[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 57 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14528-14536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 980219043-9068-02; I.D. 011498A]
RIN 0648-AK52


Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Ozette 
Lake Sockeye Salmon in Washington

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a 
final determination that the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 
nerka) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), located on Washington's 
Olympic Peninsula, is a threatened species under

[[Page 14529]]

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
    NMFS also reviewed the status of Baker River sockeye salmon, 
previously designated as a candidate species. Based on that review, 
NMFS has determined that Baker River sockeye salmon do not warrant 
listing under the ESA, nor candidate status at this time. NMFS 
previously determined that the Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, Quinault 
Lake, and Lake Pleasant (all located in Washington) sockeye salmon ESUs 
did not warrant listing. However, based on new information, NMFS 
remains concerned about the status of the Okanogan River and Lake 
Wenatchee ESUs, and will closely monitor their status.
    At this time, NMFS is listing all naturally spawned populations of 
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon belonging to the species' anadromous life 
form. NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural 
populations of sockeye salmon in this ESU and determined that none of 
the hatchery populations are currently essential for recovery and, 
therefore, the hatchery populations (and their progeny) are not listed.
    NMFS will issue any protective regulations deemed necessary under 
section 4(d) of the ESA for the listed ESU in a separate rulemaking. 
Even though NMFS does not now issue protective regulations for this 
ESU, Federal agencies are required under section 7 to consult with NMFS 
if any activity they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed 
sockeye salmon.

DATES: Effective May 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE 
Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin (503) 231-2005, or Chris 
Mobley (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Biological information for sockeye salmon can be found in recent 
species status assessments by NMFS (Gustafson et al., 1997; NMFS, 
1999a), Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department 
of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Tribes (WDF et al., 1993), 
in species life history summaries (Pauley et al., 1989; Burgner, 1991; 
Emmett et al., 1991), and in the Federal Register document announcing 
the listing proposal (63 FR 11750, March 10, 1998).

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

    The ESA actions on sockeye salmon in the Pacific Northwest are 
extensive. The history of petitions received regarding this species is 
summarized in the proposed rule published on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 
11750). This final determination was initiated in response to a 
petition filed by Professional Resource Organization-Salmon (PRO-
Salmon) on March 14, 1994. PRO-Salmon petitioned to list Baker River 
sockeye salmon as well as eight populations of other species of Pacific 
salmon under the ESA. In response to this petition and to the more 
general concerns about the status of Pacific salmon throughout the 
region, NMFS published a document in the Federal Register on September 
12, 1994 (59 FR 46808) announcing that the petition presented 
substantial scientific information indicating that a listing may be 
warranted and that the agency would initiate ESA status reviews for 
sockeye and other species of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific 
Northwest. The comprehensive review considered all populations in the 
States of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Hence, the status review for 
sockeye salmon encompassed, but was not restricted to, the population 
identified in the PRO-Salmon petition.
    During the coastwide sockeye salmon status review, NMFS assessed 
the best available scientific and commercial data, including technical 
information from Federal, state, and tribal co-managers and other 
interested parties. The NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of 
staff from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center, reviewed and 
evaluated scientific information provided by the co-managers and other 
sources and completed a coastwide status review for sockeye salmon 
(Gustafson et al., 1997). 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.
    Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other 
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a 
proposed listing determination (63 FR 11750, March 10, 1998) which 
identified six ESUs of sockeye salmon in Washington. The Ozette Lake 
ESU was proposed for listing as a threatened species and the Baker 
River ESU was classified as a candidate species. NMFS concluded that 
the remaining four ESUs (Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, Quinault Lake, 
and Lake Pleasant ESUs) did not warrant listing proposals.
    During the year between the proposed rule and this final 
determination, NMFS requested public comment and solicited peer and co-
manager review of the agency's proposal and received comments and new 
scientific information concerning the status of the Ozette Lake and 
Baker River ESUs, as well as the status of other ESUs for which listing 
was deemed not warranted. NMFS also received information regarding the 
relationship of existing hatchery stocks to naturally spawned 
populations in the Ozette Lake ESU. This new information was evaluated 
by NMFS' BRT and published in an updated status review that draws 
conclusions about the delineation and risk assessment for the proposed 
Ozette Lake ESU (NMFS, 1998). Based on the updated NMFS status review 
and other information, NMFS now issues its final listing determination 
for the Ozette Lake ESU and conclusions regarding the candidate Baker 
River ESU. Copies of the NMFS status review and related documents are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Summary of Comments and Information Received in Response to the 
Proposed Rule

