[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11750-11771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5471]
[[Page 11749]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Parts 226 and 227
Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Threatened Status and
Designated Critical Habitat for Ozette Lake, Washington Sockeye Salmon;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11750]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 226 and 227
[Docket No. 980219043-8043-01; I.D. No. 011498A]
RIN 0648-AK52
Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Threatened Status and
Designated Critical Habitat for Ozette Lake, Washington Sockeye Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of west coast
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations in Washington, Oregon,
and California and has identified six Evolutionarily Significant Units
(ESUs) within this range, namely, Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee,
Quinault Lake, Ozette Lake, Baker River, and Lake Pleasant, all in the
State of Washington. NMFS concluded that the Ozette Lake sockeye is
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, but that the
other ESUs, including Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, Quinault Lake,
Baker River, and Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon, are not in danger of
extinction, nor are they likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future, thus determining that these ESUs did not
warrant listing under the ESA. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to
list Ozette Lake sockeye as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Ozette Lake sockeye spawn in Ozette Lake and its tributaries in
Washington. NMFS is also proposing to add Baker River sockeye to the
candidate species list because, while there is not sufficient
information available at this time to indicate that Baker River sockeye
warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS has
identified specific risk factors and concerns that require further
consideration prior to making a final determination on the overall
health of the ESU.
Only naturally spawned sockeye salmon are being proposed for
listing. Critical habitat for this ESU is being proposed as the
species' current freshwater and estuarine range and includes all
waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones below longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers.
NMFS is requesting public comments and input on the issues
pertaining to this proposed rule and on integrated local/state/Federal
conservation measures that might best achieve the purposes of the ESA
relative to recovering the health of sockeye salmon populations and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. Should the proposed listings be made
final, protective regulations under the ESA would be put into effect,
and a recovery plan would be adopted and implemented.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 1998. The dates
and locations of public hearings regarding this proposal will be
published in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Protected
Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-
2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, or
Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Sockeye and Petition
Background
The ESA actions on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the
Pacific Northwest are extensive. In April 1990, NMFS received a
petition to list Snake River, Idaho, sockeye salmon as endangered under
the ESA, and announced shortly thereafter that a status review would be
conducted to determine if any Snake River basin sockeye should be
proposed for listing under the ESA (55 FR 13181). Subsequently, NMFS
found that the petition presented substantial scientific information
indicating that the listing may be warranted (55 FR 22942), and, on
April 5, 1991, it proposed to list Snake River sockeye as endangered
under the ESA (56 FR 14055). Eight months later, NMFS finalized its
proposed rule and listed Snake River sockeye salmon as an endangered
species under the ESA (56 FR 58619, November 20, 1991). Critical
habitat for Snake River sockeye salmon was designated on December 28,
1993 (58 FR 68543).
On September 12, 1994, NMFS announced its intention to conduct a
more comprehensive status review for west coast sockeye salmon (O.
nerka) in response to a petition filed by Professional Resource
Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) on March 14, 1994 (59 FR 46808). PRO-
Salmon petitioned to list Baker River, Washington, sockeye as well as
eight populations of other species of Pacific salmon under the ESA. In
this notice, NMFS also requested information and data regarding the
petitioned stocks, including west coast sockeye, in Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, and California.
A NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), consisted of staff from NMFS'
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, completed a coast-wide status
review for west coast sockeye salmon (Memorandum to W. Stelle from M.
Schiewe, October 7, 1997, ``Status Review of Sockeye Salmon From
Washington and Oregon''). Copies of the memorandum are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES). Early drafts of the BRT review were
distributed to state and tribal fisheries managers and peer reviewers
who are experts in the field to ensure that NMFS' evaluation was
accurate and complete. The review, summarized below, identifies six
ESUs of sockeye salmon in Washington and describes the basis for the
BRT's conclusions regarding the ESA status of each ESU. The BRT also
provisionally identified three populations of sockeye salmon, Big Bear
Creek in the Lake Washington Basin, riverine spawning populations in
various Washington rivers, and the Deschutes River basin in Oregon,
where insufficient information exists to (1) Define the ESU; (2) assess
the abundance; or (3) analyze the risks facing the sockeye salmon
population unit. Sockeye salmon do not presently occur in California,
although they may have occured historically. Sockeye did occur
historically in two Oregon basins, but presently only a remnant
population of uncertain origin persists in the Deschutes River basin. A
complete status review of west coast sockeye salmon will be published
in a forthcoming NOAA Technical Memorandum.
The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document
refers to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be
confused with the term Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) described and
identified according to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sockeye Salmon Life History
Sockeye salmon belong to the family Salmonidae and are one of seven
species of Pacific salmonids in the genus Oncorhynchus. Sockeye salmon
are anadromous, meaning they migrate from the ocean to spawn in fresh
water. They are the third most abundant of the seven species of Pacific
salmon, after pink and chum salmon. Unique in their appearance, the
adult spawners
[[Page 11751]]
typically turn bright red, with a green head, hence ``red'' salmon, as
commonly called in Alaska. During the ocean and adult migratory phase
sockeye often have a bluish back and silver sides, giving rise to
another common name, ``bluebacks.'' The name ``sockeye'' is thought to
have been a corruption of the various Indian tribes'' word ``sukkai.''
Sockeye salmon exhibit a wide variety of life history patterns that
reflect varying dependency on the fresh water environment. With the
exception of certain river-type and sea-type populations, the vast
majority of sockeye salmon spawn in or near lakes, where the juveniles
rear for 1 to 3 years prior to migrating to sea. For this reason, the
major distribution and abundance of large sockeye salmon stocks are
closely related to the location of rivers that have accessible lakes in
their watersheds for juvenile rearing (Burgner, 1991). On the Pacific
coast, sockeye salmon inhabit riverine, marine, and lake environments
from the Columbia River and its tributaries north and west to the
Kuskokwim River in western Alaska (Burgner, 1991). There are also O.
nerka life forms that are non-anadromous, meaning that most members of
the form spend their entire lives in freshwater. Non-anadromous O.
nerka in the Pacific Northwest are known as kokanee. Occasionally, a
proportion of the juveniles in an anadromous sockeye salmon population
will remain in their rearing lake environment throughout life and will
be observed on the spawning grounds together with their anadromous
siblings. Ricker (1938) defined the terms ``residual sockeye'' and
``residuals'' to identify these resident, non-migratory progeny of
anadromous sockeye salmon parents. Kokanee and residual or resident
sockeye salmon are further discussed in the ``Status of Non-anadromous
O. nerka'' section.
Among the Pacific salmon, sockeye salmon exhibit the greatest
diversity in selection of spawning habitat and great variation in river
entry timing and the duration of holding in lakes prior to spawning.
The vast majority of sockeye salmon typically spawn in inlet or outlet
tributaries of lakes or along the shoreline of lakes where upwelling of
oxygenated water through gravel or sand occurs. However, they may also
spawn in (1) suitable stream habitat between lakes, (2) along the
nursery lakeshore on outwash fans of tributaries or where upwelling
occurs along submerged beaches, and (3) along beaches where the gravel
or rocky substrate is free of fine sediment and the eggs can be
oxygenated by wind-driven water circulation. All of these spawning
habitats may be used by these ``lake-type'' sockeye salmon.
Growth influences the duration of stay in the nursery lake and is
influenced by intra- and interspecific competition, food supply, water
temperature, thermal stratification, migratory movements to avoid
predation, lake turbidity, and length of the growing season. Lake
residence time usually increases the farther north a nursery lake is
located. In Washington and British Columbia, lake residence is normally
1 or 2 years, whereas in Alaska some fish may remain 3 or, rarely, 4
years in the nursery lake, prior to smoltification (Burgner, 1991;
Halupka et al., 1993).
Adaptation to a greater degree of utilization of lake environments
for both adult spawning and juvenile rearing has resulted in the
evolution of complex timing for incubation, fry emergence, spawning,
and adult lake entry that often involves intricate patterns of adult
and juvenile migration and orientation not seen in other Oncorhynchus
species (Burgner, 1991).
Upon emergence from the substrate, sockeye salmon alevins exhibit a
varied behavior that appears to reflect local adaptations to spawning
and rearing habitat. For example, lake-type sockeye salmon juveniles
move either downstream or upstream to rearing lakes. Periods of
streambank holding are limited for most juvenile sockeye salmon, as
emergents in streams above or between connecting lakes use the current
to travel to the nursery lake. Predation on migrating sockeye salmon
fry varies considerably with spawning location (lakeshore beach, creek,
river, or spring area). Sockeye salmon fry mortality due to predation
by other fish species and birds can be extensive during downstream and
upstream migration to nursery lake habitat and is only partially
reduced by the nocturnal migratory movement of some fry populations
(Burgner, 1991). Juveniles emerging in streams downstream from a
nursery lake can experience periods of particularly high predation
compared with other juvenile sockeye. Juvenile sockeye salmon in lakes
are visual predators, feeding on zooplankton and insect larvae
(Foerster, 1968; Burgner, 1991). Smolt migration typically occurs
between sunset and sunrise, beginning in late April and extending
through early July, with southern stocks migrating the earliest.
Sockeye salmon also spawn in mainstem rivers without juvenile lake-
rearing habitat (Foerster, 1968; Burgner, 1991). These are referred to
as ``river-type'' and ``sea-type'' sockeye salmon. In areas where lake-
rearing habitat is unavailable or inaccessible, sockeye salmon may
utilize river and estuarine habitat for rearing or may forgo an
extended freshwater rearing period and migrate to sea as underyearlings
(Birtwell et al., 1987; Wood et al., 1987a; Heifitz et al., 1989;
Murphy et al., 1988, 1989, and 1991; Lorenz and Eiler, 1989; Eiler et
al., 1992; Levings et al., 1995; and Wood, 1995). Riverine spawners
that rear in rivers for 1 or 2 years are termed ``river-type'' sockeye
salmon. Riverine spawners that migrate as fry to sea or to lower river
estuaries in the same year, following a brief freshwater rearing period
of only a few months, are referred to as ``sea-type'' sockeye salmon.
River-type and sea-type sockeye salmon are common in northern areas and
may predominate over lake-type sockeye salmon in some river systems
(Wood et al., 1987a; Eiler et al., 1988; Halupka et al., 1993; Wood,
1995).
Once in the ocean, sockeye salmon feed on copepods, euphausiids,
amphipods, crustacean larvae, fish larvae, squid, and pteropods. The
greatest increase in length is typically in the first year of ocean
life, whereas the greatest increase in weight is during the second
year. Northward migration of juveniles to the Gulf of Alaska occurs in
a band relatively close to shore, and offshore movement of juveniles
occurs in late autumn or winter. Among other Pacific salmon, sockeye
salmon prefer cooler ocean conditions (Burgner, 1991). Lake- or river-
type will spend from 1 to 4 years in the ocean before returning to
freshwater to spawn.
Adult sockeye salmon home precisely to their natal stream or lake
habitat (Hanamura, 1966; Quinn, 1985; and Quinn et al., 1987). Stream
fidelity in sockeye salmon is thought to be adaptive, since this
ensures that juveniles will encounter a suitable nursery lake. Wood
(1995) inferred from protein electrophoresis data that river- and sea-
type sockeye salmon have higher straying rates within river systems
than lake-type sockeye salmon.
Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA
To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the
identified populations of sockeye salmon must be considered ``species''
under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991)
describing how the agency will apply the ESA definition of ``species''
to
[[Page 11752]]
anadromous salmonid species. This policy provides that a salmonid
population will be considered distinct, and hence a species under the
ESA, if it represents an ESU of the biological species. A population
must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) It must be
reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and
(2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy
of the biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation,
need not be absolute, but must be strong enough to permit
evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population
units. The second criterion is met if the population contributes
substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a
whole. Guidance on the application of this policy is contained in a
scientific paper entitled ``Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the
Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA
Technical Memorandum entitled ``Definition of `Species' Under the
Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' which are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
This Federal Register proposed rule summarizes biological and
environmental information relevant to determining the nature and extent
of sockeye salmon ESUs in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The focus of this
document is on populations in the contiguous United States; however,
information from Asia, Alaska, and British Columbia was also considered
to provide a broader context for interpreting results. Further, as ESU
boundaries are based on biological and environmental information, they
do not necessarily conform to state or national boundaries, such as the
U.S./Canada border.
Status of Non-anadromous O. nerka
Within the range of west coast sockeye, there often exist
populations of ``resident'' or ``residual'' non-anadromous sockeye
salmon. Non-anadromous sockeye salmon are commonly referred to as
``kokanee'' and may also be called ``residual'' or ``resident sockeye
salmon.'' Kokanee, for purposes of this proposed rule, are defined as
the self-perpetuating, non-anadromous form of O. nerka that occurs in
balanced sex-ratio populations and whose parents, for several
generations back, have spent their whole lives in freshwater. Several
native and introduced populations of kokanee within the geographic
range of west coast sockeye salmon may be genetically distinct and
reproductively isolated from one another and from other O. nerka
populations. It has long been known that kokanee can produce anadromous
fish. However, the number of outmigrants that successfully return as
adults is typically quite low, as the sockeye salmon morphology appears
to be absent on the kokanee spawning grounds in areas where there is
relatively easy access to the ocean.
A portion of the juvenile anadromous sockeye salmon will
occasionally remain in their lake rearing environment throughout life
and will be observed on the spawning grounds together with their
anadromous cohorts. These fish are defined as ``resident sockeye
salmon'' to indicate that they are the progeny of anadromous sockeye
salmon parents, spend their adult life in freshwater, but spawn
together with their anadromous siblings.
In considering the ESU status of resident forms of O. nerka, the
key issue is the evaluation of the strength and duration of
reproductive isolation between resident and anadromous forms. Many
kokanee populations appear to have been strongly isolated from
sympatric sockeye salmon populations for long periods of time. Since
the two forms experience very different selective regimes over their
life cycle, reproductive isolation provides an opportunity for adaptive
divergence in sympatry. Kokanee populations that fall in this category
will generally be considered not part of the sockeye salmon ESUs. On
the other hand, resident fish appear to be much more closely integrated
into some sockeye salmon populations.
ESU Determinations
The ESU determinations described here represent a synthesis of a
large amount of diverse information. In general, the proposed
geographic boundaries for each ESU are supported by several different
types of evidence. However, the diverse data sets are not always
entirely congruent, and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the
only ones possible. In some cases, environmental changes occur over a
transitional zone rather than abruptly.
Major types of information considered important by the NMFS BRT in
evaluating ecological/genetic diversity included the following: (1)
Physical features, such as physiography, geology, hydrology, and
oceanic and climatic conditions; (2) biological features, including
vegetation, ichthyogeography, zoogeography, and ``ecoregions''
identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (3) life
history information, such as distributions, patterns and timing of
spawning and migration (adult and juvenile), fecundity and egg size,
and growth and age characteristics; and (4) genetic evidence for
reproductive isolation between populations or groups of populations.
Genetic data (from protein electrophoresis and DNA markers) were the
primary evidence considered for the reproductive isolation criterion.
This evidence was supplemented by inferences about barriers to
migration created by natural geographic features. Based on the
examination of the best available scientific and commercial
information, including the biological effects of human activities, NMFS
has identified six ESUs of west coast sockeye salmon in this region
that can be considered ``species'' under the ESA. A brief description
of the six ESUs follows:
The ESUs identified by NMFS are the Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee,
Quinault Lake, Ozette Lake, Baker River, and Lake Pleasant. All of
these ESUs are in Washington. Information required to determine the ESU
status of sockeye salmon in Big Bear Creek in the Lake Washington Basin
was inadequate. Sockeye salmon were seen spawning in rivers without
lake rearing habitat in Washington, and sockeye salmon returned to the
Deschutes River in Oregon.
(1) Okanogan River
This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Lake Osoyoos
through the Okanogan River via the Columbia River and spawn primarily
in the Canadian section of the Okanogan River above Lake Osoyoos. The
BRT distinguished Okanogan River sockeye based on (1) the very
different rearing conditions encountered by juvenile sockeye salmon in
Lake Osoyoos, (2) the tendency for a large percentage of 3-year-old
returns to the Okanogan population, (3) the apparent 1-month separation
in juvenile run-timing between Okanogan and Wenatchee-origin fish, and
(4) the adaption of Okanogan River sockeye salmon to much higher
temperatures during adult migration in the Okanogan River. Protein
electrophoretic data also indicate that this population is genetically
distinct from other sockeye salmon currently in the Columbia River
drainage (Winans et al., 1996; Wood et al., 1996; and Thorgaard et al.,
1995).
Sockeye salmon returns to Lake Osoyoos were severely depleted by
the early 1900s (Davidson, 1966; Fulton, 1970) with returns to the
Okanogan River in 1935, 1936 and 1937 amounting to 264, 895 and 2,162
sockeye salmon respectively (Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF)
et al., 1938). The construction of Grand Coulee Dam, which completely
blocked the passage
[[Page 11753]]
of sockeye salmon to the upper Columbia River basin, had a major impact
on sockeye salmon in the Okanogan River. To compensate for the loss of
habitat resulting from the total blockage of up-river fish passage by
Grand Coulee Dam, the Federal government initiated the Grand Coulee
Fish Maintenance Project (GCFMP) in 1939 to maintain fish runs in the
Columbia River above Rock Island Dam. Between 1939 and 1943 all sockeye
salmon adults returning to Rock Island Dam were trapped and transported
to either Lake Wenatchee or Lake Osoyoos, or to one of three national
fish hatcheries (Leavenworth, Entiat, or Winthrop) for artificial
propagation (Fish and Hanavan, 1948; Mullan, 1986). After 1944, all
sockeye salmon passing Rock Island Dam and returning to the Wenatchee
and Okanogan Rivers were essentially the progeny of relocated stock.
Mullan (1986) showed that between 1944 and 1948, hatchery-reared
sockeye salmon constituted 5 to 98 percent of the total run. By the
mid-1960s, the contribution of hatchery fish as a percentage of all
returning adult sockeye salmon had decreased to about 10 to 22 percent,
about one-third of what it had been in the 1940s.
