocks are not well understood. 
Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting 
from hatchery introductions may significantly reduce the production and 
survival of naturally spawned sockeye. Furthermore, collection of 
native sockeye for hatchery broodstock purposes may result in 
additional negative impacts to small or dwindling natural populations. 
In limited cases, artificial propagation can play an important role in 
sockeye recovery, and some hatchery populations may be deemed essential 
for the recovery of threatened or endangered sockeye ESUs. In addition, 
alternative uses of supplementation, such as for the creation of 
terminal fisheries, must be fully explored to try to limit negative 
impacts to remaining natural populations. This use must be tempered 
with the understanding that protecting naturally spawned sockeye and 
their habitats is critical to maintaining healthy, fully functioning 
ecosystems.

Specific Factors for Decline Affecting Ozette Lake Sockeye

    Three studies have been undertaken to evaluate habitat-related 
factors limiting production of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake. The U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service conducted studies of the decline in this 
stock during the 1970s, culminating in a report describing limiting 
factors and outlining a restoration plan (Dlugokenski et al., 1981). 
This report noted that this population formerly spawned in tributaries 
but presently uses only the lakeshore, and that food supply, 
competition, and predation in the lake are probably not limiting, but 
that siltation has caused cementing of spawning gravels in tributaries. 
Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suspected that sedimentation, resulting 
primarily from logging and associated road building coupled with log 
truck traffic on weak siltstone roadbeds, has led to decreased hatching 
success of sockeye salmon in tributary creeks and creek outwash fans in 
Ozette Lake. The authors concluded (p. 43) that ``a combination of 
overfishing and habitat degradation have reduced the sockeye population 
to its current level of less than 1,000 fish.''
    More recently, Blum (1988) conducted an assessment of the same 
problems and concluded that ``the absence of tributary spawners is the 
paramount problem explaining why sockeye runs have not increased 
following the cessation of terminal-area fishing in 1973.'' He cited 
three main problems related to road-building and logging that limit 
spawning habitat: increased magnitude and frequency of peak flows, 
stream-bed scouring, and degraded water quality. He also noted that 
``the logging of the watershed was so extensive that stream spawning 
and rearing conditions are still questionable, despite having 35 years 
to recover.''
    Finally, Beauchamp et al. (1995) examined patterns of prey, 
predator, and competitor abundance in Ozette Lake as potential limiting 
factors for juvenile production of sockeye salmon and kokanee. They 
concluded that competition is unlikely to limit production but that 
predation could be a limiting factor; however, data on piscivore 
abundance were lacking, so the authors could not evaluate predation 
impact accurately.
    A total of 13 species of fish occur in Ozette Lake. Dlugokenski et 
al. (1981) and Blum (1984) listed potential competitors with sockeye 
salmon juveniles in Ozette Lake, including kokanee, red sided shiner, 
northern squawfish, yellow perch, and peamouth. Potential predators 
listed by these same authors included cutthroat trout, northern 
squawfish, and prickly sculpin. Beauchamp et al. (1995) showed that 
competition is unlikely to limit the sockeye salmon population in 
Ozette Lake; however, predation on juvenile sockeye salmon, which was 
25 times greater by individual cutthroat trout than by individual 
squawfish, may be limiting, although total predator abundance has yet 
to be assessed.
    Harbor seals migrate up the Ozette River into Ozette Lake and have 
been seen feeding on adult sockeye salmon off the spawning beaches in 
Ozette Lake. The numbers of seals and of salmon taken by each seal is 
unknown. Seal predation on sockeye salmon at the river mouth and during 
the salmon's migration up the Ozette River may also be occurring. The 
upriver migration of harbor seals to feed on adult sockeye occurs 
commonly in British Columbia, occurring 100 miles upriver on the Fraser 
River at Harrison Lake and up to 200 miles inland on the Skeena River 
(Foerster, 1968). Sockeye migrate up to Ozette Lake in less than 48 
hours, and the majority of the adults travel at night (Jacobs et al., 
1996). Given the precarious state of west coast sockeye salmon stocks, 
including Ozette Lake,