    NMFS held 21 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Washington to solicit comments on this and other salmonid listing 
proposals (63 FR 16955, April 7, 1998; 63 FR 30455, June 4, 1998). 
During the 112-day public comment period, NMFS received 8 written 
comments regarding the sockeye salmon proposed rule. NMFS also sought 
new data and analyses from tribal and state co-managers and met with 
them to formally discuss technical issues associated with the sockeye 
salmon status review. Technical information was considered by NMFS' BRT 
in its re-evaluation of ESU boundaries and risk assessments; this 
information is discussed in the updated status review of sockeye salmon 
(NMFS, 1998).
    A number of comments addressed issues pertaining to the proposed 
critical habitat designation for sockeye salmon. NMFS will address 
these comments in a forthcoming Federal Register document announcing 
the agency's conclusions about critical habitat for the listed ESU.
    On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), published a series of policies regarding listings under 
the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 
34270). In accordance with this policy, NMFS solicited 10 individuals 
to take part in

[[Page 14530]]

a peer review of its west coast sockeye salmon status review and 
proposed rule. All individuals solicited are recognized experts in the 
field of sockeye salmon biology, and represent a broad range of 
interests, including Federal, state, and tribal resource managers, and 
academia. Three of the 10 individuals took part in the peer review of 
this action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by NMFS' BRT 
and are summarized in the updated status review document (NMFS, 1998).
    A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule is 
presented here.

Issue 1: Sockeye Salmon Biology and Ecology

     Comments: Several commenters and peer reviewers asserted that 
resident sockeye salmon (kokanee) should be included in the listed 
anadromous sockeye salmon ESU. Several commenters also stated that NMFS 
should address how the presence of kokanee populations may ameliorate 
risks facing anadromous populations within the listed ESU. A peer 
reviewer emphasized his belief that Ozette Lake kokanee should be made 
part of the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU, despite the very large 
genetic distance between beach-spawning Ozette Lake sockeye salmon and 
Ozette Lake kokanee. This reviewer also stated, that given sufficient 
time and selective pressures, Ozette Lake kokanee will reintroduce the 
anadromous form of Oncorhynchus nerka (O. nerka) to Ozette Lake. The 
reviewer argued that kokanee represent the remaining tributary-spawning 
gene pool, and that without them, anadromous production will not expand 
beyond what the limited beach habitat can produce. On the other hand, 
another peer reviewer agreed with both the separate ESU designation for 
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon and with the exclusion of kokanee from this 
ESU, based on information presented in the status review. This reviewer 
also provided information (unpublished mtDNA data) on genetic 
relationships between the Ozette Lake ESU and selected O. nerka 
populations in Washington and British Columbia.
    Response: While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding 
the relationship of resident and anadromous forms of O. nerka, NMFS 
believes available evidence suggests that resident sockeye and kokanee 
should not be included in listed sockeye ESUs in cases where the 
strength and duration of reproductive isolation would provide the 
opportunity for adaptive divergence in sympatry. This is demonstrated 
by the very large genetic differences between Ozette Lake sockeye 
salmon and Ozette Lake kokanee. However, where resident ``kokanee-
sized'' O. nerka (potential ``residual sockeye salmon'') are observed 
spawning with, or adjacent to, sockeye salmon on spawning beaches in 
Ozette Lake, they are to be considered part of the Ozette Lake sockeye 
salmon ESU.
    Several lines of evidence support comments that kokanee may produce 
anadromous offspring, and thus, represent a valuable life form for 
anadromous sockeye salmon. Under certain conditions, anadromous and 
resident O. nerka are capable of having offspring that express the 
alternate life history form; that is, anadromous fish can produce 
nonanadromous offspring, and vice versa (Ricker, 1938; Fulton and 
Pearson, 1981; Scott, 1984; Chapman et al., 1995). However, the number 
of outmigrants that successfully return as adults is typically quite 
low. In Ozette Lake, where access to and from the ocean is relatively 
easy and the energetic costs of migration to and from the ocean are 
negligible, the sockeye salmon morphology has not been reported to 
occur on the tributary spawning grounds of kokanee (prior to the recent 
sockeye salmon stocking efforts in these tributaries). If Ozette Lake 
kokanee were producing anadromous outmigrants that were surviving to 
adulthood, individuals expressing the sockeye salmon morphology would 
most likely have been seen on the kokanee spawning grounds.
    NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an 
anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning 
populations, by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean and enter 
the breeding population of sockeye salmon, and by providing a 
``reserve'' gene pool in fresh water that may persist through times of 
unfavorable conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential 
benefits, presence of resident populations is not a substitute for 
conservation of anadromous populations. A particular concern is 
isolation of resident populations by human-caused barriers to 
migration. This interrupts normal population dynamics and population 
genetic processes and can lead to loss of a genetically based trait 
(anadromy). As discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper 
(Waples, 1991), the potential loss of anadromy in distinct population 
segments may, in and of itself, warrant listing the ESU as a whole.