Releases from the GCFMP were thought to contribute to re-
establishing healthy sockeye salmon populations in the Wenatchee and
Okanogan River Basins (Chapman et al., 1995), as well as producing
small populations in the Methow and Entiat Rivers, which previous to
the GCFMP apparently did not have sockeye salmon populations (Mullan,
1986; Chapman et al., 1995).
The overall effect of the GCFMP on the current composition of
sockeye salmon in this ESU is difficult to determine. Electrophoresis
analysis of the current Okanogan River sockeye salmon reveals little
affinity with any of the stocks of sockeye salmon introduced by that
project or with kokanee currently residing in Lower Arrow Lake above
Grand Coulee Dam. Artificial propagation efforts at the GCFMP
hatcheries were abandoned in the 1960s due to ``low benefits to costs
and catastrophic losses from Infectious Hemopoietic Necrosis [IHN]''
(Mullan, 1986).
Kokanee are reported to occur in Lake Osoyoos, and one known plant
of 195,000 kokanee from an unknown source stock occurred in this lake
in the years 1919-1920. Kokanee-sized fish, or residuals with a
reportedly olive drab or ``typically dark'' coloration, respectively,
have been observed spawning with sockeye in the Okanogan River. Genetic
samples of kokanee-sized fish from Lake Osoyoos have not been obtained.
However, kokanee from Okanogan Lake, above Vaseux Dam and Vaseux Lake
on the Okanogan River, are genetically quite distinct from Okanogan
River sockeye salmon (Wood et al., 1994; Thorgaard et al, 1995; Utter,
1995; Robison, 1995; and Winans et al., 1996).
The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed
spawning with sockeye salmon on the Okanogan River are identified as
resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered part of this sockeye
salmon ESU. Based on the large genetic difference between Okanagan Lake
kokanee and Okanogan River sockeye salmon, the BRT decided that
Okanagan Lake kokanee are not part of the Okanogan sockeye salmon ESU
(Note--The accepted spelling in Canada is Okanagan, and in the United
States it is Okanogan. In this document Okanagan will be used when
referring to geographic features in Canada and Okanogan when referring
to geographic features in the U.S.) The BRT felt that spawning
aggregations of sockeye that are occasionally observed downstream from
Lake Osoyoos and below Enloe Dam on the Similkameen River are most
likely wanderers from the Okanogan River population and are, therefore,
to be considered part of this ESU.
(2) Lake Wenatchee
This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Lake Wenatchee
through the Wenatchee River via the Columbia River and spawn primarily
in tributaries above Lake Wenatchee (the White River, Napeequa River,
and Little Wenatchee River). Virtually all allozyme data indicate that,
of the populations examined, the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon
population is genetically very distinctive. The following constitute
the genetic, environmental, and life history information in
distinguishing this ESU: (1) Very different environmental conditions
encountered by sockeye salmon in Lake Wenatchee compared with those in
Lake Osoyoos, (2) the near absence of 3-year-old sockeye returns to
Lake Wenatchee, and (3) the apparent 1-month separation in juvenile
run-timing between Okanogan and Wenatchee-origin fish. Sockeye salmon
in Lake Wenatchee were severely depleted by the early 1900s (Bryant and
Parkhurst, 1950; Davidson 1966; and Fulton, 1970), with returns counted
over Tumwater Dam on the Wenatchee River in 1935, 1936, and 1937
amounting to 889, 29 and 65 fish, respectively (WDF et al., 1938).
The overall effect of the GCFMP, described above, on the current
make-up of sockeye salmon in this ESU is difficult to determine. The
redistribution and long-term propagation of mixed Arrow Lakes,
Okanogan, and Wenatchee stocks of sockeye salmon originally captured at
Rock Island Dam, as well as introductions of Quinault Lake sockeye
salmon stocks, may have altered the genetic make-up of indigenous
sockeye salmon in the Lake Wenatchee system, particularly considering
the low estimated returns of native sockeye salmon to Lake Wenatchee
immediately prior to the beginning of the GCFMP. However,
electrophoretic analysis of current Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon
reveals little affinity among Okanogan River sockeye salmon, Quinault
Lake sockeye salmon or kokanee from Lower Arrow Lake.
Spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon that appear in the Entiat
and Methow Rivers and in Icicle Creek (a tributary of the Wenatchee
River) were presumed by the BRT to be non-native and the result of
transplants carried on during the GCFMP. Both the Methow and Entiat
Rivers had no history of sockeye salmon runs prior to stocking (WDF et
al., 1938; Mullan, 1986). Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery is located
on Icicle Creek, and, between 1942 and 1969, more than 1.5 million
sockeye salmon juveniles (of mixed Columbia, Entiat, Methow Rivers
heritage) were liberated from this facility into Icicle Creek (Mullan,
1986; Chapman et al., 1995).
Kokanee-sized fish with a reportedly olive drab coloration have
been observed spawning with sockeye salmon in the White, Napeequa, and
Little Wenatchee Rivers (LaVoy, 1995). More than 23 million Lake
Whatcom kokanee were released in Lake Wenatchee between 1934 and 1983;
however, the current genetic make-up of the Lake Wenatchee sockeye
salmon population reveals little or no affinity with Lake Whatcom
kokanee. Genetic samples of kokanee-sized fish from Lake Wenatchee have
not been obtained.
The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed
spawning with sockeye salmon on the White and Little Wenatchee Rivers
are identified as resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered
part of the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon ESU.
(3) Quinault Lake
This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Quinault Lake
and spawn in the mainstem of the upper Quinault River, in tributaries
of the upper Quinault River, and in a few small tributaries of Quinault
Lake itself. The BRT felt that Quinault Lake sockeye salmon deserved
separate ESU status based on the unique life history
[[Page 11754]]
characteristics and the degree of genetic differentiation from other
sockeye salmon populations.
The distinctive early river-entry timing, protracted adult-run
timing, long 3- to 10-month lake-residence period prior to spawning,
unusually long spawn timing, and genetic differences from other coastal
Washington sockeye salmon were important factors in identifying this
ESU. In addition, the relative absence of red skin pigmentation and the
presence of an olive-green spawning coloration by the majority of the
Quinault stock appear to be unique among major sockeye salmon stocks in
Washington (Storm et al., 1990; Boyer, Jr., 1995), although at least
two sockeye salmon stocks in British Columbia appear more green than
red at spawning (Wood, 1996). The rather large genetic difference
between U.S. and Vancouver Island sockeye salmon, together with the
apparently unique life-history characters of Quinault Lake sockeye
salmon persuaded the BRT to exclude Vancouver Island stocks from this
ESU.
Kokanee-sized O. nerka have not been identified within the Quinault
River Basin.
(4) Ozette Lake
This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to Ozette Lake
through the Ozette River and currently spawn primarily in lakeshore
upwelling areas in Ozette Lake (particularly at Allen's Bay and Olsen's
Beach). Minor spawning may occur below Ozette Lake in the Ozette River
or in Coal Creek, a tributary of the Ozette River. Sockeye salmon do
not presently spawn in tributary streams to Ozette Lake, although they
may have spawned there historically. Genetics, environment, and life
history were the primary factors in distinguishing this ESU. The BRT
determined that Ozette Lake sockeye salmon were a separate ESU based on
the degree of genetic differentiation from other sockeye salmon
populations and on life history characteristics.
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon are genetically distinct from all other
sockeye salmon stocks in the Northwest. Sockeye salmon stocks from west
coast Vancouver Island were excluded from this ESU partly because of
the large genetic difference between the two. On the other hand, Ozette
Lake kokanee proved to be the most genetically distinct O. nerka stock
examined in the contiguous United States. However, Ozette Lake kokanee
were closely allied to several sockeye salmon stocks on Vancouver
Island.
Kokanee are very numerous in Ozette Lake and spawn in inlet
tributaries, whereas sockeye salmon spawn on lakeshore upwelling
beaches. Sockeye have not been observed on the inlet spawning grounds
of kokanee in Ozette Lake, although there are no physical barriers to
prevent their entry into these tributaries. On the other hand, kokanee-
sized O. nerka are observed together with sockeye salmon on the sockeye
salmon spawning beaches at Allen's Bay and Olsen's Beach. One recorded
plant of over 100,000 kokanee from an unknown source stock occurred in
1940, and anecdotal references of another kokanee plant in 1958 were
found.
Based on the very large genetic difference between Ozette Lake
kokanee that spawn in tributaries and Ozette Lake sockeye salmon that
spawn on shoreline beaches, the BRT excluded Ozette Lake kokanee from
this sockeye salmon ESU. In addition, the BRT concluded that, if
``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed spawning with sockeye salmon on
sockeye salmon spawning beaches in Ozette Lake are identified as
resident sockeye salmon, they are to be considered as part of the
Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU.
(5) Baker River
This ESU consists of sockeye salmon that return to the barrier dam
and fish trap on the lower Baker River after migrating through the
Skagit River. They are trucked to one of three artificial spawning
beaches above either one or two dams on the Baker River and are held in
these enclosures until spawning.
The BRT felt that Baker River sockeye salmon are a separate ESU
based on genetic, life-history, and environmental characteristics.
Baker River sockeye salmon are genetically distinct from sockeye salmon
populations that spawn in the lower Fraser River and are genetically
distinct from all other native populations of Washington sockeye
salmon. Prior to inundation behind Upper Baker Dam, Baker Lake was a
typical cold, oligotrophic, well-oxygenated, glacially turbid sockeye
salmon nursery lake, in contrast to other sockeye salmon systems under
review, with the exception of Lake Wenatchee.
The Birdsview Hatchery population on Grandy Creek in the Skagit
River Basin was established from Baker Lake sockeye salmon together
with a probable mixture of Quinault Lake stock and an unknown Fraser
River stock. This stock was the ultimate source for the apparently
successful transplants of sockeye salmon to the Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish system in the mid-1930s to early 1940s (Royal and Seymour,
1940; Kolb, 1971).
Numerous reports indicate that residual or resident sockeye salmon
began appearing in Baker Lake and Lake Shannon Reservoir following the
installation of Lower Baker Dam in 1925 (Ward, 1929, 1930, 1932;
Ricker, 1940; and Kemmerich, 1945). A spring-time recreational kokanee
fishery exists in Baker Lake, although substantial aggregations of
spawning kokanee have yet to be identified. The BRT found no historical
records of kokanee stocking in Baker Lake. However, approximately 40 to
100 kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn each year in the outlet channel that
drains the two upper sockeye salmon spawning beaches at Baker Lake.
(6) Lake Pleasant
A majority of the BRT concluded that Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon
constituted a separate ESU, while a minority thought that insufficient
information exists to accurately describe this ESU. Allozyme data for
Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon indicate genetic distinctiveness from
other sockeye salmon populations. Sockeye salmon in this population
enter the Quillayute River in May through September and hold in the Sol
Duc River before entering Lake Pleasant, usually in early November,
when sufficient water depth is available in Lake Creek. Spawning occurs
on beaches from late November to early January. Kemmerich (1945)
indicated that native sockeye occurred in Lake Pleasant prior to 1932
and that they were of an ``individual size comparable with the size of
the fish of the Lake Quinault and Columbia River runs;'' however,
sockeye salmon currently in Lake Pleasant are said to be small, no
bigger than 2 to 3 pounds (0.9 to 1.4 kg) (Haymes, 1995). Adult male
and female Lake Pleasant sockeye have an average fork length of 460 mm
or less for all ages combined, which is the smallest body size of any
anadromous O. nerka population in the Pacific Northwest. In addition,
in some brood years, a majority of Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon spend 2
years in freshwater prior to migrating to sea. More than 500,000
sockeye salmon fry from Baker Lake and the Birdsview Hatchery in the
Skagit River Basin were released in Lake Pleasant in the 1930s;
however, electrophoretic analysis of current Lake Pleasant sockeye
salmon reveals little genetic affinity with Baker Lake sockeye salmon.
It is assumed that the poisoning of Lake Pleasant during ``lake
rehabilitation'' activities in the 1950s and 1960s may have impacted
one or two broodyears of sockeye salmon in Lake Pleasant. Sockeye
salmon escapement to Lake Pleasant was
[[Page 11755]]
between 760 and 1,500 fish in the early 1960s, indicating that ``lake
rehabilitation'' failed to eliminate sockeye salmon from this system.
Although kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn together with sockeye salmon on
the beaches in Lake Pleasant, the BRT found only anecdotal references
to kokanee being stocked in Lake Pleasant during the 1930s.
The BRT concluded that, if ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka observed
spawning with sockeye salmon on sockeye salmon spawning beaches in Lake
Pleasant are identified as resident sockeye salmon, they are to be
considered part of the Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon ESU.
Other Sockeye Salmon Populations
(1) Big Bear Creek
The BRT did not describe the population of sockeye salmon that
currently spawn in Big Bear Creek and its two tributaries, Cottage Lake
and Evans Creeks. The BRT agreed that the available evidence does not
clearly resolve this issue. In spite of various uncertainties, about
half of the BRT felt that the current sockeye salmon population in Big
Bear and Cottage Lake Creeks is a separate ESU that represents either
an indigenous Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish sockeye salmon population
or a native kokanee population that has naturally re-established
anadromy. About half the BRT members felt that the available
information was insufficient to describe the population of sockeye
salmon in Big Bear Creek as an ESU. This issue is particularly
difficult due to the equivocal nature of historical accounts concerning
the presence and distribution of sockeye salmon within the Lake
Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin.
Genetically, Big Bear and Cottage Lake Creek sockeye salmon are
quite distinct from other stocks of sockeye salmon in the Lake
Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin; they are genetically more similar to
Okanogan River sockeye salmon than they are to any other sockeye salmon
population examined. It was acknowledged that the genetic
distinctiveness of the current Big Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek
sockeye salmon, as revealed through analysis of allozyme data, could
have resulted from genetic change following the recorded return of 2
adults in October 1940 after a transplant of Baker Lake stock sockeye
salmon in 1937, or it could be indicative of a native population of O.
nerka indigenous to the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin.
A native kokanee population once spawned in Big Bear Creek and its
tributaries, although it is uncertain whether a remnant of this native
stock still exists in this drainage. Big Bear Creek was once the
largest producer of kokanee for artificial propagation in Washington,
although relatively few kokanee currently spawn there. Currently a
small number of kokanee-sized O. nerka spawn in Big Bear Creek together
with sockeye salmon. The spawn timing of kokanee in Big Bear Creek is
currently much later than the only remaining recognized native kokanee
stock in the Lake Washington Basin (early entry Issaquah Creek
kokanee). There were over 35 million Lake Whatcom kokanee fry released
in Big Bear Creek between 1917 and 1969, and what effect this stocking
program had on the native kokanee is open to speculation. In addition,
potential genetic interactions of these introduced kokanee with sockeye
salmon are unknown.
Based on the available data, the BRT determined that the Bear Creek
sockeye salmon population unit did not meet the criteria necessary to
be defined as an ESU.
(2) Riverine-Spawning Sockeye Salmon
Spawning ground survey data of the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife and numerous anecdotal references dating back to the turn
of the century indicate that riverine spawning aggregations of sockeye
salmon exist in certain rivers within Washington that lack lake-rearing
habitat. Consistent riverine spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon
have been documented over a period of decades in the North and South
Fork Nooksack, Skagit, Sauk, North Fork Stillaguamish, Samish
(Hendrick, 1995), and Green Rivers. Riverine-spawning sockeye salmon
have also been reported in the Nisqually, Skokomish, Dungeness,
Calawah, Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater Rivers, and are occasionally seen
in small numbers in a number of other rivers and streams in Washington.
Protein electrophoretic data for riverine-spawners from the
Nooksack, upper Skagit, and Sauk Rivers indicate that these
aggregations are genetically similar to one another and genetically
distinct from other sockeye salmon in Washington.
The BRT considered five scenarios that might explain river spawning
aggregations of sockeye salmon in Washington representing (1) multiple
U.S. populations, (2) one U. S. population, (3) strays from U. S. lake-
type sockeye, (4) strays from British Columbia lake-type sockeye
salmon, and (5) strays from river-type populations in British Columbia.
Genetic data for river-spawning sockeye salmon in the Nooksack, Skagit,
and Sauk Rivers do not support scenario (3). The disjunct timing and
geographic distance between individual aggregations of riverine-
spawning sockeye salmon suggest that more than one process may be
responsible for the occurrence of these aggregations.
The small size of the spawning aggregations of sockeye salmon
periodically reported in rivers without lake-rearing habitat in
Washington raises the question of historical population size and
persistence of Pacific salmon over evolutionarily significant time
scales. Because many populations of Pacific salmon show large temporal
fluctuations in abundance, Waples (1991) argued in the NMFS
``Definition of Species'' paper that there must be some size below
which a spawning population is unlikely to persist in isolation for a
long period of time. The fact that small spawning aggregations are
regularly observed may reflect a dynamic process of extinction,
straying, and recolonization. Such small populations are unlikely to be
ESU's, although a collection of them might be.
However, Waples went on to say that ``[i]n making this evaluation,
the possibility should be considered that small populations observed at
present are still in existence precisely because they evolved
mechanisms for persisting at low abundance.'' (Waples, 1991)
The BRT acknowledged the evolutionary importance of existing river/
sea-type sockeye in British Columbia and Alaska but felt that the
evidence was insufficient to determine whether sockeye salmon seen in
rivers without lake rearing habitat in Washington were distinct
populations. Whether riverine-spawning sockeye in Washington can be
defined as an ESU remains an open question.
(3) Deschutes River (Oregon)
The BRT concluded that sockeye salmon that historically migrated up
the Deschutes River via the Columbia River to spawn in Suttle Lake were
a separate ESU, but it is uncertain whether remnants of this ESU exist.