[[Page 11764]]

any marine mammal predation may have a significant effect on particular 
stocks, and these effects need to be more fully understood.
    Outside that portion in Olympic National Park, virtually the entire 
watershed of Ozette Lake has been logged (Blum, 1988). A combination of 
past overfishing and spawning habitat degradation associated with 
timber harvest and road building, have been cited as major causes of 
this stock's decline (Bortleson and Dion, 1979; Dlugokenski et al., 
1981; Blum, 1988; and WDF et al., 1993). McHenry et al. (1994) found 
that fine sediments (<0.85 mm) averaged 18.7 percent in Ozette Lake 
tributaries (although these levels may be partly attributable to the 
occurrence of sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones in this basin) and 
that fine sediment levels were consistently higher in logged watersheds 
than in unlogged watersheds on the Olympic Peninsula, as a whole.
    Currently, spawning is restricted to submerged beaches where 
upwelling occurs along the lakeshore or to tributary outwash fans 
(Dlugokenski et al., 1981; WDF et al., 1993). Spawning has been 
variously reported to occur from mid-to late-November to early February 
(WDF et al., 1993) and from late November to early April (Dlugokenski 
et al., 1981). Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suggested that discreet sub-
populations may be present in the lake, as evidenced by disjunct 
spawning times between beach spawners in different parts of the lake.
    During low water levels in summer, much of the beach habitat may 
become exposed (Bortleson and Dion, 1979). The exotic plant, reed 
canary grass, has been encroaching on sockeye spawning beaches in 
Ozette Lake, particularly on the shoreline north of Umbrella Creek, 
where sockeye spawning has not occurred for several years. This plant 
survives overwinter submergence in up to 3 feet of water and may 
possibly provide cover for predators of sockeye salmon fry (Meyer, 
1996). Suitable lakeshore spawning habitat for sockeye salmon is 
reported to be extremely limited in Ozette Lake (Blum, 1984; Pauley et 
al., 1989).
    High water temperatures in Ozette Lake and River and low water 
flows in the summer may create a thermal block to migration and 
influence timing of sockeye migration (LaRiviere, 1991). Water 
temperatures in late-July and August in the Ozette River near the lake 
outlet have exceeded the temperature range over which sockeye are known 
to migrate (Meyer, 1996).

Proposed Determination

    The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the 
listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being 
made to protect such species.
    Based on results from its coast-wide assessment, NMFS has 
determined that there are six ESUs of sockeye salmon that constitute 
``species'' under the ESA (Snake River, Idaho sockeye salmon were 
previously listed as an endangered species under the ESA). NMFS has 
determined that the Ozette Lake, Washington, sockeye salmon is likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range and, therefore, should be added to the 
list of threatened and endangered species as a threatened species. The 
geographic boundaries for this ESU are described under ``ESU 
Determinations.''
    In the Ozette Lake ESU, only naturally spawned sockeye are being 
proposed for listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS 
will examine the relationship between hatchery and natural populations 
of sockeye in this ESU and assess whether any hatchery populations are 
essential for its recovery. This may result in the inclusion of 
specific hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in NMFS' final 
determination.
    In addition, NMFS is proposing to list only anadromous life forms 
of O. nerka at this time due to uncertainties regarding the 
relationship between resident kokanee or residual sockeye salmon and 
sockeye. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will seek 
additional information on this issue and work with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and fisheries co-managers to better define the 
relationship between resident and anadromous O. nerka in the ESU 
proposed for listing.
    Additionally, NMFS proposes to add the Baker River Sockeye ESU to 
the list of candidate species because, while there is not sufficient 
information available at this time to indicate that Baker River sockeye 
warrant protection under the ESA, NMFS has identified specific risk 
factors and concerns that require further consideration prior to making 
a final determination on the overall health of the ESU. NMFS believes 
it is important to highlight candidate species so that Federal and 
state agencies, Native American tribes, and the private sector are 
aware of which species could benefit from proactive conservation 
efforts.