Issue 2: Description and Status of Sockeye Salmon ESUs

     Comment: Several general comments were received about the overall 
analytical process for delineating sockeye salmon ESUs. One peer 
reviewer stated that the sockeye salmon status review is incomplete 
because it is limited to the anadromous form only and does not include 
designation of kokanee ESUs. One commenter criticized NMFS' ESU 
concept, arguing that the ESA does not require a Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS) to be reproductively isolated from other conspecific 
populations, that it is not possible to determine evolutionary 
significance of an ESU with genetic data, and that the ESU concept does 
not properly address the ecological significance of a DPS. 
Additionally, a peer reviewer stated that his unpublished analysis of 
mtDNA haplotype data for several populations of sockeye salmon in 
Washington does not, in general, support the ``decision to define ESUs 
at the lake level'' although he recognized the observed genetic 
differentiation of sockeye salmon in Washington, as shown by allozyme 
data.
     Response: Regarding the identification of ESUs, NMFS relies on a 
policy describing how it will apply the ESA definition of ``species'' 
to anadromous salmonid species (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More 
recently, NMFS and FWS published a joint policy defining DPSs (61 FR 
4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and 
applies specifically to Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for 
this determination. This policy states that one or more naturally 
reproducing salmonid populations will be considered to be distinct and, 
hence, species under the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the 
biological species. To be considered an ESU, a population must satisfy 
two criteria: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other 
population units of the same species, 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 have been strong enough to permit evolutionarily 
important differences to occur in different population units. The 
second criterion is met if the population contributes substantially to 
the ecological or genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance 
on applying this policy is contained in a NOAA Technical Memorandum 
entitled ``Definition of 'Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: 
Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991) and in

[[Page 14531]]

a recent scientific paper by Waples (1995).
    The National Research Council (NRC) has recently addressed the 
issue of defining species under the ESA (NRC, 1995). Their report found 
that protecting DPSs is soundly based on scientific evidence, and 
recommends applying an ``Evolutionary Unit'' (EU) approach in 
describing these segments. The NRC report describes the high degree of 
similarity between the EU and ESU approaches (differences being largely 
a matter of application between salmon and other vertebrates), and 
concluded that either approach would lead to similar DPS descriptions 
most of the time.
    Comment: One commenter criticized NMFS' risk assessment approach, 
arguing that NMFS' evaluation of risks from artificial propagation was 
arbitrary, and that the overall risk assessment is fundamentally flawed 
due to an absence of references to standard conservation biology 
literature (particularly that on risk assessment methods), a lack of 
unambiguous criteria for risk, the lack of quantitative population 
modeling, and the use of subjective opinion within the risk matrix 
approach.
     Response: For nearly a decade, NMFS scientists have been 
conducting salmonid status reviews under the ESA using a risk 
assessment approach that includes an evaluation of: (1) absolute 
numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2) 
current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current 
carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural 
and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and 
abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays 
or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a 
drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-
term consequences for abundance of the ESU. In determining whether an 
ESU is threatened or endangered, BRT scientists must make judgements 
about the overall risk to the ESU based on likely interactions among, 
and cumulative effects of, these various status indicators. NMFS 
acknowledges that some elements of the agency's approach are inherently 
subjective (e.g., forecasting effects of natural risk factors). Still, 
NMFS believes that its approach to making listing determinations is 
scientifically credible and invites any constructive suggestions on 
ways to improve risk assessments under the ESA.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the BRT's conclusion that the 
Okanogan River and Lake Wenatchee ESUs are near historic abundance 
levels. They cited evidence that total Columbia Basin sockeye salmon 
run size may have exceeded 4,000,000 fish at a time when the Okanogan 
Basin had 41 percent of the accessible lake rearing area in the 
Columbia Basin, and suggest that historical Okanogan River escapement 
was probably in excess of 1,000,000 fish (not the 12,000 fish suggested 
in the status review). Further, they commented that the status of the 
Wenatchee stock is of particular concern, with a recent steep decline 
and very low escapements despite negligible downstream harvest. The 
Okanogan stock has also exhibited a steep recent decline, and both 
stocks have poor prospects for 1999 runs.
     Response: Despite finding that these populations did not warrant 
ESA protection at the conclusion of the initial status review for west 
coast sockeye salmon, NMFS sought additional information regarding the 
status of Okanogan River and Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon ESUs in the 
updated status review (NMFS, 1998). NMFS agrees that the recent trends 
in abundance are of concern and the agency intends to closely monitor 
these ESUs.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the genetic integrity of the 
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU and, thus, its designation as a separate 
species under the ESA. Based on the introduction of non-native sockeye 
salmon (Quinault Lake sockeye salmon were stocked in 1982) and sockeye 
salmon/kokanee hybrids (released in 1991 and 1992), this commenter 
stated that at issue is ``whether the non-native population has bred 
with the native population to such an extent that the evolutionarily 
important adaptations that distinguished the original population have 
been lost.'' He suggested that more research is needed to better 
determine the proper limits of the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU 
before determining that the ESU warrants listing.
     Response: The history of artificial propagation in the Ozette Lake 
basin is extensive. All releases prior to 1983 were single, large, 
plantings of out-of-basin sockeye. It is unlikely that these practices 
resulted in the loss of genetic fitness and unique adaptations of the 
historic Ozette Lake sockeye salmon population. NMFS will work with 
hatchery managers in the Ozette Lake ESU to ensure that current 
artificial propagation practices are conducted in a manner that will 
not result in the loss of genetic characteristics or adaptive traits.