Fish passage into and out of Suttle Lake was blocked sometime around
1930. Currently, sockeye adults that are consistently seen each year in
the Deschutes River below the regulatory dam downstream from Pelton Dam
may be derived from (1) a self-sustaining population of sockeye that
spawn below Pelton Dam on the Deschutes River, (2) strays from
elsewhere in the Columbia River, or (3) outmigration of smolts from
populations of ``kokanee-sized'' O. nerka that exist
[[Page 11756]]
above the Pelton/Round Butte Dam complex. Two kokanee populations are
present above the dams, one population resides in Suttle Lake and
spawns in the lake inlet stream (Link Creek), and a second population
resides in Lake Billy Chinook, behind Round Butte Dam, and spawns in
the upper Metolius River. Both kokanee populations have a distinctive
blue-black body coloration that distinguishes them from hatchery
kokanee that are released in Lake Simtustus and in other Deschutes
River Basin lakes.
Allozyme data for Deschutes River sockeye salmon does not exist;
however, mtDNA data (Brannon, 1996), suggests the possibility that Lake
Billy Chinook kokanee and Deschutes River sockeye salmon are related.
Protein electrophoretic data indicate that kokanee in Suttle Lake and
in Lake Billy Chinook cluster together genetically (NMFS unpublished
data). Over 1.2 million sockeye salmon were planted in the Metolius
River and its tributaries before 1962, and a significant portion of the
adult sockeye salmon returns recorded at the Pelton Dam fish trap,
starting in 1956, may have been descended from these plantings.
The majority of the BRT concluded that a remnant component of this
historical run cannot be identified with any certainty. A minority of
the BRT felt that the extensive transplant history of non-native
sockeye salmon into this basin explains the continued occurrence of
anadromous O. nerka in the Deschutes River Basin and, as the
descendants of transplants, these sockeye salmon are not an ESA issue.
The majority of the BRT agreed that the possibility exists that recent
sockeye salmon in the Deschutes River may result from some remnant
migrants of residualized sockeye salmon or kokanee. Whether Deschutes
River sockeye salmon can be described as an ESU remains an open
question.
Status of Sockeye Salmon ESUs
The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532 NMFS considers a variety of information in
evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU. Important considerations
include (1) absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal
distributions, (2) current abundance in relation to historical
abundance and carrying capacity of the habitat, (3) trends in
abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd counts or on estimates
of spawner-recruit ratios, (4) natural and human-influenced factors
that cause variability in survival and abundance, (5) possible threats
to genetic integrity (e.g., selective fisheries and interactions
between hatchery and natural fish), and (6) recent events (e.g., a
drought or a change in management) that have predictable short-term
consequences for abundance of the ESU. Additional risk factors, such as
disease prevalence or changes in life-history traits, may also be
considered in evaluating risk to populations.
Previous Assessments
In considering the status of the ESUs, NMFS evaluated both
qualitative and quantitative information.
Qualitative evaluations: These evaluations included aspects of
several of the risk considerations outlined above, as well as recent,
published assessments of population status by agencies or conservation
groups of the status of west coast sockeye salmon stocks (Nehlsen et
al., 1991; WDF et al., 1993). Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmonid
stocks throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and
enumerated stocks found to be extinct or at risk of extinction. Stocks
that do not appear in their summary were either not at risk of
extinction or not classifiable due to insufficient information. They
classified stocks as extinct, possibly extinct, at high risk of
extinction, at moderate risk of extinction, or of special concern. They
considered it likely that stocks at high risk of extinction have
reached the threshold for classification as endangered under the ESA.
Stocks were placed in this category if they had declined from
historical levels and were continuing to decline, or had spawning
escapements less than two hundred. Stocks were classified as at
moderate risk of extinction if they had declined from historic levels
but presently appear to be stable at a level above two hundred
spawners. They felt that stocks in this category had reached the
threshold for threatened under the ESA. They classified stocks as of
special concern if a relatively minor disturbance could threaten them,
insufficient data were available for them, they were influenced by
large releases of hatchery fish, or they possessed some unique
character. For sockeye salmon, they classified twenty-two stocks as
follows: sixteen extinct, one possibly extinct, two high risk, one
moderate risk, and two special concern.
WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in
Washington on the basis of stock origin (``native,'' ``non-native,''
``mixed,'' or ``unknown''), production type (``wild,'' ``composite,''
or ``unknown''), and status (``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,''
or ``unknown''). Status categories were defined as healthy:
``experiencing production levels consistent with its available habitat
and within the natural variations in survival for the stock;''
depressed: ``production is below expected levels . . . but above the
level where permanent damage to the stock is likely;'' and critical:
``experiencing production levels that are so low that permanent damage
to the stock is likely or has already occurred.'' Of the nine sockeye
salmon stocks identified, three (Quinault, Wenatchee, and Okanogan)
were classified as healthy, four (Cedar, Lake Washington and Sammamish
Tributaries, Lake Washington Beach, and Ozette) as depressed, one
(Baker) as critical, and one (Lake Pleasant) as unknown.
There are problems in applying results of these studies to ESA
evaluations. One problem is the definition of categories used to
classify stock status. Nehlsen et al. (1991) used categories intended
to relate to ESA ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' status; however they
applied their own interpretations of these terms to individual stocks,
not to ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993) used general terms
describing status of stocks that cannot be directly related to the
considerations important in ESA evaluations. For example, the WDF et
al. (1993) definition of healthy could conceivably include a stock that
is at substantial extinction risk due to loss of habitat, hatchery fish
interactions, and/or environmental variation, although this does not
appear to be the case for any west coast sockeye salmon stocks. Another
problem is the selection of stocks or populations to include in the
review. Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not evaluate, or even identify,
stocks not perceived to be at risk, so it is difficult to determine the
proportion of stocks they considered to be at risk in any given area.
There is also disagreement regarding status of some stocks; for
example, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (1996) disagrees
with Nehlsen et al's (1991) classification of Alturas and Stanley
Lakes' populations as extinct.
Quantitative evaluations: This type of evaluation included
comparisons of current and historical abundance of west coast sockeye
salmon, calculation of recent trends in escapement, and evaluation of
the proportion of natural
[[Page 11757]]
spawning attributable to hatchery fish. Historical abundance
information for these ESUs is largely anecdotal, although estimates
based on commercial harvest are available for some coastal populations
(Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938). Time series data were available for many
populations, but data extent and quality varied among ESUs. NMFS
compiled and analyzed this information to provide several summary
statistics of natural spawning abundance, including (where available)
recent total spawning run size and escapement, percent annual change in
total escapement, recent naturally produced spawning run size and
escapement, and average percentage of natural spawners that were of
hatchery origin. Information on harvest and stock abundance was
compiled from a variety of state, Federal, and tribal agency records
(Foy et al., 1995a, b). Additional data were provided directly to NMFS
by state and tribal agencies and private organizations. NMFS believes
these records to be complete in terms of long-term adult abundance for
sockeye salmon in the region covered. Principal data sources were adult
counts at dams or weirs and spawner surveys.
Computed statistics: To represent current run size or escapement
where recent data were available, NMFS computed the geometric mean of
the most recent 5 years reported (or fewer years if the data series is
shorter than 5 years), while trying to use only estimates that reflect
the total abundance for an entire river basin or tributary, avoiding
index counts or dam counts that represent only a small portion of
available habitat.
Where adequate data were available, trends in total escapement (or
run size if escapement data were not available) were calculated for all
data sets with more than 7 years of data, based on total escapement or
an escapement index (such as fish per mile from a stream survey).
Separate trends were estimated for each full data series and for the
1985-1994 period within each data series. As an indication of overall
trend in individual sockeye salmon populations, NMFS calculated average
(over the available data series) percent annual change in adult spawner
indices within each river basin. No attempt was made to account for the
influence of hatchery produced fish on these estimates, so the
estimated trends include the progeny of natural spawning hatchery fish.
The following summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative
assessments to describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each
steelhead ESU. Aspects of several of these risk considerations are
common to all sockeye salmon ESUs. These are discussed in general below
for each ESU, and more specific discussion can be found in the status
review. After evaluating patterns of abundance and other risk factors
for sockeye salmon from these ESUs, the BRT reached the following
conclusions.
Risk Assessment Conclusions
NMFS has determined that, if recent conditions continue into the
future, one ESU (Ozette Lake) is likely to become endangered, and three
ESUs (Okanogan River, Lake Wenatchee, and Quinault Lake) may not come
under significant danger of becoming extinct or endangered. For the
sixth ESU (Lake Pleasant), there was insufficient information to reach
a conclusion regarding risk of extinction. NMFS also proposes to add
Baker River sockeye to the list of candidate species in order to
further review its status and the efficacy of existing conservation
efforts.
Consideration was also given to the status of the three sockeye
salmon population units which had not been defined as ESUs. For one of
these (riverine-spawning sockeye salmon in Washington) there was
insufficient information to reach any conclusions regarding risk of
extinction. For the other two population units (Bear Creek and
Deschutes River sockeye salmon), NMFS concluded that Bear Creek sockeye
salmon were not in danger of extinction nor likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future, but NMFS concluded that the anadromous
component of the Deschutes River sockeye salmon population unit is
clearly in danger of extinction if not already extinct.
The following paragraphs summarize the conclusions for each ESU or
other population unit. These conclusions are tempered by uncertainties
in certain critical information. For several units, there are kokanee
(either native or introduced) populations using the same water bodies
as sockeye salmon; potential interbreeding and ecological interactions
could affect population dynamics and (in the case of non-native
kokanee) genetic integrity of the sockeye salmon populations. With few
exceptions, adult abundance data do not represent direct counts of
adults destined to a single spawning area, so estimates of total
population abundance and trends in abundance must be interpreted with
some caution.
(1) Okanogan River
The major abundance data series for Okanogan River sockeye salmon
consist of spawner surveys conducted in the Okanogan River above Lake
Osoyoos since the late 1940s, counts of adults passing Wells Dam since
1967, and records of tribal harvest (Colville and Okanogan) since the
late 1940s. Longer term data were available for dams lower on the
Columbia River (notably Rock Island Dam counts starting in 1933), but
these counts represent a combination of this ESU with the Wenatchee
population and other historical ESUs from the upper Columbia River
above Grand Coulee Dam.
Blockage and disruption of freshwater habitat pose some risk for
this ESU. Adult passage is blocked by dams above Lake Osoyoos,
prohibiting access to former habitat in Vaseux, Skaha, and Okanagan
Lakes (Chapman et al., 1995). (However, it is not known whether sockeye
salmon in these upper lakes belonged to the same ESU as those in Lake
Osoyoos.) Other problems in the Okanogan River include inadequately
screened water diversions and high summer water temperatures (Chapman
et al., 1995) and channelization of spawning habitat in Canada. Mullan
(1986) stated that hydroelectric dams accounted for the general decline
of sockeye salmon in the mainstem Columbia River, while Chapman et al.
(1995) suggested that hydropower dams have ``probably'' reduced runs of
sockeye salmon to the Columbia River, particularly to Lake Osoyoos.
The most recent 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was
about 11,000 adults, based on 1992-1996 counts at Wells Dam. No
historical abundance estimates specific to this ESU are available.
However, analyses conducted in the late 1930s indicated that less than
15 percent of the total sockeye run in the upper Columbia River went
into Lakes Osoyoos and Wenatchee (Chapman et al., 1995). At that time,
the total run to Rock Island Dam averaged about 15,000, suggesting a
combined total of less than 2,250 adults returning to the Okanogan
River and Lake Wenatchee ESUs. Thus, abundance for the Okanogan River
ESU during the late 1930s was clearly substantially lower than recent
abundance. Trend estimates for this stock differ depending on the data
series used, but the recent (1986-1995) trend has been steeply downward
(declining at 2 to 20 percent per year); however, this trend is heavily
influenced by high abundance in 1985 and low points in 1990, 1994, and
1995, which may reflect environmental fluctuations. The long-term trend
(since 1960) for this stock has been relatively flat (-3 to +2 percent
annual change).
For the entire Columbia River basin, there has been a considerable
decline in
[[Page 11758]]
sockeye salmon abundance since the turn of the century. Columbia River
commercial sockeye salmon landings that commonly exceeded 1,000,000
pounds in the late 1800s and early 1900s had been reduced to about
150,000 pounds by the late 1980s (Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
1991). Since 1988, harvest has been fewer than 3,500 fish each year.
The TAC (1991) attributes this decline to habitat degradation and
blockage, overharvest, hydroelectric development, and nursery lake
management practices. The two remaining productive stocks (Okanogan and
Wenatchee) occupy less than 4 percent of historical nursery lake
habitat in the upper Columbia River basin.
Both Okanogan and Wenatchee runs have been highly variable over
time. For harvest purposes, these two ESUs are managed as a single
unit, with an escapement goal of 65,000 adults returning to Priest
Rapids Dam (TAC, 1991). This goal has been achieved only ten times
since 1970 and has been met in 2 years between 1992 and 1996.
Examination of the historical trend in total sockeye salmon escapement
to the upper Columbia River shows very low abundance (averaging less
than 20,000 annually) during the 1930s and early 1940s, followed by an
increase to well over 100,000 per year in the mid-1950s. Since the mid-
1940s, abundance has fluctuated widely, with noticeable low points
reached in 1949, 1961-62, 1978, and 1994. The escapement of about 9,000
fish to Priest Rapids Dam in 1995 was the lowest since 1945, but 1996
escapement (preliminary estimate, Fish Passage Center 1996) was
considerably higher, although still far below the goal. Escapement to
Wells Dam (i.e., this ESU) was at its lowest recorded value in 1994,
but increased in both 1995 and 1996.
Past and present artificial propagation of sockeye salmon poses
some risk to the genetic integrity of this ESU. The GCFMP interbred
fish from this ESU with those from adjacent basins for several years,
with unknown impacts on the genetic composition of this ESU. Current
artificial propagation efforts use local stocks and are designed to
maintain genetic diversity, but there is some risk of genetic change
resulting from domestication. There is only one record of introduction
of sockeye salmon from outside the Columbia River Basin into this ESU:
395,420 mixed Quinault Lake/Rock Island Dam stock released in 1942
(Mullan, 1986). Records of kokanee transplants are most likely
incomplete.
In previous assessments of this stock, Nehlsen et al. (1991)
considered Okanogan River sockeye salmon to be of special concern
because of ``present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range,'' including mainstem passage,
flow, and predation problems, whereas WDF et al. (1993) classified this
stock as of native origin, wild production, and healthy status, but
WDFW (1996) suggested that this ``native'' classification will be
changed to ``mixed'' in the future.
Low abundance, downward trends and wide fluctuations in abundance,
land use practices, and variable ocean productivity were perceived as
resulting in low to moderate or increasing risk for this ESU. Other
major concerns regarding health of this ESU were restriction and
channelization of spawning habitat in Canada, hydro system impediments
to migration, and high water temperature problems in the lower Okanogan
River.
Positive indicators for the ESU were escapement above 10,000, which
is probably a substantial fraction of historical abundance, and the
limited amount of recent hatchery production within the ESU. Recent
changes in hydro system management (increases in flow and spill in the
mainstem Columbia River) and harvest management (restrictions in
commercial harvest to protect Snake River sockeye salmon) were regarded
as beneficial to the status of this ESU. NMFS concluded unanimously
that the Okanogan River sockeye salmon ESU is not presently in danger
of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future. However, the very low returns in the three most recent years
suggest that the status of this ESU bears close monitoring and its
status should be reconsidered if abundance remains low.
(2) Lake Wenatchee
The major abundance data series for Wenatchee River sockeye salmon
consist of spawner surveys conducted in the Little Wenatchee River and
the White River since the late 1940s, counts of adults passing Tumwater
Dam (sporadic counts 1935 to present), and reconstructions based on
adult passage counts at Priest Rapids, Rock Island, and Rocky Reach
Dams (early 1960s to present). Longer term data are available for dams
lower on the Columbia River (notably Rock Island Dam counts starting in
1933), but these counts represent a combination of this ESU with the
Okanogan River ESU and other historical potential ESUs from the upper
Columbia River above Grand Coulee Dam.
There are no substantial blockages of sockeye salmon habitat in the
Wenatchee basin, and habitat condition in the basin is generally
regarded as good, although production is limited by the oligotrophic
nature of Lake Wenatchee (Chapman et al., 1995). Mullan (1986) and
Chapman et al. (1995) concluded that the main freshwater habitat
problem presently facing this ESU is hydropower dams in the mainstem
Columbia River, which have probably reduced the runs of sockeye salmon.
The most recent 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was
about 19,000 adults, based on the 1992-1996 difference in adult passage
counts at Priest Rapids and Rocky Reach Dams. No historical abundance
estimates specific to this ESU are available. However, as discussed
above for the Okanogan River ESU, abundance of the Lake Wenatchee ESU
during the late 1930s was clearly substantially lower than recent
abundance. The recent (1986-1995) trend in abundance has been downward
(declining at 10 percent per year), but this trend is heavily
influenced by 2 years of very low abundance in 1994 and 1995. The long-
term (1961-1996) trend for this stock is flat. Escapement to this ESU
in 1995 (counts at Priest Rapids Dam minus those at Rocky Reach Dam)
was the lowest since counting began in 1962, but 1996 escapement was
somewhat higher. Other risk factors common to this ESU and other
Columbia River Basin sockeye salmon populations were discussed under
the Okanogan River ESU above.
Past and present artificial propagation of sockeye salmon poses
some risk to the genetic integrity of this ESU. As for the Okanogan
River ESU, the GCFMP interbred fish from this ESU with those from
adjacent basins for several years and introduced many sockeye salmon
descended from Quinault Lake stock (Mullan 1986), with unknown impacts
on the genetic composition of this ESU. Current artificial propagation
efforts use local stocks and are designed to maintain natural genetic
diversity, but there is some risk of genetic change resulting from
domestication. Hatchery-raised kokanee have been released in Lake
Wenatchee, including native Lake Wenatchee stock and non-native Lake
Whatcom stock (Mullan, 1986). The effect of Lake Whatcom kokanee
introductions on the genetic integrity of this ESU is unknown.
