[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59979-59983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20748]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Summer-Run Kokanee Population in Issaquah Creek,
WA, as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the summer-run Issaquah Creek
kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may
represent a distinct population segment, and therefore a listable
entity, under section 3(16) of the Act. Therefore, we will not be
initiating a further status review in response to this petition.
[[Page 59980]]
DATES: This finding announced in this document was made on October 23,
2007. You may submit new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee or this finding to the
above address (Attention: Issaquah Creek kokanee), or via electronic
mail (e-mail) at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, Western Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) by telephone at (360-753-
4327), or by facsimile to (360-753-9405). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific information to indicate that the petitioned
action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information
provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the
petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time
we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and
publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that
we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
Petition History
On February 22, 1999, we responded to a November 2, 1998, letter
from Mr. Ron Sims, Kings County Executive, regarding the status of
kokanee in Lake Sammamish. Our response letter questioned whether Mr.
Sims' letter was in fact a petition. On March 16, 2000, we received a
petition, dated March 15, 2000, from Save Lake Sammamish, Washington
Trout, Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, Washington Environmental Council,
Friends of the Earth, King County Conservation Voters, and Defenders of
Wildlife. The petitioners requested that we emergency list the
population of native summer-run (or early-run) kokanee that spawn in
Issaquah Creek, a tributary of Lake Sammamish in King County,
Washington, as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) and
designate critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and provided the names and addresses of the
petitioners. We responded in two letters dated April 17, 2000, and
November 6, 2000, stating that addressing the petition at that time was
not practicable due to our workload addressing court orders and court-
approved settlement agreements for other listing actions and that we
would address the petition as funding became available. This petition
finding fulfills that commitment.
On July 10, 2007, we received a petition to list Lake Sammamish
kokanee as threatened or endangered under the Act. We are in the
process of analyzing that petition and intend to publish a 90-day
finding on that petition in the near future.
Species Information
The kokanee and the sockeye salmon are two forms of the same
species, Oncorhynchus nerka (Order Salmoniformes, Family Salmonidae),
that are native to watersheds in the north Pacific from southern
Kamchatka to Japan in the western Pacific and from Alaska to the
Columbia River in North America (Page and Burr 1991, p. 52; Taylor et
al. 1996, pp. 402-403). Adult kokanee look like sockeye salmon, but are
generally smaller in size at maturity because they are confined to
freshwater environments, which are less productive than the ocean
(Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 29). Both sockeye and kokanee turn from
silver to bright red during maturation, while the head is olive green
and the fins are blackish red (Craig and Foote 2001, p. 381).
Sockeye salmon are anadromous, migrating to the Pacific Ocean
following hatching and rearing in freshwater to spend 2 to 3 years in
marine waters before returning to freshwater environments to spawn.
Kokanee are non-anadromous, spending their entire lives in freshwater
habitats (Meehan and Bjorn 1991, pp. 56-57). Kokanee young are spawned
in freshwater streams and subsequently migrate to a nursery lake
(Burgner 1991, pp. 35-37). Kokanee remain in the lake until maturity
and return to natal freshwater streams to spawn and die.
Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 411-414) found multiple episodes of
independent divergence between sockeye and kokanee throughout their
current range. As ancestral sockeye populations expanded to new river
systems, those that could not access the marine environment on a
regular basis evolved into the non-anadromous kokanee form. This rapid
adaptive evolution happened multiple times such that kokanee
populations are genetically more similar to their sympatric (occupying
the same geographic area without interbreeding) sockeye populations
than kokanee in other river systems (Taylor et al. 1996, pp. 401, 413-
414).
Kokanee in the Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish watersheds are
separated into three groups: (1) Summer-run, (2) middle-run, and (3)
late-run kokanee, based on spawn timing and location (Berge and Higgins
2003, p. 3; Young et al. 2004, p. 66). Summer-run kokanee spawn during
late summer (August through September) in Issaquah Creek and are the
only run of kokanee known to spawn in that creek (sockeye salmon spawn
there in October). Middle-run kokanee spawn in late September through
November, primarily in larger Sammamish River tributaries. Late-run
kokanee spawn from late fall into winter (October through January) in
tributaries of Lake Sammamish. The petition and this petition finding
address only the summer-run kokanee in Issaquah Creek.