Prohibitions and Protective Regulations

    Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue protective 
regulations that it finds necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of a threatened species. Section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits 
violations of protective regulations for threatened species promulgated 
under section 4(d). The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with 
respect to the threatened species, some or all of the acts which 
section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. 
These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, 
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends 
to have final 4(d) protective regulations in effect at the time of a 
final listing determination on the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU. The 
process for completing the 4(d) rule will provide the opportunity for 
public comment on the proposed protective regulations.
    In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under 
section 4(d) to tailor the protective regulations based on the contents 
of available conservation measures. Even though existing conservation 
efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need for listing 
at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving watershed 
health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-
developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to 
incorporate them into the recovery planning process, starting with the 
protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) protective 
regulations that exempt a limited range of activities from section 9 
take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern 
Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997) 
exempts habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with 
approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved 
state management plan. In the future, 4(d) rules may contain limited 
take prohibitions applicable to activities such as forestry, 
agriculture, and road construction when such activities are conducted 
in accordance with approved conservation plans.
    These are all examples where NMFS may apply modified section 9 
prohibitions in light of the protections

[[Page 11765]]

provided in a strong conservation plan. There may be other 
circumstances as well in which NMFS would use the flexibility of 
section 4(d). For example, in some cases there may be a healthy 
population of salmon or steelhead within an overall ESU that is listed. 
In such a case, it may not be necessary to apply the full range of 
prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS intends to use the 
flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to the biological 
condition of each ESU and to the strength of efforts to protect them.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer 
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS (see 
Activities that May Affect Critical Habitat).
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see 
regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A) 
scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities 
(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves a directed 
take of listed species.
    NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits 
for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and 
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, 
including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to determine population 
presence and abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches, and 
collection of adult fish for artificial propagation programs. NMFS is 
aware of several sampling efforts for chum salmon in the proposed ESUs, 
including efforts by Federal and state fishery management agencies. 
These and other research efforts could provide critical information 
regarding sockeye salmon distribution and population abundance.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take 
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section 
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of 
artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded 
hatcheries, state or university research on species other than sockeye 
salmon, not receiving Federal authorization or funding, the 
implementation of state fishing regulations, and timber harvest 
activities on non-Federal lands.

Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal 
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking. 
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation 
actions by Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals.
    Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the 
decline of west coast sockeye salmon and other salmonids (see Existing 
Protective Efforts). NMFS is encouraged by these significant efforts, 
which could provide all stakeholders with an approach to achieving the 
purposes of the ESA--protecting and restoring native fish populations 
and the ecosystems upon which they depend--that is less regulatory. 
NMFS will continue to encourage and support these initiatives as 
important components of recovery planning for sockeye salmon and other 
salmonids. Based on information presented in this proposed rule, 
general conservation measures that could be implemented to help 
conserve the species are listed here. This list does not constitute 
NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.
    1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices 
that protect and restore sockeye habitat. Land management practices 
affecting sockeye habitat include timber harvest, road building, 
agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.
    2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any 
changes necessary to protect sockeye populations.
    3. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize 
impacts upon native populations of sockeye.
    4. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge 
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately. 
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the 
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
    5. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating sockeye 
could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation 
diversions on sockeye could be conducted.
    NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and 
recovery programs for sockeye will need to be developed in the context 
of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that Federal lands 
and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving listed 
populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However, 
throughout the range of the ESU proposed for listing, sockeye habitat 
occurs and can be affected by activities on state, tribal or private 
land. Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities on 
nonfederal land could and should be conducted in a manner that avoids 
adverse effects to sockeye habitat.
    NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of 
their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In 
particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships 
to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These 
partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local 
governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and nonfederal 
biologists participate and share the goal of restoring sockeye to the 
watersheds.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
. . . on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species . . . upon 
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in 
section 3(3) of the ESA, means ``. . . to use and the use of all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following 
requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or 
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; 
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

[[Page 11766]]

representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of this species (See 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to 
these factors, NMFS focuses within the designated area on the known 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and may require 
special management considerations or protection. These essential 
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (See 50 
CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

    The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation 
have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS 
identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify 
the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. An area 
may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS determines 
that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the 
species (See 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental 
impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation, 
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the 
species, or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species 
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in 
many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical 
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself, 
are minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical Habitat section 
of this proposed rule). In general, the designation of critical habitat 
highlights geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive 
protection resulting from the listing itself.
    Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the 
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated 
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA means to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct (See 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm 
can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or 
not designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential 
behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