Previous assessments of this ESU are similar to those for the
Okanogan River ESU. Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered Wenatchee River
sockeye salmon to be of special concern because of ``present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range,'' including mainstem passage, flow, and
[[Page 11759]]
predation problems. WDF et al. (1993) classified this stock as of mixed
origin, wild production, and healthy status. Huntington et al. (1996)
identified this stock as ``healthy--Level I,'' indicating that current
abundance is high relative to what would be expected without human
impacts.
Low abundance, downward trends and wide fluctuations in abundance,
and variable ocean productivity were perceived as resulting in low to
moderate risk for the ESU. Other major concerns regarding the health of
this ESU were the effects of hatchery production, hydro system
impediments to migration, and potential interbreeding with non-native
kokanee on genetic integrity of the unit.
Positive indicators for the ESU were escapement above 10,000 and
the limited amount of recent hatchery production within the ESU. Recent
changes in hydro system management (increases in flow and spill in the
mainstem Columbia River) and harvest management (restrictions in
commercial harvest to protect Snake River sockeye salmon) were regarded
as beneficial to the status of this ESU. Based on this information,
NMFS concluded that the Lake Wenatchee sockeye salmon ESU is not
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. However, on the basis of
extremely low abundance in the 3 most recent years, NMFS concluded that
this ESU bears close monitoring and its status should be reconsidered
if abundance remains low.
(3) Quinault Lake
The major abundance data series for Quinault River sockeye salmon
consists of escapement estimates derived from hydroacoustic surveys
conducted in Quinault Lake since the mid-1970s, supplemented with
earlier estimates (beginning in 1967) based on spawner surveys. The
most recent (1991-1995) 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU
was about 32,000 adults, with a run size of about 39,000. Approximate
historical estimates indicate escapements ranging between 20,000 and
250,000 in the early 1920s, and run sizes ranging between 50,000 and
500,000 in the early 1900s (Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938). Comparison of
these estimates indicates that recent abundance is probably near the
lower end of the historical abundance range for this ESU.
This ESU has been substantially affected by habitat problems,
notably those resulting from forest management activities in the upper
watershed outside Olympic National Park. Early inhabitants of the area
described the upper Quinault River as flowing between narrow, heavily
wooded banks, but, by the 1920s, the river was in a wide valley with
frequent course changes and much siltation and scouring of gravels
during winter and spring freshets (Davidson and Barnaby, 1936; Quinault
Indian Nation (QIN), 1981); resultant loss of spawning habitat in the
Quinault River above Quinault Lake has continued to recent times (QIN,
1981).
While stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over time (recent
escapements ranging from a low of 7,500 in 1970 to 69,000 in 1968),
overall trend has been relatively flat. For the full data series (1967-
1995), abundance has increased by an average of about 1 percent per
year; for the 1986-1995 period, abundance declined by about 3 percent
per year.
Artificial propagation of sockeye salmon in the Quinault River
basin has a long history. Releases have been primarily native Quinault
Lake stock, although Alaskan sockeye salmon eggs were brought into the
system prior to 1920. The genetic effects of this introduction are
unknown. Since 1973, all releases have been of local stock, but there
is some risk of genetic change resulting from unnatural selective
pressures.
In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify
Quinault Lake sockeye salmon as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993)
classified this stock as of native origin, wild production, and healthy
status.
All risk factors were perceived as very low or low for this ESU.
However, NMFS had two concerns about the overall health of this ESU.
The ESU is presently near the lower end of its historical abundance
range, a fact that may be largely attributed to severe habitat
degradation in the upper river that contributes to poor spawning
habitat quality and possible impacts on juvenile rearing habitat in
Quinault Lake. The influence of hatchery production on genetic
integrity is also a potential concern for the ESU.
On the positive side, NMFS noted that recent escapement averaged
above 30,000; harvest management has been responsive to stock status;
and recent restrictions in logging to protect terrestrial species
should have a beneficial effect on habitat conditions. The NMFS
concluded unanimously that the Quinault Lake sockeye salmon ESU is not
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
(4) Ozette Lake
The major abundance data series for Ozette River sockeye salmon
consist of escapement estimates derived from counts at a weir located
at the outlet of Ozette Lake. Counting has occurred in most years since
1977 (Dlugokenski et al., 1981; WDF et al., 1993). The most recent
(1992-1996) 5-year average annual escapement for this ESU was about
700. Historical estimates indicate run sizes of a few thousand sockeye
salmon in 1926 (Rounsefell and Kelez, 1938), with a peak recorded
harvest of nearly 18,000 in 1949 (WDF, 1974). Subsequently, commercial
harvest declined steeply to only a few hundred fish in the mid-1960s
and was ended in 1974. A small ceremonial and subsistence fishery
continued up until 1981 (Dlugokenski et al., 1981); there has been no
direct fishery on this stock since 1982 (WDF et al., 1993). Assuming
that Ozette River harvest consisted of sockeye salmon destined to spawn
in this system, comparison of these estimates indicates that recent
abundance is substantially below the historical abundance range for
this ESU.
A recent National Park Service Technical Report (Jacobs et al.,
1996) reported the conclusions of a review panel concerning the status
and management of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake. The panel was
unanimous in expressing great concern about the future of this
population, but was unable to identify a single set of factors
contributing to the population decline. The panel concluded that
declines were likely the result of a contribution of factors, possibly
including introduced species, predation, loss of tributary populations,
decline in quality of beach-spawning habitat, temporarily unfavorable
oceanic conditions, excessive historical harvests, and introduced
diseases. They felt that intra-and inter-specific competition was
unlikely as a contributing factor.
Harvest of sockeye salmon in the Ozette River fluctuated
considerably over time, which would indicate similar fluctuations in
spawner abundance if harvest rates were fairly constant. Based on the
full weir-count series (1977-1995), abundance has decreased by an
average of about 3 percent per year; for the 1986-1995 period, the
decrease averaged 10 percent per year. However, in recent years the
stock has exhibited dominance by a single brood cycle returning every 4
years (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996), and this dominant cycle has remained
stable between 1,700 and 2,200 adults; declines are apparent only in
the smaller returns during off-cycle years.
[[Page 11760]]
Artificial propagation has not been extensive in this basin, but
many of the releases have been non-indigenous stocks. Genetic effects
of these introductions are unknown. Recent hatchery production in
Ozette Lake has been primarily from local stock, with the exception of
120,000 Quinault Lake sockeye salmon juveniles released in 1983. The
release of 14,398 kokanee/sockeye salmon hybrids in 1991-1992 (Makah
Fisheries Management Department, 1995; Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
1995) may have had deleterious effects on genetic integrity of the ESU
because Ozette Lake kokanee are genetically dissimilar to Ozette Lake
sockeye salmon.
In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Ozette
sockeye salmon as at moderate risk of extinction, citing logging and
overfishing in the 1940s and 1950s as major causes of the decline. WDF
et al. (1993) classified this stock as of native origin, wild
production, and depressed status.
Perceived risks ranged from low to moderate for genetic integrity
and variable ocean productivity, from low to moderate and increasing
for downward trends and population fluctuations, and from moderate to
increasing for abundance considerations. Current escapements averaging
below 1,000 adults per year imply a moderate degree of risk from small-
population genetic and demographic variability, with little room for
further declines before abundances would be critically low. Other
concerns include siltation of beach spawning habitat, very low
abundance compared to harvest in the 1950s, and potential genetic
effects of present hatchery production and past interbreeding with
genetically dissimilar kokanee. NMFS concluded that the Ozette Lake
sockeye salmon ESU is not presently in danger of extinction, but, if
present conditions continue into the future, it is likely to become so
in the foreseeable future.
(5) Baker River
The major abundance data series for Baker River sockeye salmon
consist of escapement estimates derived from counts of adults arriving
at a trap below Lower Baker Dam beginning in 1926. The most recent 5-
year average annual escapement for this ESU was about 2,700 adults.
Historical estimates indicate escapements to average 20,000 near the
turn of the century, with a pre-dam low of 5,000 in 1916 (Rounsefell
and Kelez, 1938), although WDFW data suggest that the 20,000 figure is
a peak value, not an average (Sprague, 1996a). Comparison of these
estimates indicates that recent average abundance is probably near the
lower end of the historical abundance range for this ESU. However
escapement in 1994 (16,000 fish) was near the turn-of-the-century
average.
Currently, spawning is restricted to artificial spawning
``beaches'' at the upper end of Baker Lake (in operation since 1957)
and just below Upper Baker Dam (beach constructed in 1990). Spawning on
the beaches is natural, and fry are released to rear in Baker Lake.
Before 1925, sockeye salmon had free access to Baker Lake and its
tributaries. Lower Baker Dam (constructed 1925) created Lake Shannon
and blocked access to this area, but passage structures were provided.
Upper Baker Dam, completed in 1959, increased the size of Baker Lake,
inundating most natural spawning habitat; this was mitigated by
construction of artificial spawning beaches. In most years, all
returning adults are trapped below Lower Baker Dam and transported to
the artificial beaches, with no spawning occurring in natural habitat
(WDF et al., 1993). The only recent exception to this was in 1994, when
the large number of returning adults exceeded artificial habitat
capacity, and excess spawners were allowed to enter Baker Lake and its
tributaries (Ames, 1995). At the time of this report, no quantitative
reports regarding offspring resulting from this spawning ``experiment''
are available (WDFW 1996).
The artificial nature of spawning habitat, the use of net-pens for
juvenile rearing, and reliance on artificial upstream and downstream
transportation pose a certain degree of risk to the ESU. These human
interventions in the life cycle have undoubtedly changed selective
pressures on the population from those under which it evolved its
presumably unique characteristics, and thus pose some risk to the long-
term evolutionary potential of the ESU. There have been continuing
potential problems with siltation at the newer (lower) spawning beach
(WDF et al., 1993), and recent proposals to close the two upper beaches
in favor of production at the lower beach would thus be likely to
increase the risk of spawning failure in some years. The future use of
the upper beaches is uncertain (WDFW, 1996). Problems with operations
of downstream smolt bypass systems have been documented, and there may
be limitations to juvenile sockeye production due to lake productivity
and interactions with other salmonids (WDF et al., 1993). Infectious
haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) has also been a recent problem for this
stock (Sprague, 1995).
Artificial production in this ESU began in 1896 with a state
hatchery on Baker Lake; hatchery efforts at Baker Lake ended in 1933,
by which time the hatchery was being operated by the U.S. Bureau of
Fisheries. Current propagation efforts rely primarily on the spawning
beaches and net-pen rearing. Lake Whatcom kokanee were recently
introduced to Lake Shannon (Knutzen, 1995). Genetic consequences of
these releases and rearing programs are unknown, but there is some risk
of genetic change resulting from unnatural selective pressures.
In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Baker
River sockeye salmon as at high risk of extinction, and WDF et al.
(1993) classified this stock as of native origin, artificial
production, and critical status.
NMFS had several concerns about the overall health of this ESU,
focusing on high fluctuations in abundance, lack of natural spawning
habitat, and the vulnerability of spawning beaches to water quality
problems. Large fluctuations in abundance were a substantial concern.
It is also likely that this stock would go extinct if present human
intervention were halted and problems related to that intervention pose
some risk to the population. In particular, NMFS concluded that the
proposed change in management to concentrate spawning in a single
spawning beach could substantially increase risk to the population
related to abundance and habitat capacity and to water quality and
disease. NMFS concluded that the Baker sockeye salmon ESU is not
presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future if present conditions continue.
However, because of lack of natural spawning habitat and the
vulnerability of the entire population to problems in artificial
habitats, NMFS concluded that this ESU bears close monitoring and its
status should be reconsidered if abundance remains low. Therefore, NMFS
proposes to add the Baker River Sockeye ESU to the list of candidate
species.
(6) Lake Pleasant
Although no recent complete escapement estimates are available for
this stock, NMFS recently received some spawner-survey data for the
period 1987 to 1996 (Mosley, 1995; Tierney, 1997). Peak spawner counts
ranged from a low of 90 (1991--a year with limited sampling) to highs
above 2,000 (1987 and 1992). Abundance fluctuated widely during this
period, with a slight negative trend overall.
[[Page 11761]]
Complete counts at a trapping station on Lake Creek in the early
1960s showed escapements of sockeye salmon ranging from 763 to 1,485
fish, and 65,000 sockeye salmon smolts were reported to have
outmigrated in 1958 (Crutchfield et al. 1965). This stock supports
small sport and tribal commercial fisheries, with probably fewer than
100 fish caught per year in each fishery (WDF et al., 1993). Sockeye
salmon from Grandy Creek stock were released in 1933 and 1937; no
sockeye salmon have been introduced since then.
In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify
Lake Pleasant sockeye salmon as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993)
classified this stock as of native origin, wild production, and unknown
status.
Although escapement monitoring data are sparse, escapements
(represented by peak spawner counts) in the late 1980s and 1990s appear
roughly comparable to habitat capacity for this small lake. Some
concerns were expressed regarding potential urbanization of habitat and
effects of sport harvest during the migration delay in the Sol Duc
River. It was noted that recent restrictions in logging to protect
terrestrial species should have a beneficial effect on habitat
conditions, although little or no old growth forest is present in the
watershed.
NMFS concluded that there was insufficient information to
adequately assess extinction risk for the Lake Pleasant ESU.
Analyses of Biological Information for Other Population Units
While the units discussed below are not presently considered to
constitute ESUs, NMFS briefly examined available information regarding
population status and extinction risk. Three other sockeye salmon
stocks (Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and Lake Washington beach
spawners) are apparently introduced from outside the Lake Washington
drainage and have not been included in a recognized ESU at this time.
(1) Big Bear Creek
Abundance data for Big Bear Creek sockeye salmon are derived from
spawner surveys conducted by WDFW from 1982 to the present (WDF et al.,
1993; Ames, 1996). The most recent (1991-1995) 5-year average annual
escapement for this unit was about 11,400 adults. No historical
estimates are available, but comparing habitat areas in these basins
with other sockeye salmon populations suggests that current production
is probably a substantial proportion of freshwater habitat capacity.
Habitat in this basin is subject to effects of urbanization.
Stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over time, with recent
escapements ranging from a low of 1,800 in 1989 to 39,700 in 1994.
There has been little overall trend in this unit; for the full data
series (1982-1995), abundance has decreased by an average of about 7
percent per year; for the 1986-1995 period, abundance decreased by
about 4 percent per year. 1995 escapement was the second lowest on
record, but 1994 was the highest.
Releases of non-native sockeye salmon in this area have occurred on
Big Bear and North Creeks (tributaries of the Sammamish River), using
Grandy Creek stock from the Skagit River and Cultus Lake stock from
British Columbia, respectively. There have been extensive introductions
of kokanee in this area, a substantial proportion of which were from
Lake Whatcom. Genetic interactions of these kokanee with sockeye salmon
are unknown.
In previous assessments, Nehlsen et al. (1991) did not identify
this stock as at risk, and WDF et al. (1993) classified this stock as
of unknown origin, wild production, and depressed status.
NMFS felt that the extreme fluctuations in recent abundances and
potential effects of urbanization in the watershed suggest that the
status of this populations bears close monitoring. Recent average
abundance has been relatively high, with escapement between 10,000 and
20,000. Recent development of a county growth management plan was seen
as a possible benefit to freshwater habitat for this population. NMFS
concluded that, if the Big Bear Creek sockeye salmon were determined to
be an ESU, it would not be presently in danger of extinction, nor is it
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if present
conditions continue.
(2) Riverine Spawning Sockeye Salmon
Beyond WDFW Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Data (Egan, 1977, 1995,
1997) and anecdotal reports of small numbers of sockeye salmon observed
regularly spawning in some of the Puget Sound and coastal Washington
rivers with no access to lake rearing habitat, NMFS has no information
on overall abundance or trends for these stocks. Thus, there was
insufficient information to reach any conclusion regarding the status
of this sockeye salmon population unit.
(3) Deschutes River (Oregon)
Counts of sockeye salmon adults reaching Pelton Dam on the
Deschutes River have been made during most years since the mid-1950s.
The most recent (1990-1994) 5-year average annual escapement was only 9
adults. No accurate estimates of historical abundance are available for
this unit, but a substantial run is known to have spawned in Suttle
Lake prior to construction of a dam in the 1930s, and is believed to
have continued to spawn in the Metolius River after that time (Columbia
Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), 1990; Olsen et al., 1994;
and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1995a). Since construction
of Pelton Dam, abundance has reached peaks of about 300 fish in several
years (1962, 1963, 1973, 1976--Fish Commission of Oregon, 1967,
O'Connor et al., 1993). NMFS has made no evaluation of abundance of
kokanee in the Deschutes River basin, which may be part of the same
evolutionary unit as sockeye salmon in this basin. Sockeye salmon
derived from the GCFMP were introduced into Suttle Lake and the
Metolius River between 1937 and 1961.
Sockeye salmon stock abundance has fluctuated considerably over
time (recent escapements ranging from a low of 1 in 1993 to 340 in
1963), but there has been a substantial decline over the years for
which data are available. For the full data series (1957-1994),
abundance decreased by an average of about 3 percent per year; for the
1985-1994 period, abundance declined by about 13 percent per year.
Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified Deschutes River sockeye as at high
risk of extinction.
NMFS concluded that, if anadromous sockeye salmon recently seen in
the lower Deschutes River are remnants of the historical Deschutes
River ESU, then the ESU clearly is in danger of extinction due to
extremely low population abundance. If there is an ESU that includes
sockeye salmon and native kokanee above Round Butte Dam, further
evaluation of the kokanee stock and its relationship to the sockeye
salmon would need to be completed before any conclusions regarding
extinction risk could be made. If these sockeye salmon originated from
stocks outside the Deschutes River Basin, they are not subject to
protection under the ESA. NMFS will need additional information
pertaining to the origin of this sockeye salmon population unit to make
a conclusion in this case.