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Sockeye 
Salmon

     Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have 
contributed to the decline of west coast sockeye salmon. Factors 
identified include overharvest by commercial fisheries, predation by 
pinnipeds and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial 
propagation, and the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine 
habitats. Despite concurrence with NMFS' assessment of the risk factors 
facing Ozette Lake sockeye salmon, one peer reviewer questioned the 
consistency of statements regarding siltation in tributaries as a cause 
of sockeye salmon decline compared to statements regarding abundance of 
kokanee, which would also presumably be affected by such siltation. 
Another peer reviewer argued that listing was not warranted for this 
ESU because the dominant brood years in the four-year abundance cycle 
(1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996) are stable, not declining. He also 
commented that risk was decreasing, not increasing, so becoming 
endangered in the future is not likely. As evidence of decreasing risk, 
he noted that the lake is protected within Olympic National Park, the 
watershed is recovering from logging in the 1960s and 1970s, lake 
rearing habitat is not limiting, and there is no longer any tribal 
harvest. In addition, a review panel was unable to determine which 
factors were responsible for any decline in Ozette Lake sockeye salmon. 
This reviewer also commented that the genetic effects of hatchery 
production are misrepresented in the status review.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a multitude of factors, past and 
present, have contributed to the decline of west coast sockeye salmon. 
NMFS also recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have 
likely played a role in the species' recent decline in abundance. 
However, NMFS believes other human-induced impacts (e.g., incidental 
catch in certain fisheries, hatchery practices, and habitat 
modification) have played an equally significant role in this species' 
decline. Moreover, these human-induced impacts have likely reduced the 
species' resiliency to such natural factors for decline as drought and 
poor ocean conditions (NMFS 1996a).
    For the Ozette Lake ESU, risks perceived by the BRT were focused on 
low current abundance and trends and variability in abundance; current 
escapements average below 1,000 adults per year, implying a moderate 
degree of risk from small-population genetic and demographic 
variability with little room for further declines before abundances

[[Page 14532]]

reach critically low levels. Other concerns include siltation of beach 
spawning habitat, very low abundance now compared to harvests in the 
1950s, and potential genetic effects of past interbreeding with 
genetically dissimilar kokanee.
    With respect to predation issues raised by some commenters, it is 
worth noting that NMFS published reports recently describing the 
impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals upon salmonids 
on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 
1997 and 1999). These reports conclude that in certain cases where 
pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid populations, 
salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to predation. An 
example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington, where sea 
lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult winter 
steelhead. These reports further conclude that data regarding pinniped 
predation are quite limited, and that substantial additional research 
is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on the 
seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to 
warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where 
pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997 and 1999).
    Comment: Two commenters questioned NMFS' interpretation of 
population trends, arguing that the main decline in abundance occurred 
between 1948 and 1958, and that populations have not declined 
substantially since then. They noted that declines cited by NMFS were 
not statistically significant, and that an analysis of the four 
individual brood cycles (4-year lags) shows two increasing and two 
declining. They argue that there is a consistent strong run every 4 
years indicating that the population is no longer declining 
significantly. They also provided new information on the history of 
logging in the Ozette Lake Basin, noting that the main population 
declines occurred before there was substantial logging in the basin. 
They argue that overharvest at sea could be a major limiting factor, 
and that sockeye salmon tributary spawning may have been eliminated by 
harvest practices focusing on the early part of the run. Finally, they 
contended that re-establishment of tributary spawning by anadromous 
fish is limited by the genetic capacity of remaining lake-spawning 
fish.
     Response: Although Ozette Lake sockeye salmon populations were 
heavily harvested in fisheries prior to the most extensive timber 
harvest activities in the watershed, the impacts of intense and 
frequent timber harvest and associated road building (conducted prior 
to state regulation of forest practices) in the watershed in the years 
following the high fishery harvest events have been extensively 
documented; these forest practice activities have no doubt contributed 
to the widespread sedimentation of key portions of lake tributaries, 
lakeshore spawning beaches, and outwash fans. Timber harvest and road 
building may not have caused the declining sockeye salmon abundance, 
but have contributed to the failure of Ozette Lake sockeye populations 
to rebuild since the cessation of commercial sockeye salmon harvests in 
1974 (there has been no direct sockeye harvest of any kind since 1982). 
Additionally, although there is a single strong brood-year, the ESU as 
a whole faces significant risks due to the weakness of the other brood-
year returns.