    The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, 
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific 
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation 
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important 
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are 
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to 
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a 
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7. 
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g., 
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not 
affect exclusively state or private activities.
    Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat 
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that 
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery'' of the species (See 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless 
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as 
those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or 
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 
and recovery'' of the species (See 50 CFR 402.02). Using these 
definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the 
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally 
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy 
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a 
species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have 
been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies 
are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR 
402.14(a)), which may not have been recognized but for the critical 
habitat designation.
    A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to 
Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required, 
particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate 
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an 
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is 
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the 
essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which 
activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section 
7, i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the 
designated area.
    A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in 
planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance, 
those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7 
consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential 
conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species 
can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning 
process.
    Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that 
it helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management 
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special 
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation 
regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The 
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the 
time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, are not considered 
in the critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and 
local management programs, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian 
lands protection, may also provide special protection for critical 
habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

    Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three 
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are 
evaluated and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If 
alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the 
species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for 
special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or 
features are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other 
impacts of designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat'' 
are evaluated. The final critical habitat designation, considering 
comments on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published 
within 1 year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations 
may be revised, using the same process, as new information becomes 
available.

Critical Habitat of Sockeye Salmon Proposed for Listing

    As described in the section Sockeye Salmon Life History, the 
current geographic range of sockeye salmon

[[Page 11767]]

includes vast areas of the North Pacific ocean, near shore marine zone, 
and extensive estuarine and riverine areas. Any attempt to describe the 
current distribution of sockeye salmon must take into account the fact 
that extant populations and densities are a small fraction of 
historical levels.
    Within the range of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon, their life cycle 
can be separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile summer 
and winter rearing areas; (2) Juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas 
for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; 
and (5) spawning areas. Areas (1) and (5) are often located in 
lakeshore areas, while areas (2) and (4) include these areas as well as 
small tributaries, mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and 
development to adulthood occurs primarily in near- and offshore marine 
waters (area (3)), although final maturation takes place in freshwater 
tributaries when the adults return to spawn. Within these areas, 
essential features of sockeye salmon critical habitat include adequate: 
(1) Substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) water 
temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8) 
riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the large geographic range occupied by Ozette Lake sockeye salmon and 
the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is not 
practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of these 
essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
the California Department of Fish and Game (1965), CACSST (1988), Brown 
and Moyle (1991), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), Nehlsen et al. (1991), 
Higgins et al. (1992), the California State Lands Commission (1993), 
Botkin et al. (1995), NMFS (1996) and Spence et al. (1996).
    NMFS believes that the current freshwater and estuarine range of 
the species encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate 
to ensure the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is not necessary. Habitat 
quality in this current range is intrinsically related to the quality 
of upland areas and inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams 
which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, 
water quality) crucial for sockeye salmon in downstream reaches and 
lake areas. NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitats are critical for 
sockeye salmon and has included them in this designation. Marine 
habitats (i.e., oceanic or near shore areas seaward of the mouth of 
coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions are 
believed to have a major influence on sockeye salmon survival. However, 
no need appears to exist for special management consideration or 
protection of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to 
designate critical habitat in marine areas at this time. If additional 
information becomes available that supports the inclusion of such 
areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
    Based on consideration of the best available information regarding 
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred 
approach to identifying critical habitat is to designate all areas (and 
their adjacent riparian zones) accessible to the species within the 
range of Ozette Lake sockeye. NMFS believes that adopting a more 
inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is 
appropriate because it (1) recognizes the species' use of diverse 
habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the habitat 
types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life stages, (2) 
takes into account the natural variability in habitat use that makes 
precise mapping difficult, and (3) reinforces the important linkage 
between aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
    An array of management issues encompass these habitats, and special 
management considerations will need to be made, especially on lands and 
streams under Federal ownership. While marine areas are also a critical 
link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special management 
considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features in these 
areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas are being 
proposed for critical habitat at this time.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    In order to assure that the essential areas and features are 
maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities 
that may require special management considerations for freshwater and 
estuarine life stages of Ozette Lake sockeye include, but are not 
limited to (1) land management, (2) timber harvest, (3) point and non-
point water pollution, (4) livestock grazing, (5) habitat restoration, 
(6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns, (7) mining, (8) road 
construction, (9) dam operation and maintenance, (10) recreational 
activities, and (11) dredge and fill activities. Not all of these 
activities are necessarily of current concern within the Ozette Lake 
watershed; however, they indicate the potential types of activities 
that will require consultation in the future. No special management 
considerations have been identified for Ozette Lake sockeye while they 
are residing in the ocean environment.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of Ozette Lake sockeye. These activities may include water 
and land management actions of Federal agencies (i.e., National Park 
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway 
Administration, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and related or 
similar actions of other federally regulated projects and lands by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs; road building activities authorized by the 
Federal Highway Administration or Bureau of Indian Affairs; and dredge 
and fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or 
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These activities may 
also include mining and road building activities authorized by 
Washington State.
    The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this 
critical habitat designation include the National Park Service, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Federal 
Highway Administration. This designation will provide clear 
notification to these agencies, private entities, and to the public of 
critical habitat designated for Ozette Lake sockeye and the boundaries 
of the habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 
7 consultation process. This designation will also assist these 
agencies and others in evaluating the potential effects of their 
activities on Ozette Lake sockeye and their critical habitat and in 
determining when consultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat 
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation 
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or to authorities 
other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other Factors 
section of this proposed rule). Incremental impacts result from special 
management activities in areas outside the present distribution of the 
listed species that have been determined to be essential to the 
conservation of the species. However, NMFS has determined that the 
species' present freshwater and estuarine range contains sufficient 
habitat for conservation of the