Existing Protective Efforts
Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account
state or local efforts being made to protect a species. Under
[[Page 11762]]
section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA, the Secretary must also evaluate, among
other things, existing regulatory mechanisms. During the status review
for west coast steelhead and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed
protective efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local
watershed initiatives. NMFS has summarized some of the major efforts in
a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to
the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead under the
Endangered Species Act.'' (NMFS, 1996). Many of these efforts have also
significant potential for promoting the conservation of west coast
sockeye salmon. This document is available upon request (see
ADDRESSES). Some of the principal efforts within the range of sockeye
salmon populations reviewed in this proposed rule, and those that
specifically affect Ozette Lake sockeye salmon, are described briefly
in this section.
Northwest Forest Plan
The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal interagency
cooperative program, signed and implemented in April 1994 and
documented in the Record of Decision for Amendments to U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Planning
Documents Within the Range of the Spotted Owl. The NFP represents a
coordinated ecosystem management strategy for Federal lands
administered by the USFS and BLM within the range of the Northern
spotted owl (which overlaps to some extent with the range of sockeye
salmon). The NFP region-wide management direction either amended or was
incorporated into approximately 26 land and resource management plans
(LRMPs) and two regional guides.
The most significant element of the NFP for anadromous fish is its
Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a regional scale aquatic ecosystem
conservation strategy that includes the following: (1) Special land
allocations, such as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-
successional reserves, to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special
requirements for project planning and design in the form of standards
and guidelines; and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration,
and monitoring processes. These ACS components collectively ensure that
Federal land management actions achieve a set of nine ACS objectives,
which include salmon habitat conservation. In recognition of over 300
``at-risk'' Pacific salmonid stocks within the NFP area (Nehlsen et
al,. 1991), the ACS was developed by aquatic scientists, with NMFS
participation, to restore and maintain the ecological health of
watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. The ACS strives to
maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales
to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and
resources and to restore currently degraded habitats. The approach
seeks to prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal
lands over broad landscapes.
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative
In 1991, the Washington treaty tribes, Washington Department of
Fisheries, and Washington Department of Wildlife created this
initiative to address wild stock status and recovery. The first step in
this initiative was to develop an inventory of the status of all salmon
and steelhead stocks which was completed in 1993 with publication of
the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory report. Based on this report,
the state and tribes have identified several salmon stocks in
``critical'' condition and have prioritized the development of recovery
and management plans for them. The final stage of implementing the
policy will be plans to monitor and evaluate the success of individual
recovery efforts.
Washington Wild Salmonid Policy
The Washington State Legislature passed a bill in June of 1993,
(ESHB 1309) which required WDFW, in conjunction with Indian tribes, to
develop wild salmonid policies that ``ensure that department actions
and programs are consistent with the goals of rebuilding wild stock
populations to levels that permit commercial and recreational fishing
opportunities.'' The joint policy will provide broad management
principles and guidelines for habitat protection, escapement
objectives, harvest management, genetic conservation, and other
management issues related to both anadromous and resident salmonids.
The joint policy will be used as the basis to review and modify current
management goals, objectives, and strategies related to wild stocks. A
final Environmental Impact Statement, which analyzes the environmental
effects of the proposed policy, has been adopted by the Washington Fish
and Wildlife Commission, and WDFW is scheduled to consider final action
on the policy in the near future. Once the policy is adopted, full
reviews of hatchery and harvest programs are planned to ensure
consistency with the policy.
Baker River Committee
This ad hoc group of co-managers and private utilities was formed
in 1985 in response to record low returns of adult sockeye returning to
Baker River. The committee's mandate is to arrest the precipitous
decline in coho and sockeye salmon populations in the Baker River
system. Their goal is to restore these populations, as well as to
successfully restore steelhead populations in the Baker River
watershed. Members of the committee include state, Federal, tribal and
private land managers, fisheries agencies and licensees. The committee
has implemented conservation measures that have likely contributed to
the highest adult and juvenile abundance since the period before the
dams were constructed in this watershed.
Harvest Restrictions
The peak harvest of sockeye salmon in the Ozette Lake area was
18,000 fish in 1949 (WDF 1974). Commercial harvest ended in 1974, and
since 1982, there has not been any directed harvest on Ozette lake
sockeye salmon.
NMFS concludes that the existing protective efforts described above
are inadequate to alter the proposed status determination for the Lake
Ozette sockeye salmon ESU. However, during the period between
publication of this proposed rule and of a final rule, NMFS will
continue to solicit information regarding protective efforts (see
Public Comments Solicited) and will work with Federal, state, and
tribal fisheries managers to evaluate the efficacy of the various
salmonid conservation efforts. If, during this process, NMFS determines
existing protective efforts are likely to affect the status of Ozette
Lake sockeye salmon, NMFS may modify this listing proposal.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
NMFS has determined that all of these factors have played a role in the
decline of west coast sockeye salmon, in particular the destruction and
modification of habitat, overutilization for recreational purposes, and
natural and human-made factors. The following discussion summarizes
findings regarding factors for decline across the range of west coast
sockeye. While these factors have been treated here in general terms,
it is important to underscore that impacts from certain factors are
more acute for specific ESUs. For example, impacts from hydropower
development are more
[[Page 11763]]
pervasive for ESUs in the upper Columbia River Basin than for some
coastal ESUs. For a detailed review of factors affecting all Pacific
salmonids, please refer to the NMFS report: Factors For Decline: A
Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead
Under the Endangered Species Act, August, 1996 (see ADDRESSES).
Sockeye salmon on the west coast of the United States have
experienced declines in abundance in the past several decades as a
result of natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and
urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower
have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible habitat.
Studies indicate that in most western states, about 80 to 90 percent of
the historical riparian habitat has been eliminated. Further, it has
been estimated that, during the last 200 years, the lower 48 states
have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the majority of
the rest are severely degraded. Washington and Oregon's wetlands are
estimated to have diminished by one-third. Sedimentation from land use
activities is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation in
the range of west coast sockeye salmon.
Sockeye salmon have supported important commercial fisheries
through much of their range (recreational fisheries are also
significant in parts of their range). Harvest restrictions to protect
sockeye in the Columbia River Basin have reduced harvest rates for
these sockeye. Sockeye salmon from the Washington coast and Puget Sound
are harvested in Puget Sound and nearshore fisheries targeting larger
sockeye populations originating in British Columbia.
Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river and lake
systems, thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by
salmonids. Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas
experiencing dwindling sockeye run sizes.
Natural climatic conditions have served to exacerbate the problems
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.
Persistent drought conditions have reduced the already limited
spawning, rearing, and migration habitat. Further, climatic conditions
appear to have resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during
more productive periods, may help (to a small degree) offset degraded
freshwater habitat conditions.
In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery
programs have been implemented throughout the range of sockeye on the
West Coast. While some of these programs have been successful in
providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on
native, naturally reproducing stocks are not well understood.
Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting
from hatchery introductions may significantly reduce the production and
survival of naturally spawned sockeye. Furthermore, collection of
native sockeye for hatchery broodstock purposes may result in
additional negative impacts to small or dwindling natural populations.
In limited cases, artificial propagation can play an important role in
sockeye recovery, and some hatchery populations may be deemed essential
for the recovery of threatened or endangered sockeye ESUs. In addition,
alternative uses of supplementation, such as for the creation of
terminal fisheries, must be fully explored to try to limit negative
impacts to remaining natural populations. This use must be tempered
with the understanding that protecting naturally spawned sockeye and
their habitats is critical to maintaining healthy, fully functioning
ecosystems.
Specific Factors for Decline Affecting Ozette Lake Sockeye
Three studies have been undertaken to evaluate habitat-related
factors limiting production of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake. The U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service conducted studies of the decline in this
stock during the 1970s, culminating in a report describing limiting
factors and outlining a restoration plan (Dlugokenski et al., 1981).
This report noted that this population formerly spawned in tributaries
but presently uses only the lakeshore, and that food supply,
competition, and predation in the lake are probably not limiting, but
that siltation has caused cementing of spawning gravels in tributaries.
Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suspected that sedimentation, resulting
primarily from logging and associated road building coupled with log
truck traffic on weak siltstone roadbeds, has led to decreased hatching
success of sockeye salmon in tributary creeks and creek outwash fans in
Ozette Lake. The authors concluded (p. 43) that ``a combination of
overfishing and habitat degradation have reduced the sockeye population
to its current level of less than 1,000 fish.''
More recently, Blum (1988) conducted an assessment of the same
problems and concluded that ``the absence of tributary spawners is the
paramount problem explaining why sockeye runs have not increased
following the cessation of terminal-area fishing in 1973.'' He cited
three main problems related to road-building and logging that limit
spawning habitat: increased magnitude and frequency of peak flows,
stream-bed scouring, and degraded water quality. He also noted that
``the logging of the watershed was so extensive that stream spawning
and rearing conditions are still questionable, despite having 35 years
to recover.''
Finally, Beauchamp et al. (1995) examined patterns of prey,
predator, and competitor abundance in Ozette Lake as potential limiting
factors for juvenile production of sockeye salmon and kokanee. They
concluded that competition is unlikely to limit production but that
predation could be a limiting factor; however, data on piscivore
abundance were lacking, so the authors could not evaluate predation
impact accurately.
A total of 13 species of fish occur in Ozette Lake. Dlugokenski et
al. (1981) and Blum (1984) listed potential competitors with sockeye
salmon juveniles in Ozette Lake, including kokanee, red sided shiner,
northern squawfish, yellow perch, and peamouth. Potential predators
listed by these same authors included cutthroat trout, northern
squawfish, and prickly sculpin. Beauchamp et al. (1995) showed that
competition is unlikely to limit the sockeye salmon population in
Ozette Lake; however, predation on juvenile sockeye salmon, which was
25 times greater by individual cutthroat trout than by individual
squawfish, may be limiting, although total predator abundance has yet
to be assessed.
Harbor seals migrate up the Ozette River into Ozette Lake and have
been seen feeding on adult sockeye salmon off the spawning beaches in
Ozette Lake. The numbers of seals and of salmon taken by each seal is
unknown. Seal predation on sockeye salmon at the river mouth and during
the salmon's migration up the Ozette River may also be occurring. The
upriver migration of harbor seals to feed on adult sockeye occurs
commonly in British Columbia, occurring 100 miles upriver on the Fraser
River at Harrison Lake and up to 200 miles inland on the Skeena River
(Foerster, 1968). Sockeye migrate up to Ozette Lake in less than 48
hours, and the majority of the adults travel at night (Jacobs et al.,
1996). Given the precarious state of west coast sockeye salmon stocks,
including Ozette Lake,
[[Page 11764]]
any marine mammal predation may have a significant effect on particular
stocks, and these effects need to be more fully understood.
Outside that portion in Olympic National Park, virtually the entire
watershed of Ozette Lake has been logged (Blum, 1988). A combination of
past overfishing and spawning habitat degradation associated with
timber harvest and road building, have been cited as major causes of
this stock's decline (Bortleson and Dion, 1979; Dlugokenski et al.,
1981; Blum, 1988; and WDF et al., 1993). McHenry et al. (1994) found
that fine sediments (<0.85 mm)="" averaged="" 18.7="" percent="" in="" ozette="" lake="" tributaries="" (although="" these="" levels="" may="" be="" partly="" attributable="" to="" the="" occurrence="" of="" sandstones,="" siltstones,="" and="" mudstones="" in="" this="" basin)="" and="" that="" fine="" sediment="" levels="" were="" consistently="" higher="" in="" logged="" watersheds="" than="" in="" unlogged="" watersheds="" on="" the="" olympic="" peninsula,="" as="" a="" whole.="" currently,="" spawning="" is="" restricted="" to="" submerged="" beaches="" where="" upwelling="" occurs="" along="" the="" lakeshore="" or="" to="" tributary="" outwash="" fans="" (dlugokenski="" et="" al.,="" 1981;="" wdf="" et="" al.,="" 1993).="" spawning="" has="" been="" variously="" reported="" to="" occur="" from="" mid-to="" late-november="" to="" early="" february="" (wdf="" et="" al.,="" 1993)="" and="" from="" late="" november="" to="" early="" april="" (dlugokenski="" et="" al.,="" 1981).="" dlugokenski="" et="" al.="" (1981)="" suggested="" that="" discreet="" sub-="" populations="" may="" be="" present="" in="" the="" lake,="" as="" evidenced="" by="" disjunct="" spawning="" times="" between="" beach="" spawners="" in="" different="" parts="" of="" the="" lake.="" during="" low="" water="" levels="" in="" summer,="" much="" of="" the="" beach="" habitat="" may="" become="" exposed="" (bortleson="" and="" dion,="" 1979).="" the="" exotic="" plant,="" reed="" canary="" grass,="" has="" been="" encroaching="" on="" sockeye="" spawning="" beaches="" in="" ozette="" lake,="" particularly="" on="" the="" shoreline="" north="" of="" umbrella="" creek,="" where="" sockeye="" spawning="" has="" not="" occurred="" for="" several="" years.="" this="" plant="" survives="" overwinter="" submergence="" in="" up="" to="" 3="" feet="" of="" water="" and="" may="" possibly="" provide="" cover="" for="" predators="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" fry="" (meyer,="" 1996).="" suitable="" lakeshore="" spawning="" habitat="" for="" sockeye="" salmon="" is="" reported="" to="" be="" extremely="" limited="" in="" ozette="" lake="" (blum,="" 1984;="" pauley="" et="" al.,="" 1989).="" high="" water="" temperatures="" in="" ozette="" lake="" and="" river="" and="" low="" water="" flows="" in="" the="" summer="" may="" create="" a="" thermal="" block="" to="" migration="" and="" influence="" timing="" of="" sockeye="" migration="" (lariviere,="" 1991).="" water="" temperatures="" in="" late-july="" and="" august="" in="" the="" ozette="" river="" near="" the="" lake="" outlet="" have="" exceeded="" the="" temperature="" range="" over="" which="" sockeye="" are="" known="" to="" migrate="" (meyer,="" 1996).="" proposed="" determination="" the="" esa="" defines="" an="" endangered="" species="" as="" any="" species="" in="" danger="" of="" extinction="" throughout="" all="" or="" a="" significant="" portion="" of="" its="" range,="" and="" a="" threatened="" species="" as="" any="" species="" likely="" to="" become="" an="" endangered="" species="" within="" the="" foreseeable="" future="" throughout="" all="" or="" a="" significant="" portion="" of="" its="" range.="" section="" 4(b)(1)="" of="" the="" esa="" requires="" that="" the="" listing="" determination="" be="" based="" solely="" on="" the="" best="" scientific="" and="" commercial="" data="" available,="" after="" conducting="" a="" review="" of="" the="" status="" of="" the="" species="" and="" after="" taking="" into="" account="" those="" efforts,="" if="" any,="" being="" made="" to="" protect="" such="" species.="" based="" on="" results="" from="" its="" coast-wide="" assessment,="" nmfs="" has="" determined="" that="" there="" are="" six="" esus="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" that="" constitute="" ``species''="" under="" the="" esa="" (snake="" river,="" idaho="" sockeye="" salmon="" were="" previously="" listed="" as="" an="" endangered="" species="" under="" the="" esa).="" nmfs="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" ozette="" lake,="" washington,="" sockeye="" salmon="" is="" likely="" to="" become="" endangered="" within="" the="" foreseeable="" future="" throughout="" all="" or="" a="" significant="" portion="" of="" its="" range="" and,="" therefore,="" should="" be="" added="" to="" the="" list="" of="" threatened="" and="" endangered="" species="" as="" a="" threatened="" species.="" the="" geographic="" boundaries="" for="" this="" esu="" are="" described="" under="" ``esu="" determinations.''="" in="" the="" ozette="" lake="" esu,="" only="" naturally="" spawned="" sockeye="" are="" being="" proposed="" for="" listing.