Issue 4: Designation of Baker River Sockeye Salmon as a Candidate 
Species

    Comment: One peer reviewer and a commenter contended that the Baker 
River ESU should not be a candidate for listing, although their 
arguments were based on different considerations. The peer reviewer 
argued that because the Baker Lake spawning beaches are essentially a 
hatchery, this is not a natural stock, and, therefore, is not subject 
to the ESA. He also argued that although human intervention may pose a 
risk to long-term evolution of the population, it will be required for 
the run to continue. Alternatively, both the peer reviewer and 
commenter believed that abundance and trends do not demonstrate high 
risk, and that the artificial spawning beaches are highly productive, 
producing very high numbers of fry per female. Finally, they commented 
that water quality and disease are not serious concerns.
     Response: Concerns over these issues prompted NMFS to conduct a 
renewed evaluation of Baker River sockeye salmon status in the year 
since publication of the proposed rule. As a result of this review, 
NMFS determined that continued significant increases in abundance since 
the status review eased concerns over the risks facing this population. 
NMFS acknowledges that significant human intervention is required to 
maintain the productivity of this ESU. Although changes in the suite of 
activities could pose risks to this population, NMFS concludes that 
Baker River sockeye salmon are increasing substantially and that 
listing is not warranted.

Issue 5: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

     Comment: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered 
existing conservation programs designed to enhance sockeye salmon 
stocks within particular ESUs. Some commenters provided specific 
information on some of these programs to NMFS concerning the efficacy 
of existing conservation plans.
     Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation plans and 
measures relevant to the ESUs addressed in this final rule and 
concludes that existing conservation efforts in some cases have helped 
ameliorate risks facing the species. Some of these conservation efforts 
are discussed here in ``Existing Conservation Efforts.''
    While several of the conservation plans addressed in the comments 
received show promise for ameliorating risks facing sockeye salmon, 
some of the measures described in comments have not been implemented. 
Some of these measures are also geographically limited to individual 
river basins or political subdivisions, thereby improving conditions 
for only a small portion of the entire ESU. Some of these measures are 
not mature enough to accurately measure their efficacy in protecting or 
restoring the sockeye salmon populations that are the subject of this 
determination.

Summary of Factors Affecting Sockeye Salmon

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of 
Commerce must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species 
is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the 
following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    The factors threatening naturally spawned sockeye salmon throughout 
the species' range are numerous and varied. The present depressed 
condition of many populations is the result of human-induced factors 
(e.g., incidental harvest in certain fisheries, hatchery practices, and 
habitat modification) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of 
natural factors (e.g., competition and predation) or environmental 
variability

[[Page 14533]]

from such factors as drought and poor ocean conditions.
    As noted previously, the comments received regarding the relative 
importance of various risk factors contributing to the decline of 
sockeye salmon essentially reinforce NMFS' description of factors in 
the listing proposal. A summary of these factors and their role in the 
decline of the Ozette Lake ESU is presented in NMFS' March 10, 1998, 
Federal Register document (63 FR 11750), as well as several documents 
in the agency's west coast sockeye salmon administrative record (WDF et 
al., 1993; Gustafson et al., 1997; NMFS, 1999).

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Sockeye Salmon

    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 
efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for 
west coast sockeye salmon and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed 
protective efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local 
watershed initiatives; some of the major efforts are summarized in the 
March 10, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11774). Since then, NMFS has 
received little new information regarding these or other efforts being 
made to protect sockeye salmon. Notable efforts within the range of the 
Ozette Lake ESU continue to be the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), 
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, and Washington Wild 
Salmonid Policy.
    In addition, a recovery planning group composed of the Makah and 
Quileute Indian Tribes, the National Parks Service, and Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife has recently initiated a collaborative 
planning effort to determine how to increase the abundance of naturally 
spawning Ozette Lake sockeye salmon to historic and self-sustaining 
population levels. NMFS and FWS will assist this effort, and other 
state agencies and interested parties will be invited to participate. 
The Makah tribe, which has operated a supplementation program in Ozette 
Lake since the early 1980's, is contributing a draft supplementation 
plan as a starting point for the planning group.
    While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing protective efforts 
are likely to promote the conservation of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon 
and other salmonids, some are very recent and few address conservation 
at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve the Ozette Lake 
ESU. NMFS concludes that existing protective efforts are inadequate to 
preclude a listing for this ESU. However, NMFS will continue to 
encourage these and future protective efforts and will work with 
Federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers to evaluate, promote, and 
improve efforts to conserve sockeye and other salmon populations.