Berggren (1974, p. 9) and Pfeifer (1995, pp. 8-9 and 21-22) report
escapements (the number of fish arriving at a natal stream or river to
spawn) of summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee numbering in the thousands
during the 1970s. Since 1980, the escapement of summer-run Issaquah
Creek kokanee has plummeted (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 18). Between
1998 and 2001, only three summer-run kokanee redds (gravel nests of
fish eggs)
[[Page 59981]]
were observed in Issaquah Creek. In July 2001 and 2002, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife installed a fish weir across Issaquah
Creek in an attempt to capture all migrating kokanee and spawn them in
a hatchery for a supplementation program. However, no kokanee were
observed or captured in these attempts (WDFW 2002, pp. 5-7).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
The petitioners state that the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee is
a DPS based on their August spawning period, fry emergence timing,
coloration at the time of spawning, and genetic distinctness, and asked
the Service to emergency list the DPS as endangered. Under the Act, we
can consider for listing any species, subspecies, or DPS of any species
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature, if
information is substantial to indicate that such action may be
warranted. To implement the measures prescribed by the Act and its
Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st
Session), we developed a joint policy with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration entitled ``Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act'' (61 FR 4725;
February 7, 1996). According to this policy, the three elements
considered regarding the potential recognition of a DPS as endangered
or threatened are: (1) Discreteness of the population segment in
relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2)
significance of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the taxon; and (3) conservation status of the population segment in
relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., when treated as if
it were a species, is the population segment endangered or
threatened?). Criteria for all three elements must be satisfied to meet
the definition of a DPS. The petition discusses all three factors, but
does not explicitly state whether they are evaluating these factors
based on the standards set forth in the DPS policy. Following is our
evaluation of these elements in relation to the petitioned entity, the
summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee.
Discreteness
Discreteness refers to the separation of a population segment from
other members of the taxon based on either: (1) Physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) international
boundaries that result in significant differences in control of
exploitation, habitat management, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms.
Data contained in the petition, referenced in the petition, and
otherwise available to the Service suggests that there is substantial
information regarding the behavioral discreteness of summer-run
Issaquah Creek kokanee. Timing of spawning and fry emergence for this
population is earlier than any other kokanee or sockeye population in
the Sammamish Basin (Berggren 1974, pp. 9 and 38; Pfeifer 1992, pp. 117
and 141; Young et al. 2004, p. 65). This difference in spawn timing may
result in the reproductive isolation of summer-run kokanee. Based on
the physical and behavioral factors referenced in the petition, we find
that there is substantial information indicating that summer-run
Issaquah Creek kokanee may meet the discreteness element of our DPS
policy.
Significance
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions listed in the Service's DPS policy, its biological and
ecological significance will then be considered. In carrying out this
evaluation, the Service considers available scientific evidence of the
potential DPS's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of
the discrete population segment in a unique or unusual ecological
setting; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete segment would result in
a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of the taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside of its historic range; or (4) evidence
that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations in
its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4721).
The petition states that the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee
population is significant because it is native to the Sammamish Basin
and probably unique among kokanee and sockeye populations in the
western United States. The petition points to several studies
suggesting this population is genetically distinguishable from a number
of other kokanee and sockeye populations. Our analysis of these
statements relative to the DPS policy follows.
1. Persistence of the population segment in an ecological setting
that is unique for the taxon.
Neither the petition nor information in our files indicates that
Issaquah Creek may be a unique or unusual ecological setting for
kokanee.
2. Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of taxon.
Neither the petition nor information in our files indicates that
loss of summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may result in a significant
gap in the range of the taxon. According to the petition, Issaquah
Creek is one of several tributaries to Lake Sammamish that are occupied
by kokanee. There are also kokanee populations in tributaries to the
Sammamish River (below Lake Sammamish). Furthermore, the taxon occurs
throughout the North Pacific, from southern Kamchatka to Japan in the
western Pacific and from Alaska south to the Columbia River system in
the eastern Pacific (Page and Burr 1991, p. 52; Taylor et al. 1996, pp.
402-403).
3. Evidence that the population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range.
Neither the petition nor information in our files indicates that
summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may represent the only surviving
natural occurrence of this species. The petitioners note that there are
at least 78 different kokanee populations from British Columbia,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
4. Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
The petition cites several studies indicating that Issaquah Creek
kokanee may be genetically differentiated from other kokanee and
sockeye populations (Seeb and Wishard 1977, Wishard 1980, Hendry 1995,
Hendry et al. 1996). These citations appear to be credible scientific
publications and we accept the characterization of these publications
provided in the petition for the purpose of this 90-day finding.
However, we note that the definition of the term ``significant,'' as
applied in these genetics studies is not the same as its usage when
determining whether or not a population meets the significance
criterion under the DPS policy. These studies found that there were
``significant'' differences in allele frequencies (the frequency of one
member of a pair or series of genes occupying a specific position on a
specific chromosome) between summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee and the
11 other populations that they studied. However, these ``significant''
differences in allele frequencies must be placed into
[[Page 59982]]
the appropriate spatial context of the species' distribution.
The studies cited by the petitioners looked at four kokanee
populations, inclusive of Issaquah Creek kokanee, and eight sockeye
populations, all from the Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish Basins or
hatchery strains. Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 409-410) looked at 750
Oncorhynchus nerka from 24 different populations throughout the range
of the species and identified two major genetic groupings, the
``northwestern group'' (Kamchatka, Alaska, and northwest British
Columbia) and the ``southern group'' (Fraser River and Columbia River
systems). Given the large range of the species and the broader genetic
relationships described by Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 409-410), the
studies referenced by the petitioners looked only at a relatively small
subset (both geographically and in total number) of O. nerka, and do
not indicate that Issaquah Creek kokanee may have marked genetic
differences that may make them significant to the taxon.
