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

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