Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Lake Sammamish Kokanee Population of Oncorhynchus nerka as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population Segment, 61298-61307 [2011-25595]
Download as PDF
61298
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
no lower than one level above the
contracting officer, determines that data
other than certified cost or pricing data
is needed in order to determine that the
price is fair and reasonable (see FAR
15.403–3(a)(2)); and
(ii) Use the clause at 252.215–70YY,
Requirement for Data Other Than
Certified Cost or Pricing Data—
Modifications—Canadian Commercial
Corporation—
(A) In solicitations and contracts for
sole source acquisitions that are—
(1) Cost-reimbursement, if the
contract value is expected to exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold; or
(2) Fixed-price, if the contract value is
expected to exceed $500 million; or
(B) In other solicitations and
contracts, if the head of the contracting
activity, or designee no lower than one
level above the contracting officer,
determines that it is reasonably certain
that data other than certified cost or
pricing data will be needed in order to
determine that the price of
modifications is fair and reasonable (see
FAR 15.403–3(a)(2)).
PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION
4. Amend section 225.870–4 by
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph
(d) and adding new paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
225.870–4
Contracting procedures.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Requirement for data other than
certified cost or pricing data. (1) DoD
has waived the requirement for
submission of certified cost or pricing
data for the Canadian Commercial
Corporation and its subcontractors (see
215.403–1(c)(4)(C)).
(2) The Canadian Commercial
Corporation is not exempt from the
requirement to submit data other than
certified cost or pricing data, as defined
in FAR 2.101. In accordance with FAR
15.403–3(a)(1)(ii), the contracting officer
shall require submission of data other
than certified cost or pricing data from
the offeror, to the extent necessary to
determine a fair and reasonable price.
(3) The contracting officer shall use
the provision at 252.215–70XX,
Requirement for Data Other Than
Certified Cost or Pricing Data—
Canadian Commercial Corporation, and
the clause at 252.215–70YY,
Requirement for Data Other Than
Certified Cost or Pricing Data—
Modifications—Canadian Commercial
Corporation, as prescribed at
215.408(3)(i) and (ii), respectively.
(4) Except for contracts described in
225.870–1(c)(1) through (4), Canadian
suppliers will provide required data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
other than certified cost or pricing data
exclusively through the Canadian
Commercial Corporation.
*
*
*
*
*
the data required in accordance with 15.403–
3(a)(1)].
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
5. Add section 252.215–70XX to read
as follows:
(End of clause.)
[FR Doc. 2011–25237 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
252.215–70XX Requirement for
Submission of Data Other Than Certified
Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian
Commercial Corporation.
50 CFR Part 17
As prescribed at 215.408(3), use the
following provision:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Lake Sammamish
Kokanee Population of Oncorhynchus
nerka as an Endangered or Threatened
Distinct Population Segment
REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMISSION OF
DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED
COST OR PRICING DATA—
CANADIAN COMMERCIAL
CORPORATION (DATE)
(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing
data is not required.
(b) Canadian Commercial Corporation shall
obtain and provide the following:
(1) Profit rate or fee (as applicable).
(2) Analysis provided by Public Works and
Government Services Canada to the Canadian
Commercial Corporation to determine a fair
and reasonable price (comparable to the
analysis required at FAR 15.404–1).
(3) Data other than certified cost or pricing
data necessary to permit a determination by
the U.S. Contracting Officer that the
proposed price is fair and reasonable [U.S.
Contracting Officer to insert description of
the data required in accordance with 15.403–
3(a)(1)].
(End of provision)
6. Add section 252.215–70YY to read
as follows:
252.215–70YY Requirement for
Submission of Data Other Than Certified
Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications—
Canadian Commercial Corporation.
As prescribed at 215.408(3), use the
following clause:
REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMISSION OF
DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED
COST OR PRICING DATA—
MODIFICATIONS—CANADIAN
COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
(DATE)
(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing
data is not required.
(b) Canadian Commercial Corporation shall
obtain and provide the following:
(1) Profit rate or fee (as applicable).
(2) Analysis provided by Public Works and
Government Services Canada to the Canadian
Commercial Corporation to determine a fair
and reasonable price (comparable to the
analysis required at FAR 15.404–1).
(3) Data other than certified cost or pricing
data necessary to permit a determination by
the U.S. Contracting Officer that the
proposed price is fair and reasonable [U.S.
Contracting Officer to insert description of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0048; MO 92210–0–0008
B2]
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the Lake Sammamish kokanee,
Oncorhynchus nerka, as an endangered
or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is not
a listable entity under the Act and,
therefore, listing is not warranted. We
ask the public to continue to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the taxonomy,
biology, ecology, and status of Lake
Sammamish kokanee, and to support
cooperative conservation efforts for this
population.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on October 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at docket number
[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0048]. Supporting
documentation we used to prepare this
finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond
Drive, SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
Berg, Manager, Project Leader,
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ADDRESSES)
by telephone at 360–753–
6039; or by facsimile at 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:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be
warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition on whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted; (b)
warranted; or (c) warranted, but
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether species are
threatened or endangered, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of
the Act requires that we treat a petition
for which the requested action is found
to be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding;
that is, requiring a subsequent finding to
be made within 12 months. Such 12month findings must be published in
the Federal Register. This notice
constitutes our 12-month finding for the
petition to list the Lake Sammamish
population of kokanee.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 9, 2007, we received a
petition from Trout Unlimited; the City
of Issaquah, Washington; King County,
Washington; People for Puget Sound;
Save Lake Sammamish; the Snoqualmie
Tribe; and the Wild Fish Conservancy
requesting that all wild, indigenous,
naturally spawned kokanee
(Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake
Sammamish, Washington, be listed as a
threatened or endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included
in the petition was supporting
information regarding the species’
declining numbers, reduced
productivity, a decline in the quantity
and quality of their habitat, and
narrowing temporal, spatial, and genetic
diversity. We acknowledged the receipt
of the petition in a letter to the
petitioners dated September 24, 2007,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
and stated that we anticipated making
an initial finding within 90 days as to
whether the petition contained
substantial information indicating that
the action may be warranted. We also
advised that our initial review of the
petition did not indicate that an
emergency listing situation existed, but
that if conditions changed and we
determined that emergency listing was
warranted, an emergency rule may be
developed. Funding became available to
work on the 90-day finding on October
1, 2007. We published a notice of 90day finding in the Federal Register on
May 6, 2008 (73 FR 24915), determining
that the petition presented substantial
scientific information indicating that
listing the Lake Sammamish kokanee
may be warranted, and that we were
initiating a status review of the species
and opening a 60-day public comment
period. On December 14, 2009, we
received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from the Center for Biological Diversity
over the Service’s failure to make a 12month finding as required by the Act
(CBD v. Ken Salazar, U.S. District Court,
District of Oregon, CV 10–0176–JO). A
complaint was filed with the court on
February 17, 2010.
We received comments and
information from the following
individuals and organizations in
response to the 90-day finding: King
County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks, James Mattila,
Trout Unlimited, Snoqualmie Indian
Tribe, Save Lake Sammamish, Friends
of Pine Lake Creek, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
Sno-King Watershed Council. We have
fully considered the comments and
information presented by these
commentors in this finding. In addition,
during our status assessment, we
generally found that much more
information was available on the status
of sockeye populations, compared to
kokanee populations at the rangewide
scale, which may be related to the
commercial importance of sockeye
salmon. To evaluate whether the
population of kokanee in Lake
Sammamish qualifies as a listable entity
under the Act, we must first determine
if it satisfies the criteria for being a
distinct population segment. Under the
Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(DPS Policy), which was published in
the Federal Register on February 7,
1996 (61 FR 4722), we are required to
evaluate the discreteness and
significance of the petitioned entity
against the rest of the taxon, at the
rangewide scale.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61299
Species Information
Taxonomy and Range
Oncorhynchus nerka (Order
Salmoniformes, Family Salmonidae), is
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). There are three life
forms of this species, which are
discussed in greater detail below: (1)
Anadromous (ocean-going) sockeye; (2)
residual sockeye, and (3) kokanee. The
kokanee life form was at one time
thought to be a separate subspecies
(Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi,
Suckley 1861), and that taxonomy
continues to be reflected in some
scientific papers and other studies
(Robertson 1961; McLellan et al. 2001;
Carruth et al. 2000; Maiolie et al. 1996).
However, kokanee and sockeye are
formally recognized as the same species
(O. nerka) by the scientific community,
and in the integrated taxonomic data
system (ITIS) (https://www.itis.gov/
servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_
topic=TSN&search_value=161979).
Despite their recognized conspecific
status, sympatric populations of sockeye
and kokanee (those that occur in the
same or overlapping geographic areas)
are biologically and genetically distinct
(Foote et al. 1989, in Young et al. 2004,
p. 63). Based on the best available
information, we consider the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population to
belong to the species Oncorhynchus
nerka.
Kokanee Evolution
All kokanee populations are
evolutionarily derived from sockeye
salmon. Sockeye salmon (anadromous
Oncorhynchus nerka) give rise to
kokanee over evolutionary timeframes
(hundreds to thousands of years) as a
result of isolation or selective pressures
related to difficulty of migration and
lake productivity (Wood et al. 2008, pp.