Information in our files also fails to indicate that Issaquah Creek
kokanee may be markedly genetically divergent or that they may be
evolutionarily significant to the taxon. Although Coyle et al. (2001,
p. 17) conclude that summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee have significant
genetic differences compared with other conspecific populations of
kokanee and sockeye salmon and are a valid DPS, their analysis does not
support these findings. The authors acknowledge that genetic
differences between early-run Issaquah Creek kokanee and late-run Lake
Sammamish kokanee are unknown (but see our discussion of more recent
genetic work by Young et al. 2004, below), and the adaptive
significance of early-run spawning and early fry emergence are unknown.
Further, the authors acknowledged that while this population possesses
size and coloration not typical of other kokanee populations in the
Sammamish Basin, these are unlikely to be defining characteristics of
the population. Although the authors point to the population's
adaptation to warmer temperatures and lower stream flows (when compared
to other kokanee populations in the Sammamish Basin) as evidence of a
distinct adaptation to its environment, they also state that Kootenai
Lake kokanee in British Columbia have early-run timing similar to that
of summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee.
Coyle et al. (2001, p. 19) cite a study by Bentzen and Spies (2000,
p. 6) as evidence that early-run Issaquah Creek kokanee are
significantly different genetically to other conspecific populations of
kokanee and sockeye salmon. However, Benzen and Spies (2000, p. 1-9)
only studied kokanee populations from Issaquah Creek and Lake Whatcom,
did not include other tributaries of Lake Sammamish in their study, and
only examined three populations of sockeye salmon. Therefore, Bentzen
and Spies' (2000, p. 6) conclusion that Issaquah Creek kokanee are
significantly different from other conspecific populations of kokanee
is applicable only to the small number of conspecific populations they
examined, and only in the context that there were statistically
significant differences at microsatellite loci (regions within genes
where short sequences of DNA are repeated). An important distinction
must be made between a statistically significant difference in allele
frequencies using highly variable loci (e.g., microsatellites) and a
biologically meaningful difference in genetic markers (Hedrick 1999, p.
316-317). This distinction is important because patterns of adaptive
loci may not be correlated with highly variable loci, such as
microsatellite loci. It is this high variability in microsatellite loci
that enables the detection of very small genetic differences with
statistical significance (Hedrick 1999, p. 316-317). While Bentzen and
Spies (2000, p. 6) report statistically significant differences in
allele frequencies between the two populations of kokanee and three
populations of sockeye they studied, they provide no argument for how
these differences may be biologically important or how may constitute
marked genetic differences that are significant to the taxon.
The most recent genetic work on kokanee in the Sammamish Basin
shows that allele frequencies in Issaquah Creek and Lake Sammamish
tributaries differ from those of other introduced strains within the
basin and also showed greater genetic distance between middle-run and
late-run kokanee than the genetic distance between either group and
summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee (Young et al. 2004, pp. 69-70).
However, the authors note that the study had a small sample size for
summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee (n=13 individuals) and that
inferences regarding the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee should be
treated with caution. While this study provides some evidence that
summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may be genetically differentiated
from other kokanee in the Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish basins, it
did not address whether the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may be
markedly genetically divergent from kokanee outside of the Lake
Washington and Lake Sammamish basins or how such genetic divergence
might be important to the taxon as a whole.
The petition, in combination with information in our files, does
not indicate how either the genetic makeup, early spawning, or color
variation of summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may be significant to
the taxon. Therefore, we conclude that the petition does not present
substantial information indicating summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee
may meet the significance criterion of our DPS policy. Furthermore,
neither the petition nor information in our files presents substantial
information that summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may represent a
significant portion of the species' range. Consequently we conclude
that the petition does not present substantial information indicating
that summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may be a listable entity under
the Act.
The petition presented information for the five listing factors in
section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify threats that may be
leading to the decline of the summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee. These
factors are pertinent only in cases where the organism being proposed
for listing may be a listable entity as defined by section 3(15) of the
Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that summer-run Issaquah Creek kokanee may meet the
significance criterion for a DPS or may represent a significant portion
of the species' range, the five threat factors are not analyzed here.
Finding
The Service has reviewed the petition to list the summer-run
Issaquah Creek kokanee, the literature cited in the petition that was
available to us, and other available scientific literature and
information in our files. Based on this review, we find the petition
does not present substantial information indicating that the summer-run
Issaquah Creek kokanee may meet the criteria for being classified as a
DPS under the Act. Although statistically significant differences in
allele frequencies have been reported between summer-run Issaquah Creek
kokanee and other kokanee and sockeye populations in the Sammamish
Basin, information provided in the petition and other available
information do not indicate how these differences may be biologically
important or how they may constitute marked genetic differences
[[Page 59983]]
that are significant to the taxon. Therefore, we will not commence a
status review in response to this petition.
If you wish to provide information regarding summer-run Issaquah
Creek kokanee, you may submit your information or materials to the
Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available upon request
from the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this document are Western Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20748 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P