="" prior="" to="" the="" final="" listing="" determination,="" nmfs="" will="" examine="" the="" relationship="" between="" hatchery="" and="" natural="" populations="" of="" sockeye="" in="" this="" esu="" and="" assess="" whether="" any="" hatchery="" populations="" are="" essential="" for="" its="" recovery.="" this="" may="" result="" in="" the="" inclusion="" of="" specific="" hatchery="" populations="" as="" part="" of="" a="" listed="" esu="" in="" nmfs'="" final="" determination.="" in="" addition,="" nmfs="" is="" proposing="" to="" list="" only="" anadromous="" life="" forms="" of="" o.="" nerka="" at="" this="" time="" due="" to="" uncertainties="" regarding="" the="" relationship="" between="" resident="" kokanee="" or="" residual="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" sockeye.="" prior="" to="" the="" final="" listing="" determination,="" nmfs="" will="" seek="" additional="" information="" on="" this="" issue="" and="" work="" with="" the="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" and="" fisheries="" co-managers="" to="" better="" define="" the="" relationship="" between="" resident="" and="" anadromous="" o.="" nerka="" in="" the="" esu="" proposed="" for="" listing.="" additionally,="" nmfs="" proposes="" to="" add="" the="" baker="" river="" sockeye="" esu="" to="" the="" list="" of="" candidate="" species="" because,="" while="" there="" is="" not="" sufficient="" information="" available="" at="" this="" time="" to="" indicate="" that="" baker="" river="" sockeye="" warrant="" protection="" under="" the="" esa,="" nmfs="" has="" identified="" specific="" risk="" factors="" and="" concerns="" that="" require="" further="" consideration="" prior="" to="" making="" a="" final="" determination="" on="" the="" overall="" health="" of="" the="" esu.="" nmfs="" believes="" it="" is="" important="" to="" highlight="" candidate="" species="" so="" that="" federal="" and="" state="" agencies,="" native="" american="" tribes,="" and="" the="" private="" sector="" are="" aware="" of="" which="" species="" could="" benefit="" from="" proactive="" conservation="" efforts.="" prohibitions="" and="" protective="" regulations="" section="" 4(d)="" of="" the="" esa="" requires="" nmfs="" to="" issue="" protective="" regulations="" that="" it="" finds="" necessary="" and="" advisable="" to="" provide="" for="" the="" conservation="" of="" a="" threatened="" species.="" section="" 9(a)="" of="" the="" esa="" prohibits="" violations="" of="" protective="" regulations="" for="" threatened="" species="" promulgated="" under="" section="" 4(d).="" the="" 4(d)="" protective="" regulations="" may="" prohibit,="" with="" respect="" to="" the="" threatened="" species,="" some="" or="" all="" of="" the="" acts="" which="" section="" 9(a)="" of="" the="" esa="" prohibits="" with="" respect="" to="" endangered="" species.="" these="" 9(a)="" prohibitions="" and="" 4(d)="" regulations="" apply="" to="" all="" individuals,="" organizations,="" and="" agencies="" subject="" to="" u.s.="" jurisdiction.="" nmfs="" intends="" to="" have="" final="" 4(d)="" protective="" regulations="" in="" effect="" at="" the="" time="" of="" a="" final="" listing="" determination="" on="" the="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" esu.="" the="" process="" for="" completing="" the="" 4(d)="" rule="" will="" provide="" the="" opportunity="" for="" public="" comment="" on="" the="" proposed="" protective="" regulations.="" in="" the="" case="" of="" threatened="" species,="" nmfs="" also="" has="" flexibility="" under="" section="" 4(d)="" to="" tailor="" the="" protective="" regulations="" based="" on="" the="" contents="" of="" available="" conservation="" measures.="" even="" though="" existing="" conservation="" efforts="" and="" plans="" are="" not="" sufficient="" to="" preclude="" the="" need="" for="" listing="" at="" this="" time,="" they="" are="" nevertheless="" valuable="" for="" improving="" watershed="" health="" and="" restoring="" fishery="" resources.="" in="" those="" cases="" where="" well-="" developed="" and="" reliable="" conservation="" plans="" exist,="" nmfs="" may="" choose="" to="" incorporate="" them="" into="" the="" recovery="" planning="" process,="" starting="" with="" the="" protective="" regulations.="" nmfs="" has="" already="" adopted="" 4(d)="" protective="" regulations="" that="" exempt="" a="" limited="" range="" of="" activities="" from="" section="" 9="" take="" prohibitions.="" for="" example,="" the="" interim="" 4(d)="" rule="" for="" southern="" oregon/northern="" california="" coho="" salmon="" (62="" fr="" 38479,="" july="" 18,="" 1997)="" exempts="" habitat="" restoration="" activities="" conducted="" in="" accordance="" with="" approved="" plans="" and="" fisheries="" conducted="" in="" accordance="" with="" an="" approved="" state="" management="" plan.="" in="" the="" future,="" 4(d)="" rules="" may="" contain="" limited="" take="" prohibitions="" applicable="" to="" activities="" such="" as="" forestry,="" agriculture,="" and="" road="" construction="" when="" such="" activities="" are="" conducted="" in="" accordance="" with="" approved="" conservation="" plans.="" these="" are="" all="" examples="" where="" nmfs="" may="" apply="" modified="" section="" 9="" prohibitions="" in="" light="" of="" the="" protections="" [[page="" 11765]]="" provided="" in="" a="" strong="" conservation="" plan.="" there="" may="" be="" other="" circumstances="" as="" well="" in="" which="" nmfs="" would="" use="" the="" flexibility="" of="" section="" 4(d).="" for="" example,="" in="" some="" cases="" there="" may="" be="" a="" healthy="" population="" of="" salmon="" or="" steelhead="" within="" an="" overall="" esu="" that="" is="" listed.="" in="" such="" a="" case,="" it="" may="" not="" be="" necessary="" to="" apply="" the="" full="" range="" of="" prohibitions="" available="" in="" section="" 9.="" nmfs="" intends="" to="" use="" the="" flexibility="" of="" the="" esa="" to="" respond="" appropriately="" to="" the="" biological="" condition="" of="" each="" esu="" and="" to="" the="" strength="" of="" efforts="" to="" protect="" them.="" section="" 7(a)(4)="" of="" the="" esa="" requires="" that="" federal="" agencies="" confer="" with="" nmfs="" on="" any="" actions="" likely="" to="" jeopardize="" the="" continued="" existence="" of="" a="" species="" proposed="" for="" listing="" and="" on="" actions="" likely="" to="" result="" in="" the="" destruction="" or="" adverse="" modification="" of="" proposed="" critical="" habitat.="" for="" listed="" species,="" section="" 7(a)(2)="" of="" the="" esa="" requires="" federal="" agencies="" to="" ensure="" that="" activities="" they="" authorize,="" fund,="" or="" conduct="" are="" not="" likely="" to="" jeopardize="" the="" continued="" existence="" of="" a="" listed="" species="" or="" to="" destroy="" or="" adversely="" modify="" its="" critical="" habitat.="" if="" a="" federal="" action="" may="" affect="" a="" listed="" species="" or="" its="" critical="" habitat,="" the="" responsible="" federal="" agency="" must="" enter="" into="" consultation="" with="" nmfs="" (see="" activities="" that="" may="" affect="" critical="" habitat).="" sections="" 10(a)(1)(a)="" and="" 10(a)(1)(b)="" of="" the="" esa="" provide="" nmfs="" with="" authority="" to="" grant="" exceptions="" to="" the="" esa's="" ``taking''="" prohibitions="" (see="" regulations="" at="" 50="" cfr="" 222.22="" through="" 222.24).="" section="" 10(a)(1)(a)="" scientific="" research="" and="" enhancement="" permits="" may="" be="" issued="" to="" entities="" (federal="" and="" non-federal)="" conducting="" research="" that="" involves="" a="" directed="" take="" of="" listed="" species.="" nmfs="" has="" issued="" section="" 10(a)(1)(a)="" research="" or="" enhancement="" permits="" for="" other="" listed="" species="" (e.g.,="" snake="" river="" chinook="" salmon="" and="" sacramento="" river="" winter-run="" chinook="" salmon)="" for="" a="" number="" of="" activities,="" including="" trapping="" and="" tagging,="" electroshocking="" to="" determine="" population="" presence="" and="" abundance,="" removal="" of="" fish="" from="" irrigation="" ditches,="" and="" collection="" of="" adult="" fish="" for="" artificial="" propagation="" programs.="" nmfs="" is="" aware="" of="" several="" sampling="" efforts="" for="" chum="" salmon="" in="" the="" proposed="" esus,="" including="" efforts="" by="" federal="" and="" state="" fishery="" management="" agencies.="" these="" and="" other="" research="" efforts="" could="" provide="" critical="" information="" regarding="" sockeye="" salmon="" distribution="" and="" population="" abundance.="" section="" 10(a)(1)(b)="" incidental="" take="" permits="" may="" be="" issued="" to="" non-="" federal="" entities="" performing="" activities="" that="" may="" incidentally="" take="" listed="" species.="" the="" types="" of="" activities="" potentially="" requiring="" a="" section="" 10(a)(1)(b)="" incidental="" take="" permit="" include="" the="" operation="" and="" release="" of="" artificially="" propagated="" fish="" by="" state="" or="" privately="" operated="" and="" funded="" hatcheries,="" state="" or="" university="" research="" on="" species="" other="" than="" sockeye="" salmon,="" not="" receiving="" federal="" authorization="" or="" funding,="" the="" implementation="" of="" state="" fishing="" regulations,="" and="" timber="" harvest="" activities="" on="" non-federal="" lands.="" conservation="" measures="" conservation="" measures="" provided="" to="" species="" listed="" as="" endangered="" or="" threatened="" under="" the="" esa="" include="" recognition,="" recovery="" actions,="" federal="" agency="" consultation="" requirements,="" and="" prohibitions="" on="" taking.="" recognition="" through="" listing="" promotes="" public="" awareness="" and="" conservation="" actions="" by="" federal,="" state,="" tribal,="" and="" local="" agencies,="" private="" organizations,="" and="" individuals.="" several="" conservation="" efforts="" are="" underway="" that="" may="" reverse="" the="" decline="" of="" west="" coast="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" other="" salmonids="" (see="" existing="" protective="" efforts).="" nmfs="" is="" encouraged="" by="" these="" significant="" efforts,="" which="" could="" provide="" all="" stakeholders="" with="" an="" approach="" to="" achieving="" the="" purposes="" of="" the="" esa--protecting="" and="" restoring="" native="" fish="" populations="" and="" the="" ecosystems="" upon="" which="" they="" depend--that="" is="" less="" regulatory.="" nmfs="" will="" continue="" to="" encourage="" and="" support="" these="" initiatives="" as="" important="" components="" of="" recovery="" planning="" for="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" other="" salmonids.="" based="" on="" information="" presented="" in="" this="" proposed="" rule,="" general="" conservation="" measures="" that="" could="" be="" implemented="" to="" help="" conserve="" the="" species="" are="" listed="" here.="" this="" list="" does="" not="" constitute="" nmfs'="" interpretation="" of="" a="" recovery="" plan="" under="" section="" 4(f)="" of="" the="" esa.="" 1.="" measures="" could="" be="" taken="" to="" promote="" land="" management="" practices="" that="" protect="" and="" restore="" sockeye="" habitat.="" land="" management="" practices="" affecting="" sockeye="" habitat="" include="" timber="" harvest,="" road="" building,="" agriculture,="" livestock="" grazing,="" and="" urban="" development.="" 2.="" evaluation="" of="" existing="" harvest="" regulations="" could="" identify="" any="" changes="" necessary="" to="" protect="" sockeye="" populations.="" 3.="" artificial="" propagation="" programs="" could="" be="" modified="" to="" minimize="" impacts="" upon="" native="" populations="" of="" sockeye.="" 4.="" water="" diversions="" could="" have="" adequate="" headgate="" and="" staff="" gauge="" structures="" installed="" to="" control="" and="" monitor="" water="" usage="" accurately.="" water="" rights="" could="" be="" enforced="" to="" prevent="" irrigators="" from="" exceeding="" the="" amount="" of="" water="" to="" which="" they="" are="" legally="" entitled.="" 5.="" irrigation="" diversions="" affecting="" downstream="" migrating="" sockeye="" could="" be="" screened.="" a="" thorough="" review="" of="" the="" impact="" of="" irrigation="" diversions="" on="" sockeye="" could="" be="" conducted.="" nmfs="" recognizes="" that,="" to="" be="" successful,="" protective="" regulations="" and="" recovery="" programs="" for="" sockeye="" will="" need="" to="" be="" developed="" in="" the="" context="" of="" conserving="" aquatic="" ecosystem="" health.="" nmfs="" intends="" that="" federal="" lands="" and="" federal="" activities="" play="" a="" primary="" role="" in="" preserving="" listed="" populations="" and="" the="" ecosystems="" upon="" which="" they="" depend.="" however,="" throughout="" the="" range="" of="" the="" esu="" proposed="" for="" listing,="" sockeye="" habitat="" occurs="" and="" can="" be="" affected="" by="" activities="" on="" state,="" tribal="" or="" private="" land.="" agricultural,="" timber,="" and="" urban="" management="" activities="" on="" nonfederal="" land="" could="" and="" should="" be="" conducted="" in="" a="" manner="" that="" avoids="" adverse="" effects="" to="" sockeye="" habitat.="" nmfs="" encourages="" nonfederal="" landowners="" to="" assess="" the="" impacts="" of="" their="" actions="" on="" potentially="" threatened="" or="" endangered="" salmonids.="" in="" particular,="" nmfs="" encourages="" the="" formulation="" of="" watershed="" partnerships="" to="" promote="" conservation="" in="" accordance="" with="" ecosystem="" principles.="" these="" partnerships="" will="" be="" successful="" only="" if="" state,="" tribal,="" and="" local="" governments,="" landowner="" representatives,="" and="" federal="" and="" nonfederal="" biologists="" participate="" and="" share="" the="" goal="" of="" restoring="" sockeye="" to="" the="" watersheds.="" definition="" of="" critical="" habitat="" critical="" habitat="" is="" defined="" in="" section="" 3(5)(a)="" of="" the="" esa="" as="" ``(i)="" the="" specific="" areas="" within="" the="" geographical="" area="" occupied="" by="" the="" species="" .="" .="" .="" on="" which="" are="" found="" those="" physical="" or="" biological="" features="" (i)="" essential="" to="" the="" conservation="" of="" the="" species="" and="" (ii)="" which="" may="" require="" special="" management="" considerations="" or="" protection;="" and="" (ii)="" specific="" areas="" outside="" the="" geographical="" area="" occupied="" by="" the="" species="" .="" .="" .="" upon="" a="" determination="" by="" the="" secretary="" that="" such="" areas="" are="" essential="" for="" the="" conservation="" of="" the="" species.''="" the="" term="" ``conservation,''="" as="" defined="" in="" section="" 3(3)="" of="" the="" esa,="" means="" ``.="" .="" .="" to="" use="" and="" the="" use="" of="" all="" methods="" and="" procedures="" which="" are="" necessary="" to="" bring="" any="" endangered="" species="" or="" threatened="" species="" to="" the="" point="" at="" which="" the="" measures="" provided="" pursuant="" to="" this="" act="" are="" no="" longer="" necessary.''="" in="" designating="" critical="" habitat,="" nmfs="" considers="" the="" following="" requirements="" of="" the="" species:="" (1)="" space="" for="" individual="" and="" population="" growth,="" and="" for="" normal="" behavior;="" (2)="" food,="" water,="" air,="" light,="" minerals,="" or="" other="" nutritional="" or="" physiological="" requirements;="" (3)="" cover="" or="" shelter;="" (4)="" sites="" for="" breeding,="" reproduction,="" or="" rearing="" of="" offspring;="" and,="" generally,="" (5)="" habitats="" that="" are="" protected="" from="" disturbance="" or="" are="" [[page="" 11766]]="" representative="" of="" the="" historical="" geographical="" and="" ecological="" distributions="" of="" this="" species="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 424.12(b)).="" in="" addition="" to="" these="" factors,="" nmfs="" focuses="" within="" the="" designated="" area="" on="" the="" known="" physical="" and="" biological="" features="" (primary="" constituent="" elements)="" that="" are="" essential="" to="" the="" conservation="" of="" the="" species="" and="" may="" require="" special="" management="" considerations="" or="" protection.="" these="" essential="" features="" may="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to,="" spawning="" sites,="" food="" resources,="" water="" quality="" and="" quantity,="" and="" riparian="" vegetation="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 424.12(b)).="" consideration="" of="" economic="" and="" other="" factors="" the="" economic="" and="" other="" impacts="" of="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" have="" been="" considered="" and="" evaluated="" in="" this="" proposed="" rulemaking.="" nmfs="" identified="" present="" and="" anticipated="" activities="" that="" may="" adversely="" modify="" the="" area(s)="" being="" considered="" or="" be="" affected="" by="" a="" designation.="" an="" area="" may="" be="" excluded="" from="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" if="" nmfs="" determines="" that="" the="" overall="" benefits="" of="" exclusion="" outweigh="" the="" benefits="" of="" designation,="" unless="" the="" exclusion="" will="" result="" in="" the="" extinction="" of="" the="" species="" (see="" 16="" u.s.c.="" 1533(b)(2)).="" the="" impacts="" considered="" in="" this="" analysis="" are="" only="" those="" incremental="" impacts="" specifically="" resulting="" from="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation,="" above="" the="" economic="" and="" other="" impacts="" attributable="" to="" listing="" the="" species,="" or="" resulting="" from="" other="" authorities.="" since="" listing="" a="" species="" under="" the="" esa="" provides="" significant="" protection="" to="" a="" species'="" habitat,="" in="" many="" cases,="" the="" economic="" and="" other="" impacts="" resulting="" from="" the="" critical="" habitat="" designation,="" over="" and="" above="" the="" impacts="" of="" the="" listing="" itself,="" are="" minimal="" (see="" significance="" of="" designating="" critical="" habitat="" section="" of="" this="" proposed="" rule).="" in="" general,="" the="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat="" highlights="" geographical="" areas="" of="" concern="" and="" reinforces="" the="" substantive="" protection="" resulting="" from="" the="" listing="" itself.="" impacts="" attributable="" to="" listing="" include="" those="" resulting="" from="" the="" ``take''="" prohibitions="" contained="" in="" section="" 9="" of="" the="" esa="" and="" associated="" regulations.="" ``take,''="" as="" defined="" in="" the="" esa="" means="" to="" harass,="" harm,="" pursue,="" hunt,="" shoot,="" wound,="" kill,="" trap,="" capture,="" or="" collect,="" or="" to="" attempt="" to="" engage="" in="" any="" such="" conduct="" (see="" 16="" u.s.c.="" 1532(19)).="" harm="" can="" occur="" through="" destruction="" or="" modification="" of="" habitat="" (whether="" or="" not="" designated="" as="" critical)="" that="" significantly="" impairs="" essential="" behaviors,="" including="" breeding,="" feeding,="" rearing="" or="" migration.="" significance="" of="" designating="" critical="" habitat="" the="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat="" does="" not,="" in="" and="" of="" itself,="" restrict="" human="" activities="" within="" an="" area="" or="" mandate="" any="" specific="" management="" or="" recovery="" actions.