208–210). All kokanee are at the end of
a long chain of events where individuals
of the anadromous sockeye entered a
lake and selective pressures founded a
residual sockeye population, then
selective pressures or perhaps a geologic
event selected for a kokanee population.
The evolution of the O. nerka forms is
unidirectional, and established resident,
migratory, or kokanee forms generally
do not create successful progeny of the
other forms (Wood et al. 2008, pp. 209–
210).
Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 411–414),
found multiple episodes of independent
divergence between sockeye and
kokanee throughout their current range.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
61300
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
As ancestral anadromous 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 or developed a sympatric
population of the non anadromous
kokanee form. This has resulted in
native kokanee populations typically
being genetically more similar to their
sympatric (occupying the same
geographic area without interbreeding)
sockeye populations than to kokanee in
other river systems (Taylor et al. 1996,
pp. 401, 413–414). However, there are
exceptions (e.g., Lake Ozette,
Washington) where native sympatric
kokanee and sockeye populations were
determined to be genetically dissimilar,
which suggests in these cases that they
were established through a different
founding event (Winans et al. 1996, pp.
655–656).
Differences Between Sockeye and
Kokanee
Sockeye salmon are primarily
anadromous, migrating to the Pacific
Ocean following hatching and rearing in
freshwater. Most populations are
associated with a natal lake. They spend
2 to 3 years in marine waters before
returning to freshwater environments to
spawn and die. Some progeny within
each sockeye population may remain in
freshwater throughout their lifecycle
and are called ‘‘residual sockeye’’ or
‘‘residuals’’ (Gustafson et al. 1997, p.
20). Unlike sockeye, kokanee are non
anadromous and spend their entire lives
in freshwater habitats (Meehan and
Bjorn 1991, pp. 56–57). Ricker (1938)
first used the terms ‘‘residual sockeye’’
and ‘‘residuals’’ to refer to these
resident, non migratory progeny of
anadromous salmon (Quinn 2005, p.
210). These ‘‘residuals’’ were much
smaller at maturity than the
anadromous fish because growing
conditions in the lakes are generally
poorer than those at sea (Quinn 2005, p.
210). Wood (1995) hypothesizes that the
evolution of sockeye populations may
proceed from postglacial colonization
by ocean-type fish, to lake-type
populations if a suitable lake is present,
and then to kokanee if there is some
combination of good growing conditions
and an arduous migration (Quinn 2005,
pp. 301–302). Kokanee young are
spawned in freshwater streams and
subsequently migrate to a nursery lake
(Burgner 1991, pp. 35–37), where they
remain until maturity. In some cases
kokanee are spawned along the
shoreline of the nursery lake itself (Scott
and Crossman 1973, p.168). When
mature, they return to natal freshwater
streams to spawn and die, typically
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
around age four. Sympatric kokanee and
sockeye populations are typically
temporally or spatially separated. In
cases where they are not, assortative
mating by body size usually leads to
assortative mating by type (Gustafson et
al. 1997, p. 30). Said another way,
sockeye are typically larger and spawn
with other sockeye, while kokanee are
smaller and spawn with other kokanee.
Both kokanee and anadromous
sockeye 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).
Typically, resident or ‘‘residual
sockeye’’ (progeny of anadromous
sockeye that do not migrate to sea but
are not kokanee) turn from silver to
green (Foote et al. 2004, p. 70).
Although adult kokanee resemble
sockeye salmon, they have significant
morphological and physiological
differences. Kokanee are more efficient
at extracting carotinoids from food
resources; have higher gill raker counts,
which is known to be an inherited trait;
and are normally smaller in size at
maturity than sockeye because they are
confined to freshwater environments,
which are less productive than the
ocean (Burgner 1991, p. 59; Gustafson et
al. 1997, p. 29; Craig and Foote 2001, p.
387; Leary et al. 1985 in Wood 1995, p.
203). Kokanee maintain a constant egg
size, while increasing egg number with
increasing body size; sockeye increase
both egg number and egg size with
increasing body size. It is thought that
this characteristic may be related to the
less energetically costly kokanee
spawning migrations and the smaller
particle size of spawning gravel that can
be exploited (McGurk 2000, p. 1802).
Other studies have demonstrated that
under-yearling sockeye salmon exhibit
superior swimming ability compared to
kokanee (Taylor and Foote 1991).
Further, although kokanee appear to
have maintained some degree of
seasonal adaptation to saltwater, which
is part of the smoltification process of
anadromous salmonids (complex
physiological changes that enable
juvenile salmon to make the transition
from freshwater to saltwater),
genetically there are significant
differences in the timing (delayed) and
duration (short-lived) compared to
sockeye (Foote et al. 1992, pp. 106–108).
Sockeye and Kokanee Distribution
Sockeye occur in 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).
Sockeye salmon of Canadian origin
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
generally remain east of the
International Dateline and south of the
Aleutian Islands, while those from Asia
originate in freshwater habitats from
Cape Navarin Peninsula in the Bering
Sea to north of Sakhalin Island in the
Sea of Okhotsk. Most sockeye from
Canadian rivers spend 2 years in the
ocean, while those from other rivers
spend 1, 3 or 4 years (Hart 1973, p. 121).
Native populations of kokanee, each
associated with a specific nursery lake,
likely occurred historically over most of
the range of sockeye salmon within the
Columbia River to the Yukon River
systems. Native kokanee populations are
not widespread in Alaska (McGurk
2000, p. 1801) or Asia (McPhail 2007, p.
288). There are said to be well over 500
kokanee populations in British
Columbia (B.C.) (McPhail 2007, p. 295).
No native kokanee are known from the
B.C. portion of the Yukon River (B.C.
Ministry of Fisheries 1998, p. 17), and
although introduction activities have
spread kokanee throughout the
province, only two natural populations
are known from the Mackenzie River
system (McPhail 2007, p. 289). Kokanee
have been widely introduced across
North America, including areas outside
their larger geographic distribution and
farther inland in States and provinces
where they occur naturally (Scott and
Crossman 1973, p. 167).
Sammamish River/Lake Sammamish
Watershed Kokanee Population
Groupings
Lake Sammamish kokanee
distribution (the petitioned entity): Lake
Washington is the dominant feature of
the greater Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish Basin and is fed by two
major drainage systems. The Cedar
River watershed at the south end of the
lake, and the Sammamish River/Lake
Sammamish watershed at the north end
of the lake. Surface water discharge
from Lake Sammamish is by way of the
Sammamish River at the north end of
the lake, which ultimately flows into
Lake Washington. The four major
tributaries that discharge into the
Sammamish River are Swamp Creek,
North Creek, Little Bear Creek, and Bear
Creek. The major tributary to Lake
Sammamish is Issaquah Creek, which
enters at the south end of the lake and
contributes approximately 70 percent of
the inflow to the lake (Kerwin 2001, p.
425). Native kokanee historically
spawned in tributaries located
throughout Lake Washington and Lake
Sammamish. Although the Sammamish
River and Cedar River (Walsh Lake)
drainages have been included within
the current distribution of native
kokanee in prior assessments (Gustafson
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
et al. 1997, p. 123; Berge and Higgins
2003, p. 3), their current spawning
distribution in the Lake Washington/
Lake Sammamish Basin appears to be
limited to portions of the Lake
Sammamish drainage. For the purposes
of this finding, we are analyzing a
petitioned entity that includes the
native kokanee population found in the
Lake Sammamish drainage.
Although the major tributary to Lake
Sammamish is Issaquah Creek, there are
also several smaller tributaries to Lake
Sammamish used for spawning by
kokanee, including Ebright Creek, Pine
Lake Creek, Laughing Jacobs Creek, and
Lewis Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, p.
5). Kokanee in the Sammamish River/
Lake Sammamish watershed (referred to
by the petitioners as the Lake
Sammamish population) are separated
into three groups: (1) Summer/early-run;
(2) fall/middle-run; and, (3) winter/laterun, based on spawn timing and
location (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 3;
Young et al. 2004, p. 66). Summer/earlyrun kokanee spawn during late summer
(August through September) in Issaquah
Creek, and are the only run of kokanee
known to spawn in that creek, although
introduced sockeye salmon spawn there
in October. Fall/middle-run kokanee
spawn in late September through
November, primarily in larger
Sammamish River tributaries including
Swamp Creek, North Creek, Bear Creek,
Little Bear Creek, and Cottage Lake
Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 21–
25). Winter/late-run kokanee spawn
from late fall into winter (October
through January) in Lake Sammamish
tributaries including Lewis Creek,
Ebright Creek, and Laughing Jacobs
Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 26–
29). Some winter/late-run spawning
kokanee have also been recorded in
Vasa Creek, Pine Lake (Trout Unlimited
et al. 2007, p. 9), and Tibbetts Creek
(Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 5, 30) in
the recent past. Berge and Higgins
(2003, p. 5) identified George Davis,
Zaccuse, and Alexander’s Creeks as part
of the historical spawning distribution
for winter/late-run kokanee. On at least
one occasion, kokanee, presumed to be
winter/late-run based on spawn timing,
were observed spawning in Lake
Sammamish near the mouth of Ebright
Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 33),
suggesting that some degree of beach
spawning may also occur within the
lake. More recently, what appears to be
winter/late-run kokanee have been
observed entering the lower reach of
George Davis Creek at dusk (Nickel
2009) but then retreating back to Lake
Sammamish during the day apparently
without spawning. This may further
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
indicate possible beach spawning
within the lake.