Determination

    Section 3 of 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 listing determinations 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.
    Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon ESU - Based on results from its 
coastwide status review for sockeye salmon, and after taking into 
account comments and new information described earlier, NMFS concludes 
that the Ozette Lake ESU should be classified as threatened under the 
ESA. The majority of the NMFS BRT concluded that this ESU is likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future if present conditions 
continue. Furthermore, NMFS concludes that current protective efforts 
are insufficient to change the BRT's forecast of extinction risk.
    In the listed Ozette Lake ESU, all naturally spawned populations of 
sockeye salmon residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-
standing, natural waterfalls) are listed as threatened. NMFS' intent in 
listing only ``naturally spawned'' populations is to protect sockeye 
salmon stocks that are indigenous to (i.e., part of) the ESU. In this 
listing determination NMFS has identified non-indigenous populations 
that co-occur with fish in the listed ESU. The agency recognizes the 
difficulty of differentiating between indigenous and non-indigenous 
fish, especially when the latter are not readily distinguishable with a 
mark (e.g., fin clip). Also, matings in the wild of either type would 
generally result in progeny that would be treated as listed fish (i.e., 
they would have been naturally spawned in the geographic range of the 
listed ESU and have no distinguishing mark). Therefore, to reduce 
confusion regarding which sockeye salmon are considered listed within 
the ESU, NMFS will treat all naturally spawned fish as listed for 
purposes of the ESA. Efforts to determine the conservation status of 
the ESU would similarly focus on the contribution of indigenous fish to 
the listed ESU. It should be noted that NMFS will take actions 
necessary to minimize or prevent non-indigenous sockeye salmon from 
spawning in the wild unless the fish are specifically part of a 
recovery effort.
    NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural 
populations of sockeye salmon in this ESU, and has assessed whether any 
hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. In examining 
this relationship, NMFS scientists consulted with hatchery managers to 
determine whether any hatchery populations are similar enough to 
native, naturally spawned fish to be considered part of the biological 
ESU (NMFS, 1999a). The evaluation also considered whether any hatchery 
population should be considered essential for the recovery of a listed 
ESU. NMFS concludes that the sockeye salmon stock reared at Umbrella 
Creek Hatchery should be considered part of the Ozette Lake ESU, based 
on the fact that broodstock are derived from wild beach-spawning adults 
and that hatchery stock is not perpetuated by spawning fish returning 
to the hatchery. NMFS also concludes that the Umbrella Creek Hatchery 
stock is not essential for recovery. NMFS' opinion on this second 
question was influenced by the presence of significant numbers of 
sockeye salmon still spawning naturally on Olsen's Beach and in Allen's 
Bay in Ozette Lake; these fish could be used in recovery efforts. NMFS 
also concludes that if progeny of the sockeye salmon/kokanee hybrid 
stock reared at Umbrella Creek Hatchery still exist, they should not be 
considered part of the ESU. This decision was based on the wide genetic 
divergence of Ozette Lake stream-spawning kokanee and beach-spawning 
sockeye salmon and the likelihood that hybrids of these stocks would 
resemble neither of the native O. nerka stocks in Ozette Lake.
    The determination that a hatchery stock is not ``essential'' for 
recovery does not preclude it from playing a role in recovery. Any 
hatchery population that is part of the ESU is available for use in 
recovery if conditions warrant. In this context, an ``essential'' 
hatchery population is one that is vital to incorporate into recovery 
efforts (for example, if the associated natural population(s) were 
extinct or at high risk of extinction). Under such circumstances, NMFS 
would consider taking the administrative action of listing existing 
hatchery fish.