="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" contributes="" to="" species="" conservation="" primarily="" by="" identifying="" important="" areas="" and="" by="" describing="" the="" features="" within="" those="" areas="" that="" are="" essential="" to="" the="" species,="" thus="" alerting="" public="" and="" private="" entities="" to="" the="" area's="" importance.="" under="" the="" esa,="" the="" only="" regulatory="" impact="" of="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" is="" through="" the="" provisions="" of="" section="" 7.="" section="" 7="" applies="" only="" to="" actions="" with="" federal="" involvement="" (e.g.,="" authorized,="" funded,="" or="" conducted="" by="" a="" federal="" agency)="" and="" does="" not="" affect="" exclusively="" state="" or="" private="" activities.="" under="" the="" section="" 7="" provisions,="" a="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat="" would="" require="" federal="" agencies="" to="" ensure="" that="" any="" action="" they="" authorize,="" fund,="" or="" carry="" out="" is="" not="" likely="" to="" destroy="" or="" adversely="" modify="" designated="" critical="" habitat.="" activities="" that="" destroy="" or="" adversely="" modify="" critical="" habitat="" are="" defined="" as="" those="" actions="" that="" ``appreciably="" diminish="" the="" value="" of="" critical="" habitat="" for="" both="" the="" survival="" and="" recovery''="" of="" the="" species="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 402.02).="" regardless="" of="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation,="" federal="" agencies="" must="" ensure="" that="" their="" actions="" are="" not="" likely="" to="" jeopardize="" the="" continued="" existence="" of="" the="" listed="" species.="" activities="" that="" jeopardize="" a="" species="" are="" defined="" as="" those="" actions="" that="" ``reasonably="" would="" be="" expected,="" directly="" or="" indirectly,="" to="" reduce="" appreciably="" the="" likelihood="" of="" both="" the="" survival="" and="" recovery''="" of="" the="" species="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 402.02).="" using="" these="" definitions,="" activities="" that="" would="" destroy="" or="" adversely="" modify="" critical="" habitat="" would="" also="" be="" likely="" to="" jeopardize="" the="" species.="" therefore,="" the="" protection="" provided="" by="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" generally="" duplicates="" the="" protection="" provided="" under="" the="" section="" 7="" jeopardy="" provision.="" critical="" habitat="" may="" provide="" additional="" benefits="" to="" a="" species="" in="" cases="" where="" areas="" outside="" the="" species'="" current="" range="" have="" been="" designated.="" when="" actions="" may="" affect="" these="" areas,="" federal="" agencies="" are="" required="" to="" consult="" with="" nmfs="" under="" section="" 7="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 402.14(a)),="" which="" may="" not="" have="" been="" recognized="" but="" for="" the="" critical="" habitat="" designation.="" a="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat="" provides="" a="" clear="" indication="" to="" federal="" agencies="" as="" to="" when="" section="" 7="" consultation="" is="" required,="" particularly="" in="" cases="" where="" the="" action="" would="" not="" result="" in="" immediate="" mortality,="" injury,="" or="" harm="" to="" individuals="" of="" a="" listed="" species="" (e.g.,="" an="" action="" occurring="" within="" the="" critical="" area="" when="" a="" migratory="" species="" is="" not="" present).="" the="" critical="" habitat="" designation,="" describing="" the="" essential="" features="" of="" the="" habitat,="" also="" assists="" in="" determining="" which="" activities="" conducted="" outside="" the="" designated="" area="" are="" subject="" to="" section="" 7,="" i.e.,="" activities="" that="" may="" affect="" essential="" features="" of="" the="" designated="" area.="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" will="" also="" assist="" federal="" agencies="" in="" planning="" future="" actions,="" since="" the="" designation="" establishes,="" in="" advance,="" those="" habitats="" that="" will="" be="" given="" special="" consideration="" in="" section="" 7="" consultations.="" with="" a="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat,="" potential="" conflicts="" between="" federal="" actions="" and="" endangered="" or="" threatened="" species="" can="" be="" identified="" and="" possibly="" avoided="" early="" in="" the="" agency's="" planning="" process.="" another="" indirect="" benefit="" of="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" is="" that="" it="" helps="" focus="" federal,="" state,="" and="" private="" conservation="" and="" management="" efforts="" in="" such="" areas.="" management="" efforts="" may="" address="" special="" considerations="" needed="" in="" critical="" habitat="" areas,="" including="" conservation="" regulations="" to="" restrict="" private="" as="" well="" as="" federal="" activities.="" the="" economic="" and="" other="" impacts="" of="" these="" actions="" would="" be="" considered="" at="" the="" time="" of="" those="" proposed="" regulations="" and,="" therefore,="" are="" not="" considered="" in="" the="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" process.="" other="" federal,="" state,="" and="" local="" management="" programs,="" such="" as="" zoning="" or="" wetlands="" and="" riparian="" lands="" protection,="" may="" also="" provide="" special="" protection="" for="" critical="" habitat="" areas.="" process="" for="" designating="" critical="" habitat="" developing="" a="" proposed="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" involves="" three="" main="" considerations.="" first,="" the="" biological="" needs="" of="" the="" species="" are="" evaluated="" and="" essential="" habitat="" areas="" and="" features="" are="" identified.="" if="" alternative="" areas="" exist="" that="" would="" provide="" for="" the="" conservation="" of="" the="" species,="" such="" alternatives="" are="" also="" identified.="" second,="" the="" need="" for="" special="" management="" considerations="" or="" protection="" of="" the="" area(s)="" or="" features="" are="" evaluated.="" finally,="" the="" probable="" economic="" and="" other="" impacts="" of="" designating="" these="" essential="" areas="" as="" ``critical="" habitat''="" are="" evaluated.="" the="" final="" critical="" habitat="" designation,="" considering="" comments="" on="" the="" proposal="" and="" impacts="" assessment,="" is="" typically="" published="" within="" 1="" year="" of="" the="" proposed="" rule.="" final="" critical="" habitat="" designations="" may="" be="" revised,="" using="" the="" same="" process,="" as="" new="" information="" becomes="" available.="" critical="" habitat="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" proposed="" for="" listing="" as="" described="" in="" the="" section="" sockeye="" salmon="" life="" history,="" the="" current="" geographic="" range="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" [[page="" 11767]]="" includes="" vast="" areas="" of="" the="" north="" pacific="" ocean,="" near="" shore="" marine="" zone,="" and="" extensive="" estuarine="" and="" riverine="" areas.="" any="" attempt="" to="" describe="" the="" current="" distribution="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" must="" take="" into="" account="" the="" fact="" that="" extant="" populations="" and="" densities="" are="" a="" small="" fraction="" of="" historical="" levels.="" within="" the="" range="" of="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon,="" their="" life="" cycle="" can="" be="" separated="" into="" five="" essential="" habitat="" types:="" (1)="" juvenile="" summer="" and="" winter="" rearing="" areas;="" (2)="" juvenile="" migration="" corridors;="" (3)="" areas="" for="" growth="" and="" development="" to="" adulthood;="" (4)="" adult="" migration="" corridors;="" and="" (5)="" spawning="" areas.="" areas="" (1)="" and="" (5)="" are="" often="" located="" in="" lakeshore="" areas,="" while="" areas="" (2)="" and="" (4)="" include="" these="" areas="" as="" well="" as="" small="" tributaries,="" mainstem="" reaches="" and="" estuarine="" zones.="" growth="" and="" development="" to="" adulthood="" occurs="" primarily="" in="" near-="" and="" offshore="" marine="" waters="" (area="" (3)),="" although="" final="" maturation="" takes="" place="" in="" freshwater="" tributaries="" when="" the="" adults="" return="" to="" spawn.="" within="" these="" areas,="" essential="" features="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" critical="" habitat="" include="" adequate:="" (1)="" substrate;="" (2)="" water="" quality;="" (3)="" water="" quantity;="" (4)="" water="" temperature;="" (5)="" water="" velocity;="" (6)="" cover/shelter;="" (7)="" food;="" (8)="" riparian="" vegetation;="" (9)="" space;="" and="" (10)="" safe="" passage="" conditions.="" given="" the="" large="" geographic="" range="" occupied="" by="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" the="" diverse="" habitat="" types="" used="" by="" the="" various="" life="" stages,="" it="" is="" not="" practical="" to="" describe="" specific="" values="" or="" conditions="" for="" each="" of="" these="" essential="" habitat="" features.="" however,="" good="" summaries="" of="" these="" environmental="" parameters="" and="" freshwater="" factors="" that="" have="" contributed="" to="" the="" decline="" of="" this="" and="" other="" salmonids="" can="" be="" found="" in="" reviews="" by="" the="" california="" department="" of="" fish="" and="" game="" (1965),="" cacsst="" (1988),="" brown="" and="" moyle="" (1991),="" bjornn="" and="" reiser="" (1991),="" nehlsen="" et="" al.="" (1991),="" higgins="" et="" al.="" (1992),="" the="" california="" state="" lands="" commission="" (1993),="" botkin="" et="" al.="" (1995),="" nmfs="" (1996)="" and="" spence="" et="" al.="" (1996).="" nmfs="" believes="" that="" the="" current="" freshwater="" and="" estuarine="" range="" of="" the="" species="" encompasses="" all="" essential="" habitat="" features="" and="" is="" adequate="" to="" ensure="" the="" species'="" conservation.="" therefore,="" designation="" of="" habitat="" areas="" outside="" the="" species'="" current="" range="" is="" not="" necessary.="" habitat="" quality="" in="" this="" current="" range="" is="" intrinsically="" related="" to="" the="" quality="" of="" upland="" areas="" and="" inaccessible="" headwater="" or="" intermittent="" streams="" which="" provide="" key="" habitat="" elements="" (e.g.,="" large="" woody="" debris,="" gravel,="" water="" quality)="" crucial="" for="" sockeye="" salmon="" in="" downstream="" reaches="" and="" lake="" areas.="" nmfs="" recognizes="" that="" estuarine="" habitats="" are="" critical="" for="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" has="" included="" them="" in="" this="" designation.="" marine="" habitats="" (i.e.,="" oceanic="" or="" near="" shore="" areas="" seaward="" of="" the="" mouth="" of="" coastal="" rivers)="" are="" also="" vital="" to="" the="" species,="" and="" ocean="" conditions="" are="" believed="" to="" have="" a="" major="" influence="" on="" sockeye="" salmon="" survival.="" however,="" no="" need="" appears="" to="" exist="" for="" special="" management="" consideration="" or="" protection="" of="" this="" habitat.="" therefore,="" nmfs="" is="" not="" proposing="" to="" designate="" critical="" habitat="" in="" marine="" areas="" at="" this="" time.="" if="" additional="" information="" becomes="" available="" that="" supports="" the="" inclusion="" of="" such="" areas,="" nmfs="" may="" revise="" this="" designation.="" based="" on="" consideration="" of="" the="" best="" available="" information="" regarding="" the="" species'="" current="" distribution,="" nmfs="" believes="" that="" the="" preferred="" approach="" to="" identifying="" critical="" habitat="" is="" to="" designate="" all="" areas="" (and="" their="" adjacent="" riparian="" zones)="" accessible="" to="" the="" species="" within="" the="" range="" of="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye.="" nmfs="" believes="" that="" adopting="" a="" more="" inclusive,="" watershed-based="" description="" of="" critical="" habitat="" is="" appropriate="" because="" it="" (1)="" recognizes="" the="" species'="" use="" of="" diverse="" habitats="" and="" underscores="" the="" need="" to="" account="" for="" all="" of="" the="" habitat="" types="" supporting="" the="" species'="" freshwater="" and="" estuarine="" life="" stages,="" (2)="" takes="" into="" account="" the="" natural="" variability="" in="" habitat="" use="" that="" makes="" precise="" mapping="" difficult,="" and="" (3)="" reinforces="" the="" important="" linkage="" between="" aquatic="" areas="" and="" adjacent="" riparian/upslope="" areas.="" an="" array="" of="" management="" issues="" encompass="" these="" habitats,="" and="" special="" management="" considerations="" will="" need="" to="" be="" made,="" especially="" on="" lands="" and="" streams="" under="" federal="" ownership.="" while="" marine="" areas="" are="" also="" a="" critical="" link="" in="" this="" cycle,="" nmfs="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" special="" management="" considerations="" are="" needed="" to="" conserve="" the="" habitat="" features="" in="" these="" areas.="" hence,="" only="" the="" freshwater="" and="" estuarine="" areas="" are="" being="" proposed="" for="" critical="" habitat="" at="" this="" time.="" need="" for="" special="" management="" considerations="" or="" protection="" in="" order="" to="" assure="" that="" the="" essential="" areas="" and="" features="" are="" maintained="" or="" restored,="" special="" management="" may="" be="" needed.="" activities="" that="" may="" require="" special="" management="" considerations="" for="" freshwater="" and="" estuarine="" life="" stages="" of="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to="" (1)="" land="" management,="" (2)="" timber="" harvest,="" (3)="" point="" and="" non-="" point="" water="" pollution,="" (4)="" livestock="" grazing,="" (5)="" habitat="" restoration,="" (6)="" irrigation="" water="" withdrawals="" and="" returns,="" (7)="" mining,="" (8)="" road="" construction,="" (9)="" dam="" operation="" and="" maintenance,="" (10)="" recreational="" activities,="" and="" (11)="" dredge="" and="" fill="" activities.="" not="" all="" of="" these="" activities="" are="" necessarily="" of="" current="" concern="" within="" the="" ozette="" lake="" watershed;="" however,="" they="" indicate="" the="" potential="" types="" of="" activities="" that="" will="" require="" consultation="" in="" the="" future.="" no="" special="" management="" considerations="" have="" been="" identified="" for="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" while="" they="" are="" residing="" in="" the="" ocean="" environment.="" activities="" that="" may="" affect="" critical="" habitat="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" activities="" may="" affect="" the="" essential="" habitat="" requirements="" of="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye.="" these="" activities="" may="" include="" water="" and="" land="" management="" actions="" of="" federal="" agencies="" (i.e.,="" national="" park="" service,="" u.s.="" army="" corps="" of="" engineers,="" the="" federal="" highway="" administration,="" and="" the="" bureau="" of="" indian="" affairs)="" and="" related="" or="" similar="" actions="" of="" other="" federally="" regulated="" projects="" and="" lands="" by="" the="" bureau="" of="" indian="" affairs;="" road="" building="" activities="" authorized="" by="" the="" federal="" highway="" administration="" or="" bureau="" of="" indian="" affairs;="" and="" dredge="" and="" fill,="" mining,="" and="" bank="" stabilization="" activities="" authorized="" or="" conducted="" by="" the="" u.s.="" army="" corps="" of="" engineers.="" these="" activities="" may="" also="" include="" mining="" and="" road="" building="" activities="" authorized="" by="" washington="" state.="" the="" federal="" agencies="" that="" will="" most="" likely="" be="" affected="" by="" this="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" include="" the="" national="" park="" service,="" u.s.="" army="" corps="" of="" engineers,="" bureau="" of="" indian="" affairs,="" and="" the="" federal="" highway="" administration.="" this="" designation="" will="" provide="" clear="" notification="" to="" these="" agencies,="" private="" entities,="" and="" to="" the="" public="" of="" critical="" habitat="" designated="" for="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" and="" the="" boundaries="" of="" the="" habitat="" and="" protection="" provided="" for="" that="" habitat="" by="" the="" section="" 7="" consultation="" process.="" this="" designation="" will="" also="" assist="" these="" agencies="" and="" others="" in="" evaluating="" the="" potential="" effects="" of="" their="" activities="" on="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" and="" their="" critical="" habitat="" and="" in="" determining="" when="" consultation="" with="" nmfs="" is="" appropriate.="" expected="" economic="" impacts="" the="" economic="" impacts="" to="" be="" considered="" in="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" are="" the="" incremental="" effects="" of="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" above="" the="" economic="" impacts="" attributable="" to="" listing="" or="" to="" authorities="" other="" than="" the="" esa="" (see="" consideration="" of="" economic="" and="" other="" factors="" section="" of="" this="" proposed="" rule).="" incremental="" impacts="" result="" from="" special="" management="" activities="" in="" areas="" outside="" the="" present="" distribution="" of="" the="" listed="" species="" that="" have="" been="" determined="" to="" be="" essential="" to="" the="" conservation="" of="" the="" species.="" however,="" nmfs="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" species'="" present="" freshwater="" and="" estuarine="" range="" contains="" sufficient="" habitat="" for="" conservation="" of="" the="" [[page="" 11768]]="" species.="" therefore,="" the="" economic="" impacts="" associated="" with="" this="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" are="" expected="" to="" be="" minimal.="" the="" u.s.="" forest="" service,="" national="" park="" service,="" and="" army="" corps="" of="" engineers="" may="" manage="" areas="" of="" proposed="" critical="" habitat="" for="" the="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye.="" the="" corps="" of="" engineers="" and="" other="" federal="" agencies="" that="" may="" be="" involved="" with="" funding="" or="" permits="" for="" projects="" in="" critical="" habitat="" areas="" may="" also="" be="" affected="" by="" this="" designation.="" because="" nmfs="" believes="" that="" virtually="" all="" ``adverse="" modification''="" determinations="" pertaining="" to="" critical="" habitat="" would="" also="" result="" in="" ``jeopardy''="" conclusions,="" designation="" of="" critical="" habitat="" is="" not="" expected="" to="" result="" in="" significant="" incremental="" restrictions="" on="" federal="" agency="" activities.