Sammamish River/Lake Sammamish
Watershed Kokanee Escapement
Surveys
Summer/early-run: Berggren (1974, p.
9) and Pfeifer (1995, pp. 8–9, 21–22)
report escapements (the number of fish
arriving at a natal stream or river to
spawn) of summer/early-run Issaquah
Creek kokanee numbering in the
thousands during the 1970s. Since 1980,
the escapement of early-run kokanee in
Issaquah Creek has ‘‘plummeted
dramatically’’ (Berge and Higgins 2003,
p. 18). Between 1998 and 2001, only
three summer/early-run kokanee redds
(gravel nests of fish eggs) were observed
in Issaquah Creek (Berge and Higgins
2003, p. 18). The last time summer/
early-run kokanee were observed was
during the summer of 2000, when only
two individuals were recorded
(Washington Trout 2004, p. 3). 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 summer/early-run kokanee
and spawn them in a hatchery for a
supplementation program. No kokanee
were observed or captured (WDFW
2002, pp. 5–7). Further, there were no
summer/early-run kokanee observed
during spawner surveys conducted in
2003 (Washington Trout 2004, p. 2),
leading King County and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife
biologists to conclude that the summer/
early-run is functionally extinct (Berge
and Higgins 2003, p. 33; Jackson 2006,
p. 1).
Fall/middle-run: In the 1940s, the fall/
middle-run kokanee was estimated to
number from 6,000 to as many as 30,000
spawners in Bear Creek, a tributary to
the Sammamish River (Connor et al.
2000, pp. 13–14), although these
estimates are confounded by the high
numbers of out-of-basin and in-basin
kokanee introductions during this time
period. Between 1917 and 1969, more
than 44 million kokanee were
introduced into Bear Creek and its
tributaries, 35 million of which
originated from Lake Whatcom in
northwestern Washington (Gustafson et
al. 1997, pp. 3–113). However, the
introduced kokanee were unable to
persist, and by the 1970s the native
kokanee fall/middle-run was also
considered extinct by biologists from
Washington Department of Game (now
part of Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife) (Fletcher 1973, p. 1).
Winter/late-run: From 1996 to 2006,
the winter/late-run kokanee have had
highly variable spawner returns with
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61301
returns as low as 64 in 1997, and as high
as 4,702 in 2003 (Trout Unlimited et al.
2007, p. 18). Annual spawner returns
averaged 946 fish, with a median return
of 594 fish during this period (Trout
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 16). From 2004
to 2007, the average spawner return was
463 fish, although in two of the four
spawning streams currently used by the
winter/late-run (Laughing Jacobs Creek
and Pine Lake Creek), there were fewer
than 70 fish counted annually in each
stream (Jackson 2009). In 2008, the
estimated spawner return was 42
individuals with none observed in Pine
Lake Creek and only one kokanee
observed in Laughing Jacobs Creek
(Jackson 2009, pp. 1–6). This
represented the lowest escapement for
this population on record, although in
2009 the estimated spawner return was
1,655 individuals, which was the largest
escapement recorded since 2003
(Jackson 2010, p. 11). The longest
accessible spawning stream currently
used by the winter/late-run, Lewis
Creek, is 0.75 mile (mi) (1.2 kilometers
(km)), and the combined spawning
reaches of the core spawning streams
(Lewis Creek, Laughing Jacobs Creek,
and Ebright Creek) total less than 1.0
mile (1.6 km) (Jackson 2006, p. 5).
Winter/late run propagation efforts have
recently been implemented, and are
described below.
Winter/Late Run Propagation Efforts
In the fall of 2009, approximately
35,000 eggs were harvested from mature
kokanee collected from Lewis, Ebright,
and Laughing Jacobs Creeks by teams
from the Issaquah Creek salmon
hatchery. The eggs were shipped to the
Cedar River and Chambers Creek
hatcheries in Washington State for
development into fry, for use in
supplementing the native kokanee
population in Lake Sammamish. In
March 2010, approximately 14,000
kokanee fry were released into Lewis,
Ebright, and Laughing Jacobs Creeks;
another release of 20,000 fry into the
same creeks was done on April 14,
2010. The eventual success of these
efforts remains to be determined
(https://www.issaquahpress.com/2010/
04/20/the-fish-journal-bar-codes-helpkokanee-salmon-in-their-survival/
#more-21481).
Sockeye and Kokanee Abundance
Trends
Quinn 2005 (p. 319) indicated the
estimated average annual abundance of
sockeye salmon per region (catch and
escapement of wild and hatchery fish)
from 1981 to 2000 to be 83 million fish
(Japan 0.0 million, Russia 10.0 million,
Western Alaska 50.4 million, Central
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
61302
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Alaska 20.3 million, and Southeast
Alaska to California 19.3 million). The
estimated catch and escapement of
North American sockeye salmon from
1951 through 2001 was 51.4 million fish
from 1,400 populations, averaging
approximately 37,000 fish per
population (Quinn 2005, p. 321).
Sockeye populations inhabiting the
southern portions of their range are in
decline, whereas those in the northerly
regions are generally stable. In
southwestern British Columbia, onethird of the sockeye spawning runs
known since the early 1950s have been
lost or have decreased to such low
numbers that spawners are not
consistently monitored (Ridell 1993, in
Wood 1995, p. 195). These trends in
number and magnitude of spawning
runs imply a loss of genetic diversity,
through the loss of both locally adapted
subpopulations and genetic variation
due to low effective population sizes
(Wood 1995, p. 195). Subpopulations in
the Hecata Strait–Queen Charlotte
Sound, Georgia Basin/Vancouver Island
Area, Skeena River and Fraser River,
decreased in abundance considerably
over the last three generations. Towards
the northern end of their distribution,
sockeye were generally characterized by
stable-to-increasing trends in adult
abundance. There were several notable
exceptions, however, to the north-tosouth risk gradient, including
subpopulations in the Columbia and in
eastern Washington State. Many of these
are supported through some level of
artificial enhancement, however, which
may mask declines in wild populations
(Rand 2008 (IUCN Red List Supporting
Documentation, O. nerka, (https://
www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/135301/0)).
Although Fraser River stocks as well
as other West Coast sockeye salmon
stocks had record returns in 2010
(Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC 2010, p. 1)
(https://nwifc.org/2010/09/large-frasersockeye-run-doesnt-make-up-fordecades-of-poor-fishing/), prior to this
year most Fraser River stocks have
exhibited declining trends in
productivity beginning as early as 1960
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
2010, p. 1). Following returns are
expected to again be poor for the next
3 years (NWIFC 2010, p. 1). The three
factors that likely contributed to this
record return are:
(1) Large number of offspring
resulting from the 6th largest spawning
escapement since 1952 as a result of
reduced fisheries in 2006;
(2) Favorable changes in coastal ocean
conditions toward cool temperatures in
early 2008 when sockeye that returned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
in 2010 were entering the ocean as
juveniles; and
(3) the occurrence of a major volcanic
eruption in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands in
2008, which resulted in ash fertilizing
the ocean and triggering an algal bloom
that possibly enhanced forage value and
availability (Simon Fraser University et
al. 2010, p. 2).
The Snake River sockeye
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
has remained at very low levels of only
a few hundred fish, though there have
been recent increases in the number of
hatchery-reared fish returning to spawn.
Data quality for the Ozette Lake sockeye
ESU make differentiating between the
number of hatchery and natural
spawners difficult, but in either case the
size of the population is small, though
possibly growing. Both the Snake River
and Ozette Lake ESUs were listed as
endangered and threatened,
respectively, under the Act by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (now
NOAA Fisheries (NOAAF) under their
ESU policy (56 FR 58612; November 20,
1991), (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/fish/sockeyesalmon.htm).
We are unaware of average annual
abundance records for kokanee;
however, there are said to be well over
500 kokanee populations in British
Columbia (McPhail 2007, p. 295). No
native kokanee are known from the B.C.
portion of the Yukon River (B.C.
Ministry of Fisheries 1998, p. 17), and
although introduction activities have
spread kokanee throughout the
province, only two natural populations
are known from the Mackenzie River
system (McPhail 2007, p. 289). There
are numerous introduced kokanee
populations maintained through
hatchery introductions to support
recreational fisheries; kokanee have
been widely introduced across North
America, including areas outside their
larger geographic distribution and
farther inland in States and provinces
where they occur naturally (Scott and
Crossman 1973, p. 167).