[[Page 11768]]

species. Therefore, the economic impacts associated with this critical 
habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
    The U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and Army Corps of 
Engineers may manage areas of proposed critical habitat for the Ozette 
Lake sockeye. The Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies that 
may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical 
habitat areas may also be affected by this designation. Because NMFS 
believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations 
pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy'' 
conclusions, designation of critical habitat is not expected to result 
in significant incremental restrictions on Federal agency activities. 
Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result in few if any 
additional economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by 
listing and by other statutes. Additionally, previously completed 
biological opinions would not require reinitiation to reconsider any 
critical habitat designated in this rulemaking.

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the 
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 
34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum extent possible, those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 
of the ESA (59 FR 34272).

Role of Peer Review

    The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a 
final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert opinions of at least three 
qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. 
Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and 
scientific community, tribal and other native American groups, Federal 
and state agencies, and the private sector.
    Identification of those activities that would constitute a 
violation of Section 9 of the ESA: The intent of this policy is to 
increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and 
ongoing activities within the species' range. NMFS will identify, to 
the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities 
that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9, 
as well as activities that will be considered likely to result in 
violation. For those activities whose likelihood of violation is 
uncertain, a contact will be identified in the final listing document 
to assist the public in determining whether a particular activity would 
constitute a prohibited act under section 9.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments 
and suggestions from the public, Indian tribes, other governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties. Public hearings will be held at locations within the range of 
the proposed ESU (see Public Hearings).
    In particular, NMFS is requesting information regarding the 
following: (1) The relationship between sockeye salmon and kokanee, 
specifically whether kokanee and sockeye salmon populations in the same 
ESU should be considered a single ESU; (2) biological or other relevant 
data concerning any threat to Ozette Lake sockeye salmon, kokanee, or 
to Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon for which a risk assessment was not 
conclusive; (3) the range, distribution, and population size of sockeye 
salmon and kokanee in the sockeye salmon population not identified as 
ESUs (Bear Creek, WA, riverine-spawning sockeye salmon in WA, and 
Deschutes River, OR); (4) current or planned activities in the Ozette 
Lake area and their possible impact on Ozette Lake sockeye; (5) homing 
and straying of natural and hatchery fish; (6) efforts being made to 
protect naturally spawned populations of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon and 
kokanee; (7) suggestions for specific regulations under section 4(d) of 
the ESA that should apply to the Ozette Lake ESU, which is proposed for 
listing as a threatened species; and (8) information on the stability 
of Baker River sockeye salmon populations and the effectiveness of 
ongoing or planned conservation measures aimed at reducing 
vulnerability of this population and its habitats. Suggested 
regulations may address activities, plans, or guidelines that, despite 
their potential to result in the incidental take of listed fish, will 
ultimately promote the conservation and recovery of threatened sockeye.
    NMFS is also requesting quantitative evaluations describing the 
quality and extent of freshwater and marine habitats for juvenile and 
adult sockeye in Ozette Lake as well as information on areas that may 
qualify as critical habitat for the proposed ESU. Areas that include 
the physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the 
species should be identified. NMFS recognizes that there are areas 
within the proposed boundaries of the ESU that historically constituted 
sockeye habitat but may not be currently occupied by sockeye. NMFS is 
requesting information about any presence of sockeye in these currently 
unoccupied areas and the possibility that these habitats be considered 
essential to the recovery of the species or be excluded from 
designation. Essential features include, but are not limited to: (1) 
Habitat for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; 
(2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for 
reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, 
geographical, and ecological distributions of the species.
    For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is 
requesting information describing (1) the activities that affect the 
area or could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic 
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures 
likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be 
considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the 
probable economic impact ``of the [critical habitat] designation upon 
proposed or ongoing activities'' (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider 
the incremental costs that are specifically resulting from a critical 
habitat designation and that are above the economic effects 
attributable to listing the species. Economic effects attributable to 
listing include actions resulting from section 7 consultations under 
the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from the taking 
prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning economic 
impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the incremental 
costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of specific 
areas as critical habitat.
    NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information 
regarding the status of the sockeye salmon ESUs as requested in this 
section and, as required under the ESA, will complete a final rule 
within 1 year of this proposed rule. The availability of new 
information may cause NMFS to reassess the status of sockeye ESUs.
    Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the 
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person 
so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to 
list a species