[[Page 14534]]

    NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon 
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993) 
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a 
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species 
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed 
species and are protected under the ESA.'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 
1993). In the case of the Umbrella Creek Hatchery stock, the protective 
regulations that NMFS will issue shortly may except take of naturally 
spawned listed fish for use as broodstock as part of an overall 
conservation program. According to the interim policy, the progeny of 
these hatchery-wild or wild-wild crosses would also be listed. Given 
the requirement for an acceptable conservation plan as a prerequisite 
for collecting broodstock, NMFS determines that it is not necessary to 
consider the progeny of intentional hatchery-wild or wild-wild crosses 
as listed.
    In addition, NMFS believes it is desirable to incorporate naturally 
spawned fish into the hatchery population to ensure that genetic and 
life history characteristics do not diverge significantly from the 
natural population's. NMFS therefore concludes that it is not 
inconsistent with NMFS' interim policy, nor with the policy and 
purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of the ESU but 
not listed.
    Baker River Sockeye Salmon ESU - For the reasons described in the 
March 10, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11750) and earlier in this 
document, NMFS concludes that the Baker River 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. 
NMFS will no longer classify this ESU as a candidate species.
    Other Sockeye Salmon ESUs - While other ESUs and populations were 
not extensively reviewed at this time, NMFS did review updated trend 
information for the Lake Wenatchee and Okanogan River ESUs. Based on 
this new information, NMFS is concerned about the status of the 
Okanogan River and Lake Wenatchee ESUs, and will continue to closely 
monitor their status.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    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 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 will 
publish 4(d) protective regulations for the listed Ozette Lake sockeye 
salmon ESU in a separate Federal Register document. 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 salmon populations. In those cases where well-
developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to 
incorporate them into the protective regulations and recovery plans. 
NMFS has already adopted 4(d) protective regulations that excepts a 
limited range of activities from general section 9 take prohibitions. 
For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coasts coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997) excepts 
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 except from take 
prohibitions activities identified in conservation plans governing such 
activities as forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such 
activities are conducted in accordance with the plans.
    These are all examples where NMFS may apply modified section 9 
prohibitions in light of the protections provided in a conservation 
plan that is adequately protective. 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 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 it.
    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.
    Examples of Federal actions likely to affect sockeye salmon in the 
listed ESU include authorized land management activities (e.g., timber 
sales and harvest) of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Federal actions, 
including the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) section 404 permitting 
activities under the Clean Water Act, COE permitting activities under 
the River and Harbors Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, highway 
projects authorized by the Federal Highway Administration, and Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for non-Federal development and 
operation of hydropower, may also require consultation. These actions 
will likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that 
may result in conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of 
the project and avoid or reduce impacts to sockeye salmon and its 
habitat within the range of the listed ESU.
    There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the 
listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore, 
NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species 
with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal 
consultations, where requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant 
to ESA section 7(a)(2).
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``take'' prohibitions. 
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

[[Page 14535]]

 adult fish for artificial propagation programs. NMFS is aware of 
sampling efforts for sockeye in the listed ESU. 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 release of artificially 
propagated fish by tribal, 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.

Take Guidance

    On July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) NMFS and FWS published a policy 
committing the Services to identify, to the maximum extent practicable 
at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would 
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and on-going activities within the species' range. NMFS 
believes that, based on the best available information, the following 
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) Possession of 
sockeye salmon from the listed ESU acquired lawfully by permit issued 
by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an 
incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; and (2) 
federally funded or approved projects that involve such activities as 
silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and 
operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or 
diversion for which a section 7 consultation has been completed, and 
when such an activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and 
conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied 
by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. As described 
previously in this notice, NMFS may adopt 4(d) protective regulations 
that except other activities from section 9 take prohibitions for 
threatened species.
    Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or 
kill sockeye salmon in the listed ESU and result in a violation of 
section 9 include, but are not limited to: (1) Land-use activities that 
adversely affect sockeye salmon habitat in this ESU (e.g., logging, 
grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, and areas 
susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) diverting water 
through an unscreened or inadequately screened diversion at times when 
juvenile sockeye salmon are present; (3) physical disturbance or 
blockage of the streambed or lakeshore where spawners or redds are 
present concurrent with the disturbance. The disturbance could be 
mechanical disruption from creating push-up dams, gravel removal, 
mining, or other work within a stream channel, trampling or smothering 
of redds by livestock in the streambed, driving vehicles or equipment 
across or down the streambed, and similar physical disruptions; (4) 
discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., 
sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting the 
listed sockeye salmon; (5) pesticide and herbicide applications; (6) 
blocking fish passage through fills, dams, or impassable culverts; (7) 
interstate and foreign commerce of listed sockeye salmon and import/
export of listed sockeye salmon without an ESA permit, unless the fish 
were harvested pursuant to this rule; (8) collecting or handling of 
listed sockeye salmon (permits to conduct these activities are 
available for purposes of scientific research or to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species); and (9) introduction of non-
native species likely to prey on listed sockeye salmon or displace them 
from their habitat. This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to 
provide some examples of the types of activities that might or might 
not be considered by NMFS as constituting a take of listed sockeye 
salmon under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether 
specific activities will constitute a violation of this rule, and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be 
directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

    Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of this 
species, and the broad geographic range of this listing, NMFS 
recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this listing. 
Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the consultation 
requirements associated with this action, this final listing will take 
effect May 24, 1999.