Regulatory Context and Agency
Responsibilities
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Regulatory Jurisdiction
under the Endangered Species Act
Under a 1974 Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (now
NOAAF), NOAAF has Act authority
over species that either reside the major
portion of their lifetimes in marine
waters or spend part of their lifetime in
estuarine waters if the major portion of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the remaining time is spent in marine
waters. The FWS has Act authority over
species that spend the major portion of
their lifetimes on land or in fresh water,
or that spent part of their lifetimes in
estuarine waters if a major portion of the
remaining time is spent on land or in
fresh water (USFWS and NOAA, 1974).
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
and Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
Policies
In addition to the DPS policy, NOAAF
applies the ESU policy (56 FR 58612;
November 20, 1991), which was
adopted prior to adoption of the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service DPS Policy.
The ESU policy considers a stock of
Pacific salmon to be a distinct
population and hence a ‘‘species’’ under
the Act, if it represents an ESU of the
biological species. A stock must satisfy
two criteria to be considered an ESU:
(1) It must be substantially
reproductively isolated from other
conspecific population units; and (2) It
must represent an important component
in the evolutionary legacy of the
species. Under the ESU policy, the
evolutionary legacy of a species is the
genetic variability that is a product of
past evolutionary events and which
represents the reservoir upon which
future evolutionary potential depends.
This criteria would be met for purposes
of the ESU policy if the population
contributed substantially to the
ecological/genetic diversity of the
species as a whole (i.e., extinction of the
population would represent a
significant loss to the ecological/genetic
diversity of the species). In making this
determination, NOAAF considers
whether: (1) The population is
genetically distinct from other
conspecific populations; (2) the
population occupies unusual or
distinctive habitat; and (3) the
population shows evidence of unusual
or distinctive adaptation to its
environment.
NOAAF states that while conclusive
evidence does not yet exist regarding
the relationship of resident and
anadromous forms of Oncorhynchus
nerka, the available evidence suggests
that resident sockeye and kokanee
should not be included in listed
anadromous sockeye ESUs in cases
where the strength and duration of
reproductive isolation would provide
the opportunity for adaptive divergence
in sympatry (64 FR 14530; March 25,
1999). However, NOAAF does include
those resident/residual sockeye within
ESUs that spawn with, or adjacent to,
sockeye salmon in the same ESU.
NOAAF interprets an ESU as a
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
population that is substantially
reproductively isolated from conspecific
populations (populations of the same
species), which represents an important
component of the evolutionary legacy of
the species. Although Lake Sammamish
kokanee are also Pacific salmon, we
have no authority under NOAAF’s ESU
policy, and have evaluated the status of
the Lake Sammamish kokanee
population under the DPS policy.
NOAAF acknowledges the DPS policy
takes a somewhat different approach
from the ESU policy to identifying
conservation units, which may result, in
some cases, in the identification of
different conservation units. Although
the DPS and ESU policies are
consistent, they will not necessarily
result in the same delineation of DPSs
under the Act. The statutory term
‘‘distinct population segment’’ is not
used in the scientific literature and does
not have a commonly understood
meaning therein. NOAAF’s ESU policy
and the joint DPS policy apply
somewhat different criteria, with the
result that their application may lead to
different outcomes in some cases. The
ESU policy relies on ‘‘substantial
reproductive isolation’’ to delineate a
group of organisms, and emphasizes the
consideration of genetic and other
relevant information in evaluating the
level of reproductive exchange among
potential ESU components. The DPS
policy does not rely on reproductive
isolation to determine ‘‘discreteness,’’
but rather on the marked separation of
the population segment from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of biological factors (61 FR
4725; February 7, 1996). In addition, the
DPS policy also considers the
significance of the discrete population
segment to the taxon to which it
belongs, which may produce a different
result than the important evolutionary
legacy component considered by
NOAAF under the ESU policy.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Distinct Population Segment Policy
Defining a Species Under the Act
Section 3(16) of the Act defines
‘‘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.’’ Under
the DPS policy, three elements are
considered in the decision regarding the
establishment and classification of a
population of a vertebrate species as a
possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to and removal
from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. These
elements are: (1) The discreteness of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it
belongs; (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and (3) the population
segment’s conservation status in relation
to the Act’s standards for listing,
delisting, or reclassification. Our
regulations provide further guidance for
determining whether a particular taxon
or population is a species for the
purposes of the Act: ‘‘The Secretary
shall rely on standard taxonomic
distinctions and the biological expertise
of the Department and the scientific
community concerning the relevant
taxonomic group’’ (50 CFR 424.11).
Kokanee are classified as
Oncorhynchus nerka, which is the same
taxonomic species as sockeye salmon.
Because the kokanee life history form
itself is not recognized taxonomically as
a distinct species or subspecies, to
determine whether the kokanee
population in Lake Sammamish
constitutes a DPS, and thus a listable
entity under the Act, we evaluate this
population’s discreteness and
significance with respect to the taxon to
which it belongs (in other words, all
Oncorhynchus nerka (sockeye and
kokanee) populations rangewide).
Accordingly, each of the factors
evaluated in this finding have been
considered within that context.
Under the DPS policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
of the following factors:
Discreteness Factor 1: The population
is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors
(quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation).
Discreteness Factor 2: The population
is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of Section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Lake Sammamish Kokanee
Discreteness Analysis
Discreteness Factor 1 Examination
Patterns of genetic variation
demonstrate that the sockeye and
kokanee within lakes are usually more
closely related to each other than they
are to members of their form in other
lakes (Foote et al. 1989; Taylor et al.
1996 in Quinn 2005 p. 212). Sympatric
kokanee and sockeye populations are
typically temporally or spatially
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61303
separated; where that is not the case,
assortative mating by body size usually
leads to assortative mating by type
(Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 30) (e.g.,
sockeye are typically larger and spawn
with other sockeye, while kokanee are
smaller and spawn with other kokanee).
Historically, a heritable tendency to
remain in a lake system rather than
migrate to sea may have promoted
genetic divergence between kokanee
and sockeye forms as they specialized
for their freshwater and marine habitat.
These genetic differences would be
reinforced by size-specific preferences
for breeding sites, accompanied by the
evolution of isolating mechanisms to
reduce interbreeding between the forms
(Quinn p. 210). Kokanee in Lake
Sammamish are geographically isolated
from other kokanee, and within Lake
Sammamish, kokanee and sockeye are
further isolated by genetic and
reproductive behavior (Young et al.
2004, pp. 72–73).
Conclusion: Available data indicate
that the Lake Sammamish population is
geographically and reproductively
isolated from other native kokanee and
sockeye populations, and genetically
and ecologically discrete from other
Oncorhynchus nerka populations,
although a transplanted sockeye
population was introduced during the
1930s to the 1950s (NOAA 1997, p. ix).
Discreteness Factor 2 Examination
This factor is not applicable to the
discreteness analysis for the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population, as the
petitioned Oncorhynchus nerka
population is not delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Discreteness Analysis Summary
The kokanee population in Lake
Sammamish has been determined to be
discrete as a result of its marked
separation from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. There are no
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Accordingly, this discreteness criterion
is not applicable to our evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
61304
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Lake Sammamish Kokanee Significance
Analysis
Under the DPS policy, a
determination as to whether the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is a
listable entity under the Act must first
consider its discreteness and
significance with regard to the
remainder of the taxon, which includes
all other sockeye salmon and kokanee
populations throughout the range of the
biological species. 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 is
considered in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list a DPS
be used sparingly, while encouraging
the conservation of genetic diversity. In
carrying out this examination, we
consider available scientific evidence of
the population segment’s importance to
the taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not
limited to: (1) Its persistence in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for
the taxon; (2) evidence that its loss
would result in a significant gap in the
range of the taxon; (3) evidence that it
is the only surviving natural occurrence
of the taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population
outside of its historical range; or (4)
evidence that the discrete segment
differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic
characteristics (FR 61 4721; February 7,
1996). A population segment needs to
satisfy only one of these criteria to be
considered significant. Furthermore,
since the list of criteria is not
exhaustive, other criteria may be used if
appropriate.
Significance Factor 1: Persistence of
the discrete population segment in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for
the taxon.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Significance Factor 1 Examination
(A) The Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish Basin is a large,
interconnected lake system containing
two low-elevation mesotrophic lakes
(Edmondson 1979, pp. 234–235; Welch
et al. 1977, p. 301). Mesotrophic lakes
are characterized by an intermediate
concentration of nutrients, moderate
plant production, some organic
sediment accumulation, some loss of
dissolved oxygen in the lower waters,
and moderate water clarity. Other lake
systems that support or have supported
native sockeye populations (and by
association their native kokanee
populations) are typically oligotrophic
in nature (Mullan 1986, pp. 71–73;
Quinn 2005, p. 171). Oligotrophic lakes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
are characterized by low concentrations
of nutrients, limited plant production,
little accumulation of organic sediment
on the bottom, an abundance of
dissolved oxygen, and good water
clarity. Oligotrophic lakes are also
typically located at high elevations in
interior areas where energetic costs of
anadromous migration are high (Wood
1995, pp. 202–203). In addition to Lake
Sammamish, the two other known
exceptions are Lake Ozette in
Washington, which has been
characterized as oligotrophic to
mesotrophic (or meso-oligotrophic)
(Ritchie and Bourgeois 2010, p. 5), and
Lake Osoyoos, which straddles the
Washington and B.C border in the
interior Columbia Basin, which has
been characterized as a mesotrophic
system (Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 57).