[[Page 11769]]

or to designate critical habitat. (See 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In a 
forthcoming Federal Register notice, NMFS will announce the dates and 
locations of public hearings on this proposed rule to provide the 
opportunity for the public to give comments and to permit an exchange 
of information and opinion among interested parties. NMFS encourages 
the public's involvement in ESA matters.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).

Compliance With Existing Statutes

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from 
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
    In addition, NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 
S.Ct. 698 (1996).

Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined 
that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those 
which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (ESA 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements of 
section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of 
species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS 
and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
    In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
governments.
    Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the 
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact 
of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    The Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed 
designation is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 
approved Coastal Zone Management Program of the state of Washington. 
This determination will be submitted for review by the responsible 
state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
    At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations 
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its 
4(d) regulations for these threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all 
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species, Incorporation by reference.

50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: February 26, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 226 and 227 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

    1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

    2. Section 226.27 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec. 226.27  Ozette Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).

    Critical habitat is designated to include all lake areas and river 
reaches accessible to listed sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake, located in 
Clallam County, Washington. Critical habitat consists of the water, 
substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine, riverine, and lake 
areas in the watersheds draining into and out of Ozette Lake. 
Accessible areas are those within the historical range of the ESU that 
can still be occupied by any life stage of sockeye salmon. Inaccessible 
areas are those above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers 
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred 
years). Adjacent riparian zones are defined as those areas within a 
horizontal distance of 300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal line of high 
water of a stream channel, adjacent off-channel habitat (600 ft or 
182.8 m, when both sides of the channel are included), or lake. Figure 
14 identifies the general geographic extent of Ozette Lake and larger 
rivers and streams within the area designated as critical habitat for 
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon. Note that Figure 14 does not constitute the 
definition of critical habitat but, instead, is provided as a general 
reference to guide Federal agencies and interested parties in locating 
the boundaries of critical habitat for listed Ozette Lake sockeye 
salmon.
    3. Figure 14 is added to part 226 to read as follows:

Figure 14 to Part 226--Critical Habitat for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 11770]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR98.012



BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 11771]]

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    4. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 and 1531-1543.

    5. In Sec. 227.4, paragraph (o) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 227.4  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (o) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Includes all 
naturally spawned populations of sockeye salmon (and their progeny) in 
Ozette Lake and its tributaries, Washington.

[FR Doc. 98-5471 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P