="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" will,="" therefore,="" result="" in="" few="" if="" any="" additional="" economic="" effects="" beyond="" those="" that="" may="" have="" been="" caused="" by="" listing="" and="" by="" other="" statutes.="" additionally,="" previously="" completed="" biological="" opinions="" would="" not="" require="" reinitiation="" to="" reconsider="" any="" critical="" habitat="" designated="" in="" this="" rulemaking.="" nmfs="" policies="" on="" endangered="" and="" threatened="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" on="" july="" 1,="" 1994,="" nmfs,="" jointly="" with="" the="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service,="" published="" a="" series="" of="" policies="" regarding="" listings="" under="" the="" esa,="" including="" a="" policy="" for="" peer="" review="" of="" scientific="" data="" (59="" fr="" 34270)="" and="" a="" policy="" to="" identify,="" to="" the="" maximum="" extent="" possible,="" those="" activities="" that="" would="" or="" would="" not="" constitute="" a="" violation="" of="" section="" 9="" of="" the="" esa="" (59="" fr="" 34272).="" role="" of="" peer="" review="" the="" intent="" of="" the="" peer="" review="" policy="" is="" to="" ensure="" that="" listings="" are="" based="" on="" the="" best="" scientific="" and="" commercial="" data="" available.="" prior="" to="" a="" final="" listing,="" nmfs="" will="" solicit="" the="" expert="" opinions="" of="" at="" least="" three="" qualified="" specialists,="" concurrent="" with="" the="" public="" comment="" period.="" independent="" peer="" reviewers="" will="" be="" selected="" from="" the="" academic="" and="" scientific="" community,="" tribal="" and="" other="" native="" american="" groups,="" federal="" and="" state="" agencies,="" and="" the="" private="" sector.="" identification="" of="" those="" activities="" that="" would="" constitute="" a="" violation="" of="" section="" 9="" of="" the="" esa:="" the="" intent="" of="" this="" policy="" is="" to="" increase="" public="" awareness="" of="" the="" effect="" of="" this="" listing="" on="" proposed="" and="" ongoing="" activities="" within="" the="" species'="" range.="" nmfs="" will="" identify,="" to="" the="" extent="" known="" at="" the="" time="" of="" the="" final="" rule,="" specific="" activities="" that="" will="" not="" be="" considered="" likely="" to="" result="" in="" violation="" of="" section="" 9,="" as="" well="" as="" activities="" that="" will="" be="" considered="" likely="" to="" result="" in="" violation.="" for="" those="" activities="" whose="" likelihood="" of="" violation="" is="" uncertain,="" a="" contact="" will="" be="" identified="" in="" the="" final="" listing="" document="" to="" assist="" the="" public="" in="" determining="" whether="" a="" particular="" activity="" would="" constitute="" a="" prohibited="" act="" under="" section="" 9.="" public="" comments="" solicited="" to="" ensure="" that="" the="" final="" action="" resulting="" from="" this="" proposal="" will="" be="" as="" accurate="" and="" effective="" as="" possible,="" nmfs="" is="" soliciting="" comments="" and="" suggestions="" from="" the="" public,="" indian="" tribes,="" other="" governmental="" agencies,="" the="" scientific="" community,="" industry,="" and="" any="" other="" interested="" parties.="" public="" hearings="" will="" be="" held="" at="" locations="" within="" the="" range="" of="" the="" proposed="" esu="" (see="" public="" hearings).="" in="" particular,="" nmfs="" is="" requesting="" information="" regarding="" the="" following:="" (1)="" the="" relationship="" between="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" kokanee,="" specifically="" whether="" kokanee="" and="" sockeye="" salmon="" populations="" in="" the="" same="" esu="" should="" be="" considered="" a="" single="" esu;="" (2)="" biological="" or="" other="" relevant="" data="" concerning="" any="" threat="" to="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon,="" kokanee,="" or="" to="" lake="" pleasant="" sockeye="" salmon="" for="" which="" a="" risk="" assessment="" was="" not="" conclusive;="" (3)="" the="" range,="" distribution,="" and="" population="" size="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" kokanee="" in="" the="" sockeye="" salmon="" population="" not="" identified="" as="" esus="" (bear="" creek,="" wa,="" riverine-spawning="" sockeye="" salmon="" in="" wa,="" and="" deschutes="" river,="" or);="" (4)="" current="" or="" planned="" activities="" in="" the="" ozette="" lake="" area="" and="" their="" possible="" impact="" on="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye;="" (5)="" homing="" and="" straying="" of="" natural="" and="" hatchery="" fish;="" (6)="" efforts="" being="" made="" to="" protect="" naturally="" spawned="" populations="" of="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" and="" kokanee;="" (7)="" suggestions="" for="" specific="" regulations="" under="" section="" 4(d)="" of="" the="" esa="" that="" should="" apply="" to="" the="" ozette="" lake="" esu,="" which="" is="" proposed="" for="" listing="" as="" a="" threatened="" species;="" and="" (8)="" information="" on="" the="" stability="" of="" baker="" river="" sockeye="" salmon="" populations="" and="" the="" effectiveness="" of="" ongoing="" or="" planned="" conservation="" measures="" aimed="" at="" reducing="" vulnerability="" of="" this="" population="" and="" its="" habitats.="" suggested="" regulations="" may="" address="" activities,="" plans,="" or="" guidelines="" that,="" despite="" their="" potential="" to="" result="" in="" the="" incidental="" take="" of="" listed="" fish,="" will="" ultimately="" promote="" the="" conservation="" and="" recovery="" of="" threatened="" sockeye.="" nmfs="" is="" also="" requesting="" quantitative="" evaluations="" describing="" the="" quality="" and="" extent="" of="" freshwater="" and="" marine="" habitats="" for="" juvenile="" and="" adult="" sockeye="" in="" ozette="" lake="" as="" well="" as="" information="" on="" areas="" that="" may="" qualify="" as="" critical="" habitat="" for="" the="" proposed="" esu.="" areas="" that="" include="" the="" physical="" and="" biological="" features="" essential="" to="" the="" recovery="" of="" the="" species="" should="" be="" identified.="" nmfs="" recognizes="" that="" there="" are="" areas="" within="" the="" proposed="" boundaries="" of="" the="" esu="" that="" historically="" constituted="" sockeye="" habitat="" but="" may="" not="" be="" currently="" occupied="" by="" sockeye.="" nmfs="" is="" requesting="" information="" about="" any="" presence="" of="" sockeye="" in="" these="" currently="" unoccupied="" areas="" and="" the="" possibility="" that="" these="" habitats="" be="" considered="" essential="" to="" the="" recovery="" of="" the="" species="" or="" be="" excluded="" from="" designation.="" essential="" features="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to:="" (1)="" habitat="" for="" individual="" and="" population="" growth,="" and="" for="" normal="" behavior;="" (2)="" food,="" water,="" air,="" light,="" minerals,="" or="" other="" nutritional="" or="" physiological="" requirements;="" (3)="" cover="" or="" shelter;="" (4)="" sites="" for="" reproduction="" and="" rearing="" of="" offspring;="" and="" (5)="" habitats="" that="" are="" protected="" from="" disturbance="" or="" are="" representative="" of="" the="" historical,="" geographical,="" and="" ecological="" distributions="" of="" the="" species.="" for="" areas="" potentially="" qualifying="" as="" critical="" habitat,="" nmfs="" is="" requesting="" information="" describing="" (1)="" the="" activities="" that="" affect="" the="" area="" or="" could="" be="" affected="" by="" the="" designation,="" and="" (2)="" the="" economic="" costs="" and="" benefits="" of="" additional="" requirements="" of="" management="" measures="" likely="" to="" result="" from="" the="" designation.="" the="" economic="" cost="" to="" be="" considered="" in="" the="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" under="" the="" esa="" is="" the="" probable="" economic="" impact="" ``of="" the="" [critical="" habitat]="" designation="" upon="" proposed="" or="" ongoing="" activities''="" (50="" cfr="" 424.19).="" nmfs="" must="" consider="" the="" incremental="" costs="" that="" are="" specifically="" resulting="" from="" a="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" and="" that="" are="" above="" the="" economic="" effects="" attributable="" to="" listing="" the="" species.="" economic="" effects="" attributable="" to="" listing="" include="" actions="" resulting="" from="" section="" 7="" consultations="" under="" the="" esa="" to="" avoid="" jeopardy="" to="" the="" species="" and="" from="" the="" taking="" prohibitions="" under="" section="" 9="" of="" the="" esa.="" comments="" concerning="" economic="" impacts="" should="" distinguish="" the="" costs="" of="" listing="" from="" the="" incremental="" costs="" that="" can="" be="" directly="" attributed="" to="" the="" designation="" of="" specific="" areas="" as="" critical="" habitat.="" nmfs="" will="" review="" all="" public="" comments="" and="" any="" additional="" information="" regarding="" the="" status="" of="" the="" sockeye="" salmon="" esus="" as="" requested="" in="" this="" section="" and,="" as="" required="" under="" the="" esa,="" will="" complete="" a="" final="" rule="" within="" 1="" year="" of="" this="" proposed="" rule.="" the="" availability="" of="" new="" information="" may="" cause="" nmfs="" to="" reassess="" the="" status="" of="" sockeye="" esus.="" joint="" commerce-interior="" esa="" implementing="" regulations="" state="" that="" the="" secretary="" shall="" promptly="" hold="" at="" least="" one="" public="" hearing="" if="" any="" person="" so="" requests="" within="" 45="" days="" of="" publication="" of="" a="" proposed="" regulation="" to="" list="" a="" species="" [[page="" 11769]]="" or="" to="" designate="" critical="" habitat.="" (see="" 50="" cfr="" 424.16(c)(3)).="" in="" a="" forthcoming="" federal="" register="" notice,="" nmfs="" will="" announce="" the="" dates="" and="" locations="" of="" public="" hearings="" on="" this="" proposed="" rule="" to="" provide="" the="" opportunity="" for="" the="" public="" to="" give="" comments="" and="" to="" permit="" an="" exchange="" of="" information="" and="" opinion="" among="" interested="" parties.="" nmfs="" encourages="" the="" public's="" involvement="" in="" esa="" matters.="" references="" a="" complete="" list="" of="" all="" references="" cited="" herein="" is="" available="" upon="" request="" (see="" addresses).="" compliance="" with="" existing="" statutes="" the="" 1982="" amendments="" to="" the="" esa,="" in="" section="" 4(b)(1)(a),="" restrict="" the="" information="" that="" may="" be="" considered="" when="" assessing="" species="" for="" listing.="" based="" on="" this="" limitation="" of="" criteria="" for="" a="" listing="" decision="" and="" the="" opinion="" in="" pacific="" legal="" foundation="" v.="" andrus,="" 675="" f.="" 2d="" 825="" (6th="" cir.="" 1981),="" nmfs="" has="" categorically="" excluded="" all="" esa="" listing="" actions="" from="" environmental="" assessment="" requirements="" of="" the="" national="" environmental="" policy="" act="" under="" noaa="" administrative="" order="" 216-6.="" in="" addition,="" nmfs="" has="" determined="" that="" environmental="" assessments="" and="" environmental="" impact="" statements,="" as="" defined="" under="" the="" authority="" of="" the="" national="" environmental="" policy="" act="" of="" 1969,="" need="" not="" be="" prepared="" for="" this="" critical="" habitat="" designation="" made="" pursuant="" to="" the="" esa.="" see="" douglas="" county="" v.="" babbitt,="" 48="" f.3d="" 1495="" (9th="" cir.="" 1995),="" cert.="" denied,="" 116="" s.ct.="" 698="" (1996).="" classification="" the="" assistant="" administrator="" for="" fisheries,="" noaa,="" has="" determined="" that="" this="" rule="" is="" not="" significant="" for="" purposes="" of="" e.o.="" 12866.="" since="" nmfs="" is="" designating="" the="" current="" range="" of="" the="" listed="" species="" as="" critical="" habitat,="" this="" designation="" will="" not="" impose="" any="" additional="" requirements="" or="" economic="" effects="" upon="" small="" entities,="" beyond="" those="" which="" may="" accrue="" from="" section="" 7="" of="" the="" esa.="" section="" 7="" requires="" federal="" agencies="" to="" ensure="" that="" any="" action="" they="" carry="" out,="" authorize,="" or="" fund="" is="" not="" likely="" to="" jeopardize="" the="" continued="" existence="" of="" any="" listed="" species="" or="" result="" in="" the="" destruction="" or="" adverse="" modification="" of="" critical="" habitat="" (esa="" 7(a)(2)).="" the="" consultation="" requirements="" of="" section="" 7="" are="" nondiscretionary="" and="" are="" effective="" at="" the="" time="" of="" species'="" listing.="" therefore,="" federal="" agencies="" must="" consult="" with="" nmfs="" and="" ensure="" that="" their="" actions="" do="" not="" jeopardize="" a="" listed="" species,="" regardless="" of="" whether="" critical="" habitat="" is="" designated.="" in="" the="" future,="" should="" nmfs="" determine="" that="" designation="" of="" habitat="" areas="" outside="" the="" species'="" current="" range="" is="" necessary="" for="" conservation="" and="" recovery,="" nmfs="" will="" analyze="" the="" incremental="" costs="" of="" that="" action="" and="" assess="" its="" potential="" impacts="" on="" small="" entities,="" as="" required="" by="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act.="" until="" that="" time,="" a="" more="" detailed="" analysis="" would="" be="" premature="" and="" would="" not="" reflect="" the="" true="" economic="" impacts="" of="" the="" proposed="" action="" on="" local="" businesses,="" organizations,="" and="" governments.="" accordingly,="" the="" assistant="" general="" counsel="" for="" legislation="" and="" regulation="" of="" the="" department="" of="" commerce="" has="" certified="" to="" the="" chief="" counsel="" for="" advocacy="" of="" the="" small="" business="" administration="" that="" the="" proposed="" rule,="" if="" adopted,="" would="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" of="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities,="" as="" described="" in="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act.="" this="" rule="" does="" not="" contain="" a="" collection-of-information="" requirement="" for="" purposes="" of="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act.="" the="" assistant="" administrator="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" proposed="" designation="" is="" consistent="" to="" the="" maximum="" extent="" practicable="" with="" the="" approved="" coastal="" zone="" management="" program="" of="" the="" state="" of="" washington.="" this="" determination="" will="" be="" submitted="" for="" review="" by="" the="" responsible="" state="" agencies="" under="" section="" 307="" of="" the="" coastal="" zone="" management="" act.="" at="" this="" time="" nmfs="" is="" not="" promulgating="" protective="" regulations="" pursuant="" to="" esa="" section="" 4(d).="" in="" the="" future,="" prior="" to="" finalizing="" its="" 4(d)="" regulations="" for="" these="" threatened="" esus,="" nmfs="" will="" comply="" with="" all="" relevant="" nepa="" and="" rfa="" requirements.="" list="" of="" subjects="" 50="" cfr="" part="" 226="" endangered="" and="" threatened="" species,="" incorporation="" by="" reference.="" 50="" cfr="" part="" 227="" endangered="" and="" threatened="" species,="" exports,="" imports,="" marine="" mammals,="" transportation.="" dated:="" february="" 26,="" 1998.="" rolland="" a.="" schmitten,="" assistant="" administrator="" for="" fisheries,="" national="" marine="" fisheries="" service.="" for="" the="" reasons="" set="" out="" in="" the="" preamble,="" 50="" cfr="" parts="" 226="" and="" 227="" are="" proposed="" to="" be="" amended="" as="" follows:="" part="" 226--designated="" critical="" habitat="" 1.="" the="" authority="" citation="" for="" part="" 226="" continues="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" authority:="" 16="" u.s.c.="" 1533.="" 2.="" section="" 226.27="" is="" added="" to="" subpart="" c="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 226.27="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" (oncorhynchus="" nerka).="" critical="" habitat="" is="" designated="" to="" include="" all="" lake="" areas="" and="" river="" reaches="" accessible="" to="" listed="" sockeye="" salmon="" in="" ozette="" lake,="" located="" in="" clallam="" county,="" washington.="" critical="" habitat="" consists="" of="" the="" water,="" substrate,="" and="" adjacent="" riparian="" zone="" of="" estuarine,="" riverine,="" and="" lake="" areas="" in="" the="" watersheds="" draining="" into="" and="" out="" of="" ozette="" lake.="" accessible="" areas="" are="" those="" within="" the="" historical="" range="" of="" the="" esu="" that="" can="" still="" be="" occupied="" by="" any="" life="" stage="" of="" sockeye="" salmon.="" inaccessible="" areas="" are="" those="" above="" longstanding,="" naturally="" impassable="" barriers="" (i.e.,="" natural="" waterfalls="" in="" existence="" for="" at="" least="" several="" hundred="" years).="" adjacent="" riparian="" zones="" are="" defined="" as="" those="" areas="" within="" a="" horizontal="" distance="" of="" 300="" ft="" (91.4="" m)="" from="" the="" normal="" line="" of="" high="" water="" of="" a="" stream="" channel,="" adjacent="" off-channel="" habitat="" (600="" ft="" or="" 182.8="" m,="" when="" both="" sides="" of="" the="" channel="" are="" included),="" or="" lake.="" figure="" 14="" identifies="" the="" general="" geographic="" extent="" of="" ozette="" lake="" and="" larger="" rivers="" and="" streams="" within="" the="" area="" designated="" as="" critical="" habitat="" for="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon.="" note="" that="" figure="" 14="" does="" not="" constitute="" the="" definition="" of="" critical="" habitat="" but,="" instead,="" is="" provided="" as="" a="" general="" reference="" to="" guide="" federal="" agencies="" and="" interested="" parties="" in="" locating="" the="" boundaries="" of="" critical="" habitat="" for="" listed="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon.="" 3.="" figure="" 14="" is="" added="" to="" part="" 226="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" figure="" 14="" to="" part="" 226--critical="" habitat="" for="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" billing="" code="" 3510-22-p="" [[page="" 11770]]="" [graphic]="" [tiff="" omitted]="" tp10mr98.012="" billing="" code="" 3510-22-c="" [[page="" 11771]]="" part="" 227--threatened="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" 4.="" the="" authority="" citation="" for="" part="" 227="" is="" revised="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" authority:="" 16="" u.s.c.="" 1361="" and="" 1531-1543.="" 5.="" in="" sec.="" 227.4,="" paragraph="" (o)="" is="" added="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 227.4="" enumeration="" of="" threatened="" species.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" (o)="" ozette="" lake="" sockeye="" salmon="" (oncorhynchus="" nerka).="" includes="" all="" naturally="" spawned="" populations="" of="" sockeye="" salmon="" (and="" their="" progeny)="" in="" ozette="" lake="" and="" its="" tributaries,="" washington.="" [fr="" doc.="" 98-5471="" filed="" 3-9-98;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 3510-22-p="">