Although we were unable to find
comprehensive information on
limnology as it relates to lake systems
occupied by O. nerka, within the known
and studied kokanee lakes, Lake
Sammamish is the only mesotrophic,
easily accessible coastal lake, where
energetic costs of migration are
minimal, that is known to support a
native kokanee population in the
coterminous United States. Mesotrophic
lakes containing Oncorhynchus nerka
populations appear to be rare in coastal
British Columbia (Shortreed 2007, p. vi;
Woodruff 2010, pp. 47, 56). We would
also expect mesotrophic lakes that
support kokanee to be rare or absent
within the northern portion of the
species’ range and at higher elevations,
since lakes with the lowest productivity
are either at high altitudes or high
latitudes (Brylinsky and Mann 1973, p.
2). One research biologist with the
NOAAF Northwest Fishery Science
Center, commented that most sockeye
salmon nursery lakes are typically
strongly nutrient limited (i.e.,
oligotrophic), and kokanee are not
common in easily accessible coastal
lakes where the energetic costs of
migration are minimal (Gustafson 2009.
pers comm.).
Although the presence of the
petitioned entity in a mesotrophic lake
appears to be atypical, we do not have
information on the percentage or extent
of mesotrophic lakes occupied by O.
nerka throughout the range of the taxon,
and therefore cannot determine whether
this is actually an unusual or unique
setting for O. nerka. However, it is welldocumented that the species occupies
lakes with a wide range of thermal
regimes and other physical attributes
(McPhail 2007, pp. 288, 295; Scott and
Crossman 1973, p. 167; Mullen 1986 pp.
71–73; Quinn 2005, p. 171). These
include coastal lakes in Washington that
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stratify in summer with surface
temperatures near 20 degrees Celsius (C)
(60 degrees Fahrenheit (F)), and remain
mixed without freezing in winter, to
lakes in the interior and northern
latitudes that are ice-covered for at least
half the year and have summer
temperatures barely above 10 degrees C
(50 degrees F). Oncorhynchus nerka
occupies lakes that range in elevation
from essentially sea level to 2,000 m
(6,550 ft), and in area from 1 to 2,600
square kilometers (0.6 to 1,615 square
miles), which includes coastal lakes
from Washington to Alaska and lakes in
the interior of the Columbia, Fraser, and
Skeena river systems (Quinn 2005, p.
173). Anadromous O. nerka do not
occur naturally in Japan, although other
populations are distributed among
several lakes. Native populations occur
in Akan and Chimikeppu Lakes (Kogura
et al. 2011, pp. 2–3), and O. nerka also
occurs in Lake Toya, a large oligotrophic
lake located in a caldera in the central
area of Hokkaido, in Northern Japan
(Sakano et al., 1998, p. 173). Based on
our analysis, we are not aware of any
scientific evidence suggesting or
demonstrating that the presence of an O.
nerka population in a mesotrophic lake
is beyond the normal range of variability
that would be expected from a species
that occupies the diversity of habitat
types where it has been documented, or
that this may represent an important
trait from an adaptation/evolutionary
perspective.
In addition, NOAAF (1997, p. 20)
states that Oncorhynchus nerka exhibits
the greatest diversity in selection of
spawning habitat among the Pacific
salmon, and great variation in river
entry timing and the duration of holding
in lakes prior to spawning. The species’
adaptation to a greater diversity of lake
environments for 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.
Conclusion: Oncorhynchus nerka
exhibiting differing life-history forms
occupy a variety of ecosystems and
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). We acknowledge Lake
Sammamish represents a complex
ecological setting. However, the
available information indicates O. nerka
occurs in a wide geographical range,
and habitat varies with respect to
continental setting, latitude, elevation,
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and type(s) of waters used to support
the species’ physical and biological
needs. Given the available information
on the diversity and extent of ecological
settings O. nerka occupies within the
rest of its range, the best scientific
information available does not suggest
that Lake Sammamish represents a
unique or unusual setting that may have
special significance relative to the taxon
as a whole.
(B) The kokanee life form has
historically been more abundant than
the sockeye life form in Lake
Sammamish, although a larger number
of the sockeye life form would be
expected because of the relatively easy
access to marine waters. Reports in the
literature are equivocal as to whether
sockeye salmon were historically
present in the Lake Sammamish basin
prior to the construction of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, although
kokanee were described as numerous
(NOAA 1997, pp. 73–75). Hendry (1995)
in NOAA 1997 (p. 75), stated that
limited runs of sockeye salmon were
probably present at the turn of the
century in the Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish drainage, and that it is
‘‘certainly unlikely that large
populations were present.’’ Young
(2004, p. 1) stated the Lake Sammamish/
Lake Washington watershed supported
only small populations of sockeye, but
large populations of kokanee in the
period from 1890 to 1920. In addition,
the oral history of the Snoqualmie
Indian Tribe once characterized kokanee
as being so abundant that Tribal
members could stand in the tributaries
of Lake Sammamish and scoop up the
‘‘little red fish’’ in their hands
(Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and Trout
Unlimited 2008, p. 10).
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
(Taylor et al. 1996, pp. 411–414).
Kokanee populations are typically
located at high elevations in interior
areas where energetic costs of
anadromous migration are high or
where productive lakes can support
both types (Wood 1995, pp. 202–203). In
areas closer to and with easy access to
marine waters, sockeye populations
typically dominate and kokanee are not
common, since the energetic costs of
migration are minimal (Gustafson 2009,
pers comm.), and marine waters are
much more productive. At higher
latitudes, productivity (and growing
opportunities) is greater at sea than in
freshwater, as is evidenced by the more
rapid growth of salmon at sea than in
streams and lakes (Quinn 2005, p. 6).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
Since Lake Sammamish is located close
to marine waters and is historically and
presently capable of accommodating
anadromous migration, the expectation
would be that this should be a sockeyedominated system. The fact that
kokanee appears to have been the more
common Oncorhynchus nerka life form
in the Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish system historically suggests
there may have been at least some
partial or periodic barrier to
anadromous sockeye in the past (Young
et al. 2004, p. 1).
Comparing Lake Sammamish to other
nearby water bodies, Lake Whatcom and
Lake Ozette are geographically near
marine waters and support native
kokanee populations; however, there are
differences. Lake Whatcom is
oligotrophic (Matthews et al. 2002, p.
107), and has an outlet that presents a
long-standing natural barrier to
anadromous migration. Lake Ozette,
although also near marine waters, is
meso-oligotrophic and dominated by
sockeye.
Although the dominant presence of
kokanee in a system where a greater
abundance of the sockeye life form
would be expected is notable, this does
not necessarily lead to a conclusion that
Lake Sammamish represents a unique or
unusual ecological setting. Quinn (2005,
pp. 10–11), states that all salmon are
habitat generalists, and populations
tend to be very productive (i.e., when
the population is below its carrying
capacity, each salmon produces many
surviving offspring). They spawn and
rear in bodies of water ranging from tiny
creeks above waterfalls in the
mountains, or streams discharging
directly into saltwater, to large rivers,
and from small beaver ponds and
ephemeral wetlands to the largest lakes
of the region. They are found in a
number of large rivers as well as in
thousands of smaller streams.
Oncorhynchus nerka is the second most
abundant Pacific salmon species, having
a primary spawning range from the
Columbia River to the Kuskokwim River
in Alaska. In Asia they range from the
Kuril Islands to the area of the Anadyr
River, but the heart of their distribution
is the Kamchatka Peninsula and
tributaries of the Bering Sea. They
spawn in coastal systems and also
ascent as far as 1,600 km (994 mi) to
Redfish Lake, Idaho (Quinn 2005, p. 14).
We have no information on whether
there are any other lake systems that are
predominately occupied by the kokanee
life form that would be expected to be
dominated by sockeye.
Conclusion: We have insufficient
information to determine the extent of
waterbodies with relatively easy access
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61305
to marine waters where the kokanee
form may be dominant over the
anadromous form of O. nerka across the
range of the taxon. However, given the
available information on the diversity
and extent of ecological settings of O.
nerka throughout the rest of its range,
there is no information that would
suggest the apparent dominance of the
kokanee life form over the anadromous
form in Lake Sammamish (at least since
at least the late 19th century) supports
a conclusion that Lake Sammamish
constitutes a unique or unusual setting
that is significant to the taxon.
Significance Factor 2: Evidence that
the loss of the population would result
in a significant gap in the range of the
taxon.
Significance Factor 2 Examination
Lake Sammamish kokanee represent 1
of 11 known native kokanee populations
within the southern extent of their
North American range, and currently,
we believe the best available
information identifies 9 extant native
kokanee populations that occur in the
coterminous United States (Lake Ozette,
WA; Lake Sammamish, WA; Lake
Whatcom, WA; Chilliwack Lake, WA;
Chain Lake, WA; Osoyoos Lake, WA;
Stanley Lake, ID; Redfish Lake, ID; and
Alturas Lake, ID). The number of
kokanee populations in other areas
within the range of the taxon is less well
known, but there are said to be well
over 500 kokanee populations in British
Columbia (McPhail 2007, p. 295) alone.