Conservation Measures

    Conservation benefits are provided to species listed as endangered 
or threatened under the ESA through increased recognition, recovery 
actions, Federal agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on 
taking. Increased recognition through listing promotes public awareness 
and conservation actions by Federal, state, 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. NMFS is 
encouraged by these significant efforts, which could provide all 
stakeholders with an approach to achieving the purposes of the ESA 
(i.e., 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.
    To succeed, protective regulations and recovery programs for 
sockeye salmon will need to focus on 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 listed ESUs, 
sockeye salmon habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on 
state, tribal or private land.
    Conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve 
the species are listed here (the list is generalized and does not 
constitute NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) 
of the ESA). Progress on some of these is being made to differing 
degrees in specific areas.
    1. Measures could be taken to promote practices that are more 
protective of (or restore) sockeye salmon habitat across a variety of 
land and water management activities. Activities affecting this habitat 
include timber harvest; agriculture; livestock grazing and operations; 
pesticide and herbicide applications; construction and urban 
development; road building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining; 
stream channelization; dredging and dredged spoil disposal; dock and 
marina construction; diking and bank stabilization; irrigation 
withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral mining; wastewater/
pollutant discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; habitat 
restoration projects; and woody debris/structure removal from rivers 
and estuaries. Each of these activities could be modified to ensure 
that watersheds and specific river reaches are adequately protected in 
the short- and long-terms.
    2. Fish passage could be restored at barriers to migration through 
the installation or modification of fish ladders, upgrade of culverts, 
or removal of barriers.

[[Page 14536]]

    3. Harvest regulations could be modified to protect listed sockeye 
salmon populations.
    4. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize 
negative impacts (e.g., genetic introgression, competition, disease, 
etc.) upon native populations of sockeye salmon.
    5. Predator control/relocation programs could be implemented in 
areas where predators pose a significant threat to sockeye salmon.
    6. Measures could be taken to improve monitoring of sockeye salmon 
populations and their habitat.
    7. Federal agencies such as the USFS, U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corp of 
Engineers, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation could review their management programs and use their 
discretionary authorities to formulate conservation plans pursuant to 
section 7(a)(1) of the ESA.
    NMFS encourages non-Federal landowners to assess the impacts of 
their actions on threatened or endangered salmonids. In particular, 
NMFS encourages state and local governments to use their existing 
authorities and programs, and encourages the formation 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 non-Federal biologists all participate and share the goal of 
restoring salmon to the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that, where 
critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final listing, NMFS 
may extend the period for designating critical habitat by not more than 
one additional year.
    In the proposed rule (63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998), NMFS described 
the areas that may constitute critical habitat for the Ozette Lake 
sockeye salmon ESU. Since then, NMFS has received numerous comments 
from the public concerning the process and definition of critical 
habitat for sockeye salmon and other salmonids. Also, due to statutory 
time limitations, NMFS has not yet consulted with affected Indian 
tribes regarding the designation of critical habitat in areas that may 
affect tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or the 
exercise of tribal rights.
    Given these remaining unresolved issues, NMFS determines at this 
time that a final critical habitat designation is not determinable for 
this ESU since additional time is required to complete the needed 
biological assessments and evaluate special management considerations 
affecting critical habitat. The agency therefore extends the deadline 
for designating critical habitat for 1 year until such assessments can 
be made and after appropriate consultations are completed.

Classification

    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 (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing 
process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O. 
12866.
    This rule has been determined to be major under the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)
    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 the threatened sockeye salmon ESU, NMFS will 
comply with all relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES) and can also be obtained from the internet at 
www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Change in Enumeration of Threatened Species

    In the proposed rule issued on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11750), Ozette 
Lake sockeye salmon was designated the letter (o) in Sec. 227.4. Since 
March 10, NMFS has issued a final rule consolidating and reorganizing 
existing regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. In this 
reorganization, Sec. 227.4 has been redesignated, as Sec. 223.102(a), 
therefore, Ozette Lake sockeye salmon is designated in this final rule 
as paragraph (a) (20) in Sec. 223.102(a). The regulatory text of the 
proposed rule remains unchanged in this final rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

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

    Dated: March 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is 
amended as follows:

PART 223-THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 
U.S.C. 9701.

    2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraph (a)(19) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (19) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Includes all 
naturally spawned populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake and 
streams and tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6813 Filed 3-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F