At one time there were kokanee in Lake
Washington as well as three different
runs of kokanee in Lake Sammamish.
All other native kokanee that inhabited
the Lake Washington Basin are thought
to be extinct, and the prevailing
evidence indicates that only the winter/
late-run kokanee in the Lake
Sammamish Basin remain (Berge and
Higgins 2003, p. 33; Jackson 2006, p. 1;
Warheit and Bowman 2008, p. 3).
Conclusion: The Lake Sammamish
kokanee population is one of three
native kokanee populations (Lake
Sammamish, Lake Whatcom, and
Chilliwack Lake) that evolved from
sockeye populations within the Puget
Sound and the Strait of Georgia Basin
regions. If Lake Sammamish kokanee
were to become extirpated, two other
native kokanee populations would
persist from this evolutionary arm of the
taxon, and there are other native
kokanee populations in the southern
extent of their North American range,
although each of these populations
expresses differences in their geographic
and biological characteristics. The loss
of Lake Sammamish kokanee, when
considered in relation to Oncorhynchus
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
61306
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
nerka throughout the remainder of the
species’ range would mean the loss of a
very small geographic portion of the
entire range of the taxon, since this
species occurs in 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). Due to
the broad geographic range of O. nerka,
the wide diversity of habitats available
to the species, and the fact that this
population is one of several O. nerka
populations within this portion of the
range, we find the gap in the range
resulting from the loss of the Lake
Sammamish population would not be
significant.
Significance Factor 3: Evidence that
the population represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside of its
historical range.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Significance Factor 3 Examination
Since the taxon is widespread, there
are 11 known populations of native
kokanee in the coterminous United
States within the historic range, and at
least 500 kokanee populations in B.C.,
Lake Sammamish kokanee do not
represent the only surviving natural
occurrence of the taxon.
Significance Factor 4: Evidence that
the population differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics.
Significance Factor 4 Examination
Relatively large genetic differences
occur among the largest sockeye salmon
stocks in northwestern, coastal
Canadian, and southeastern parts of the
species’ range (Wood 1995, p. 197).
Surveys of genetic variation throughout
the range of Oncorhynchus nerka
provide new insights about colonization
patterns following the last glaciation
and the extent of reproductive isolation
among spawning locations (Wood 1995,
p. 196). Evidence from geological
studies and the distribution of
freshwater fish assemblages strongly
suggests that modern sockeye salmon
populations are derived primarily from
a northern race that survived glaciation
in the Bering Sea area and a southern
race that survived south of the
Cordilleran Ice Sheet in the Columbia
River (Wood et al. 2008, p. 208). This
4,000-feet thick (1,219-meters) ice sheet
expanded southward into Northern
Washington, Idaho and Montana and
had three main lobes. The Puget lobe
that scoured out the Puget Sound, the
Okanogan lobe that blocked the
Columbia River at the site of the present
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
day Grand Coulee dam, and the Purcell
lobe that blocked the North Fork, Clark
River near Cabinet Gorge on the IdahoMontana border. Postglacial (the time
following a glacial period) adaptive
evolution occurred multiple times,
resulting in native kokanee populations
being genetically more similar to their
sympatric (i.e., occupying the same
geographic area without interbreeding)
sockeye populations than kokanee in
other river systems (Taylor et al. 1996,
pp. 401, 413–414).
Conclusion: Lake Sammamish
kokanee may be 1 of only 11 remaining
native kokanee populations that evolved
from the southern race of sockeye and
1 of 3 that evolved in the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin region. Given the
presumed large number of kokanee
populations across the range of
Oncorhynchus nerka (e.g., 500 kokanee
populations in British Columbia alone
(McPhail 2007, p. 295)), based on the
genetic information currently available,
the Lake Sammamish kokanee
population does not differ markedly
from other O. nerka populations with
respect to the variability beyond the
species’ norm of distribution, such that
they should be considered biologically
or ecologically significant based on
genetic characteristics. Although each
O. nerka population likely expresses
some degree of genetic distinctiveness
because of differing responses to
evolutionary pressures, Lake
Sammamish kokanee do not
demonstrate any unique or unusual
genetic distinctiveness beyond that
which would be expected between other
populations throughout the range of the
taxon. When measuring this evidence
against the DPS standard, we are
required to look for evidence of marked
differentiation of this Lake Sammamish
kokanee population segment compared
to other populations of Oncorhynchus
nerka throughout the range of the taxon.
More importantly, scientific information
to indicate that the genetic divergence
observed in the Lake Sammamish
kokanee population segment confers a
fitness advantage or otherwise
contributes to the biological or
ecological importance of this
population, in relation to the taxon as a
whole, is lacking. With the additional
consideration that the authority to list
DPSs be used ‘‘sparingly,’’ we conclude
this population segment of O. nerka
does not meet the significance element
of this factor.
Other Potential Significance Factors
Examined
(A) Disease resistance: Infectious
hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) is a
serious viral disease of salmonid fish,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
which was first reported at fish
hatcheries in Oregon and Washington in
the 1950s. The causative virus now
exists in many wild and farmed
salmonid stocks in the Pacific
Northwest region of North America, and
has spread to Europe and some Asian
countries. IHN virus (IHN) affects
rainbow/steelhead trout (O. mykiss),
cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki), brown
trout (Salmo trutta), Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar), and Pacific salmon
including chinook (O. tshawytscha),
sockeye/kokanee (O. nerka), chum (O.
keta), masou/yamame (O. masou),
amago (O. rhodurus), and coho (O.
kisutch) (Iowa State University, 2007, p.
1). Over 40 million kokanee were
introduced into the Sammamish basin
from the Lake Whatcom Hatchery
between 1940 and 1978 (Young et al.
2004, p. 65); however, these introduced
stocks have not been successful. The
Lake Sammamish kokanee population
remains extant, whereas transplanted
stocks were unable to persist (Young et
al. 2004, p. 1). The reasons are
unknown, and there has been some
speculation that this could be related to
a disease resistance function to IHN;
however, this theory has not been
confirmed. This speculation is based on
Young et al. 2004 (p. 3), who stated,
‘‘We note that the Lake Washington/
Lake Sammamish Basin is an IHN
positive environment and that Lake
Whatcom is IHN free. We speculate that
IHN vulnerability might explain the
apparent lack of success of the Lake
Whatcom kokanee introductions,
however, confirmation or refutation
would require further study.’’ However,
while these authors speculated as to the
vulnerability of Lake Whatcom kokanee
to IHN, it does not follow that Lake
Sammamish kokanee are, therefore,
resistant to, or tolerant of, the disease.
We were also unable to find any
additional studies regarding disease
resistance or disease tolerance of the
Lake Sammamish kokanee, so this idea
remains merely speculative at this time.
Even assuming that Lake Sammamish
kokanee may be resistant to IHN, this
does not mean disease resistance is
unique to kokanee in the Lake
Washington/Lake Sammamish system.
We were unable to find any information
on IHN presence in other lakes within
the range of Oncorhynchus nerka, so
were unable to determine whether a
presumed resistance or tolerance to IHN
(as evidenced by presence of a
population of O. nerka in IHN-positive
lakes) is unusual such that a population
evidencing this disease resistance or
tolerance would be significant to the
taxon as a whole.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Conclusion: Although disease
resistance or tolerance may be important
to the long-term viability of
Oncorhynchus nerka at some scale, the
relevant question for this finding is
whether the Lake Sammamish kokanee
population is significant to the taxon as
a whole (i.e., all O. nerka populations
and life history forms throughout the
range of the species). Given that there is
no evidence indicating that the Lake
Sammamish kokanee are disease
resistant or disease tolerant, and that we
were unable to find any information on
IHN presence in other lakes containing
O. nerka populations in order to
determine whether Lake Sammamish is
atypical, we conclude that the
hypothesized disease resistance or
tolerance of the Lake Sammamish
kokanee population does not meet the
significance element of the DPS policy.
(B) Multiple run spawning timings:
Multiple run timings allow kokanee and
other salmonid populations the ability
to exploit a range of available habitats
and reduce risks to extirpation (e.g.,
stochastic events, predation, variable
climate) by diversifying spawning
distribution over space and time. The
Lake Sammamish/Lake Washington
kokanee population historically had at
least three distinct run timings
expressed in different locations within
the basin. The expression of multiplerun timings within populations appears
to be rare across the range of kokanee,
especially among tributaries (Wood
2009, pers comm.), although there are at
least a few other kokanee populations
that are known to exhibit this trait
(Shepard 1999). In addition, the
literature indicates that other kokanee
populations have run timings that occur
during similar times of the year as do
the run timings of the Lake Sammamish
kokanee (Scott and Crossman 1973, p.
167). With regard to the taxon-wide
examination, NOAAF (1997, p. 20)
states that Oncorhynchus nerka exhibits
the greatest diversity in selection of
spawning habitat among the Pacific
salmon, and great variation in river
entry timing and the duration of holding
in lakes prior to spawning. Bimodal run
timing (two spawning runs in a single
season) for O. nerka populations have
been demonstrated in the Russian River
in Alaska (Nelson 1979, p. 3), the
Klukshu River, Yukon Territory (Fillatre
et al. 2003, p. 1), and Karluk Lake on
Kodiak Island, Alaska (Schmidt et al.
1998, p. 744).
Conclusion: Under the DPS policy, we
are required to evaluate the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population
segment’s significance relative to the
taxon as a whole. Therefore, given the
available information on the number of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Oct 03, 2011
Jkt 226001
O. nerka populations across the range of
the species (see sockeye and kokanee
abundance trends above), and the
presence of bimodal run timing in other
populations, we conclude the presence
of multiple run timings in Lake
Sammamish is not significant to the
taxon.
DPS Conclusion
On the basis of the best available
information, we conclude that the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population
segment is discrete due to marked
separation as a consequence of physical,
ecological, physiological, or behavioral
factors according to the 1996 DPS
policy. However, on the basis of the four
significance elements in the 1996 DPS
policy, we conclude this discrete
population segment is not significant to
the remainder of the taxon and
therefore, does not qualify as a DPS
under our 1996 DPS policy. As such, we
find the Lake Sammamish kokanee
population is not a listable entity under
the Act.
Finding
In making this finding, we considered
information provided by the petitioners,
as well as other information available to
us concerning the Lake Sammamish
kokanee population. We have carefully
assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the status and threats to the
Lake Sammamish kokanee population.
We reviewed the petition and
unpublished scientific and commercial
information. We also consulted with
Federal and State land managers, and
scientists having expertise with
Oncorhynchus nerka. This 12-month
finding reflects and incorporates
information received from the public
following our 90-day finding or
obtained through consultation or
literature research.
On the basis of that review, we have
determined that the Lake Sammamish
kokanee does not meet the elements of
our 1996 DPS policy as being a valid
DPS. Consequently, we find the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is not
a listable entity under the Act, and that
listing is not warranted.
References
A complete list of all references cited
is available at https://
www.regulations.gov, or upon request
from the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this document
are staff of Region 1, Pacific Region, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61307
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 23, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25595 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0034; MO
92210–0–0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Calopogon
oklahomensis as Threatened or
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list Calopogon
oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass pink
orchid) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. After review
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
listing Calopogon oklahomensis is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the threats to Calopogon
oklahomensis or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on October 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R3–ES–2010–0034. Supporting
documentation used in preparing this
finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois
Ecological Services Field Office, 1250
South Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL
60010. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Louise Clemency, Field Supervisor,
Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by
telephone at 847–381–2253; or by
facsimile at 847–381–2285. Persons who
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61298-61307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25595]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2008-0048; MO 92210-0-0008 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Lake Sammamish Kokanee Population of
Oncorhynchus nerka as an Endangered or Threatened Distinct Population
Segment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Lake Sammamish kokanee,
Oncorhynchus nerka, as an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is not a listable entity under the Act
and, therefore, listing is not warranted. We ask the public to continue
to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning
the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status of Lake Sammamish kokanee,
and to support cooperative conservation efforts for this population.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 4,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at docket number [FWS-R1-ES-2008-0048]. Supporting
documentation we used to prepare this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510
Desmond Drive, SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, Project Leader,
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see
[[Page 61299]]
ADDRESSES) by telephone at 360-753-6039; or by facsimile at 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)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition
to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that
listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted, but
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species
are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding; that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. Such 12-month findings must be published in the Federal
Register. This notice constitutes our 12-month finding for the petition
to list the Lake Sammamish population of kokanee.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 9, 2007, we received a petition from Trout Unlimited; the
City of Issaquah, Washington; King County, Washington; People for Puget
Sound; Save Lake Sammamish; the Snoqualmie Tribe; and the Wild Fish
Conservancy requesting that all wild, indigenous, naturally spawned
kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake Sammamish, Washington, be listed
as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required
in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included in the petition was supporting
information regarding the species' declining numbers, reduced
productivity, a decline in the quantity and quality of their habitat,
and narrowing temporal, spatial, and genetic diversity. We acknowledged
the receipt of the petition in a letter to the petitioners dated
September 24, 2007, and stated that we anticipated making an initial
finding within 90 days as to whether the petition contained substantial
information indicating that the action may be warranted. We also
advised that our initial review of the petition did not indicate that
an emergency listing situation existed, but that if conditions changed
and we determined that emergency listing was warranted, an emergency
rule may be developed. Funding became available to work on the 90-day
finding on October 1, 2007. We published a notice of 90-day finding in
the Federal Register on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 24915), determining that the
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that
listing the Lake Sammamish kokanee may be warranted, and that we were
initiating a status review of the species and opening a 60-day public
comment period. On December 14, 2009, we received a 60-day notice of
intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity over the
Service's failure to make a 12-month finding as required by the Act
(CBD v. Ken Salazar, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, CV 10-
0176-JO). A complaint was filed with the court on February 17, 2010.
We received comments and information from the following individuals
and organizations in response to the 90-day finding: King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks, James Mattila, Trout
Unlimited, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Save Lake Sammamish, Friends of
Pine Lake Creek, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Sno-
King Watershed Council. We have fully considered the comments and
information presented by these commentors in this finding. In addition,
during our status assessment, we generally found that much more
information was available on the status of sockeye populations,
compared to kokanee populations at the rangewide scale, which may be
related to the commercial importance of sockeye salmon. To evaluate
whether the population of kokanee in Lake Sammamish qualifies as a
listable entity under the Act, we must first determine if it satisfies
the criteria for being a distinct population segment. Under the Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(DPS Policy), which was published in the Federal Register on February
7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), we are required to evaluate the discreteness and
significance of the petitioned entity against the rest of the taxon, at
the rangewide scale.
Species Information
Taxonomy and Range
Oncorhynchus nerka (Order Salmoniformes, Family Salmonidae), is
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). There are three life forms of this species, which are discussed
in greater detail below: (1) Anadromous (ocean-going) sockeye; (2)
residual sockeye, and (3) kokanee. The kokanee life form was at one
time thought to be a separate subspecies (Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi,
Suckley 1861), and that taxonomy continues to be reflected in some
scientific papers and other studies (Robertson 1961; McLellan et al.
2001; Carruth et al. 2000; Maiolie et al. 1996). However, kokanee and
sockeye are formally recognized as the same species (O. nerka) by the
scientific community, and in the integrated taxonomic data system
(ITIS) (https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=161979). Despite their recognized conspecific
status, sympatric populations of sockeye and kokanee (those that occur
in the same or overlapping geographic areas) are biologically and
genetically distinct (Foote et al. 1989, in Young et al. 2004, p. 63).
Based on the best available information, we consider the Lake Sammamish
kokanee population to belong to the species Oncorhynchus nerka.
Kokanee Evolution
All kokanee populations are evolutionarily derived from sockeye
salmon. Sockeye salmon (anadromous Oncorhynchus nerka) give rise to
kokanee over evolutionary timeframes (hundreds to thousands of years)
as a result of isolation or selective pressures related to difficulty
of migration and lake productivity (Wood et al. 2008, pp. 208-210). All
kokanee are at the end of a long chain of events where individuals of
the anadromous sockeye entered a lake and selective pressures founded a
residual sockeye population, then selective pressures or perhaps a
geologic event selected for a kokanee population. The evolution of the
O. nerka forms is unidirectional, and established resident, migratory,
or kokanee forms generally do not create successful progeny of the
other forms (Wood et al. 2008, pp. 209-210).
Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 411-414), found multiple episodes of
independent divergence between sockeye and kokanee throughout their
current range.
[[Page 61300]]
As ancestral anadromous 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 or developed
a sympatric population of the non anadromous kokanee form. This has
resulted in native kokanee populations typically being genetically more
similar to their sympatric (occupying the same geographic area without
interbreeding) sockeye populations than to kokanee in other river
systems (Taylor et al. 1996, pp. 401, 413-414). However, there are
exceptions (e.g., Lake Ozette, Washington) where native sympatric
kokanee and sockeye populations were determined to be genetically
dissimilar, which suggests in these cases that they were established
through a different founding event (Winans et al. 1996, pp. 655-656).
Differences Between Sockeye and Kokanee
Sockeye salmon are primarily anadromous, migrating to the Pacific
Ocean following hatching and rearing in freshwater. Most populations
are associated with a natal lake. They spend 2 to 3 years in marine
waters before returning to freshwater environments to spawn and die.
Some progeny within each sockeye population may remain in freshwater
throughout their lifecycle and are called ``residual sockeye'' or
``residuals'' (Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 20). Unlike sockeye, kokanee
are non anadromous and spend their entire lives in freshwater habitats
(Meehan and Bjorn 1991, pp. 56-57). Ricker (1938) first used the terms
``residual sockeye'' and ``residuals'' to refer to these resident, non
migratory progeny of anadromous salmon (Quinn 2005, p. 210). These
``residuals'' were much smaller at maturity than the anadromous fish
because growing conditions in the lakes are generally poorer than those
at sea (Quinn 2005, p. 210). Wood (1995) hypothesizes that the
evolution of sockeye populations may proceed from postglacial
colonization by ocean-type fish, to lake-type populations if a suitable
lake is present, and then to kokanee if there is some combination of
good growing conditions and an arduous migration (Quinn 2005, pp. 301-
302). Kokanee young are spawned in freshwater streams and subsequently
migrate to a nursery lake (Burgner 1991, pp. 35-37), where they remain
until maturity. In some cases kokanee are spawned along the shoreline
of the nursery lake itself (Scott and Crossman 1973, p.168). When
mature, they return to natal freshwater streams to spawn and die,
typically around age four. Sympatric kokanee and sockeye populations
are typically temporally or spatially separated. In cases where they
are not, assortative mating by body size usually leads to assortative
mating by type (Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 30). Said another way,
sockeye are typically larger and spawn with other sockeye, while
kokanee are smaller and spawn with other kokanee.
Both kokanee and anadromous sockeye 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). Typically, resident or
``residual sockeye'' (progeny of anadromous sockeye that do not migrate
to sea but are not kokanee) turn from silver to green (Foote et al.
2004, p. 70). Although adult kokanee resemble sockeye salmon, they have
significant morphological and physiological differences. Kokanee are
more efficient at extracting carotinoids from food resources; have
higher gill raker counts, which is known to be an inherited trait; and
are normally smaller in size at maturity than sockeye because they are
confined to freshwater environments, which are less productive than the
ocean (Burgner 1991, p. 59; Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 29; Craig and
Foote 2001, p. 387; Leary et al. 1985 in Wood 1995, p. 203). Kokanee
maintain a constant egg size, while increasing egg number with
increasing body size; sockeye increase both egg number and egg size
with increasing body size. It is thought that this characteristic may
be related to the less energetically costly kokanee spawning migrations
and the smaller particle size of spawning gravel that can be exploited
(McGurk 2000, p. 1802). Other studies have demonstrated that under-
yearling sockeye salmon exhibit superior swimming ability compared to
kokanee (Taylor and Foote 1991). Further, although kokanee appear to
have maintained some degree of seasonal adaptation to saltwater, which
is part of the smoltification process of anadromous salmonids (complex
physiological changes that enable juvenile salmon to make the
transition from freshwater to saltwater), genetically there are
significant differences in the timing (delayed) and duration (short-
lived) compared to sockeye (Foote et al. 1992, pp. 106-108).
Sockeye and Kokanee Distribution
Sockeye occur in 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). Sockeye salmon of Canadian origin generally
remain east of the International Dateline and south of the Aleutian
Islands, while those from Asia originate in freshwater habitats from
Cape Navarin Peninsula in the Bering Sea to north of Sakhalin Island in
the Sea of Okhotsk. Most sockeye from Canadian rivers spend 2 years in
the ocean, while those from other rivers spend 1, 3 or 4 years (Hart
1973, p. 121).
Native populations of kokanee, each associated with a specific
nursery lake, likely occurred historically over most of the range of
sockeye salmon within the Columbia River to the Yukon River systems.
Native kokanee populations are not widespread in Alaska (McGurk 2000,
p. 1801) or Asia (McPhail 2007, p. 288). There are said to be well over
500 kokanee populations in British Columbia (B.C.) (McPhail 2007, p.
295). No native kokanee are known from the B.C. portion of the Yukon
River (B.C. Ministry of Fisheries 1998, p. 17), and although
introduction activities have spread kokanee throughout the province,
only two natural populations are known from the Mackenzie River system
(McPhail 2007, p. 289). Kokanee have been widely introduced across
North America, including areas outside their larger geographic
distribution and farther inland in States and provinces where they
occur naturally (Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 167).
Sammamish River/Lake Sammamish Watershed Kokanee Population Groupings
Lake Sammamish kokanee distribution (the petitioned entity): Lake
Washington is the dominant feature of the greater Lake Washington/Lake
Sammamish Basin and is fed by two major drainage systems. The Cedar
River watershed at the south end of the lake, and the Sammamish River/
Lake Sammamish watershed at the north end of the lake. Surface water
discharge from Lake Sammamish is by way of the Sammamish River at the
north end of the lake, which ultimately flows into Lake Washington. The
four major tributaries that discharge into the Sammamish River are
Swamp Creek, North Creek, Little Bear Creek, and Bear Creek. The major
tributary to Lake Sammamish is Issaquah Creek, which enters at the
south end of the lake and contributes approximately 70 percent of the
inflow to the lake (Kerwin 2001, p. 425). Native kokanee historically
spawned in tributaries located throughout Lake Washington and Lake
Sammamish. Although the Sammamish River and Cedar River (Walsh Lake)
drainages have been included within the current distribution of native
kokanee in prior assessments (Gustafson
[[Page 61301]]
et al. 1997, p. 123; Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 3), their current
spawning distribution in the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin
appears to be limited to portions of the Lake Sammamish drainage. For
the purposes of this finding, we are analyzing a petitioned entity that
includes the native kokanee population found in the Lake Sammamish
drainage.
Although the major tributary to Lake Sammamish is Issaquah Creek,
there are also several smaller tributaries to Lake Sammamish used for
spawning by kokanee, including Ebright Creek, Pine Lake Creek, Laughing
Jacobs Creek, and Lewis Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 5). Kokanee
in the Sammamish River/Lake Sammamish watershed (referred to by the
petitioners as the Lake Sammamish population) are separated into three
groups: (1) Summer/early-run; (2) fall/middle-run; and, (3) winter/
late-run, based on spawn timing and location (Berge and Higgins 2003,
p. 3; Young et al. 2004, p. 66). Summer/early-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, although introduced
sockeye salmon spawn there in October. Fall/middle-run kokanee spawn in
late September through November, primarily in larger Sammamish River
tributaries including Swamp Creek, North Creek, Bear Creek, Little Bear
Creek, and Cottage Lake Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 21-25).
Winter/late-run kokanee spawn from late fall into winter (October
through January) in Lake Sammamish tributaries including Lewis Creek,
Ebright Creek, and Laughing Jacobs Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp.
26-29). Some winter/late-run spawning kokanee have also been recorded
in Vasa Creek, Pine Lake (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 9), and
Tibbetts Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 5, 30) in the recent past.
Berge and Higgins (2003, p. 5) identified George Davis, Zaccuse, and
Alexander's Creeks as part of the historical spawning distribution for
winter/late-run kokanee. On at least one occasion, kokanee, presumed to
be winter/late-run based on spawn timing, were observed spawning in
Lake Sammamish near the mouth of Ebright Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003,
p. 33), suggesting that some degree of beach spawning may also occur
within the lake. More recently, what appears to be winter/late-run
kokanee have been observed entering the lower reach of George Davis
Creek at dusk (Nickel 2009) but then retreating back to Lake Sammamish
during the day apparently without spawning. This may further indicate
possible beach spawning within the lake.
Sammamish River/Lake Sammamish Watershed Kokanee Escapement Surveys
Summer/early-run: Berggren (1974, p. 9) and Pfeifer (1995, pp. 8-9,
21-22) report escapements (the number of fish arriving at a natal
stream or river to spawn) of summer/early-run Issaquah Creek kokanee
numbering in the thousands during the 1970s. Since 1980, the escapement
of early-run kokanee in Issaquah Creek has ``plummeted dramatically''
(Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 18). Between 1998 and 2001, only three
summer/early-run kokanee redds (gravel nests of fish eggs) were
observed in Issaquah Creek (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 18). The last
time summer/early-run kokanee were observed was during the summer of
2000, when only two individuals were recorded (Washington Trout 2004,
p. 3). 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 summer/early-run kokanee and spawn them in a
hatchery for a supplementation program. No kokanee were observed or
captured (WDFW 2002, pp. 5-7). Further, there were no summer/early-run
kokanee observed during spawner surveys conducted in 2003 (Washington
Trout 2004, p. 2), leading King County and Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife biologists to conclude that the summer/early-run is
functionally extinct (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 33; Jackson 2006, p.
1).
Fall/middle-run: In the 1940s, the fall/middle-run kokanee was
estimated to number from 6,000 to as many as 30,000 spawners in Bear
Creek, a tributary to the Sammamish River (Connor et al. 2000, pp. 13-
14), although these estimates are confounded by the high numbers of
out-of-basin and in-basin kokanee introductions during this time
period. Between 1917 and 1969, more than 44 million kokanee were
introduced into Bear Creek and its tributaries, 35 million of which
originated from Lake Whatcom in northwestern Washington (Gustafson et
al. 1997, pp. 3-113). However, the introduced kokanee were unable to
persist, and by the 1970s the native kokanee fall/middle-run was also
considered extinct by biologists from Washington Department of Game
(now part of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) (Fletcher
1973, p. 1).
Winter/late-run: From 1996 to 2006, the winter/late-run kokanee
have had highly variable spawner returns with returns as low as 64 in
1997, and as high as 4,702 in 2003 (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p.
18). Annual spawner returns averaged 946 fish, with a median return of
594 fish during this period (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 16). From
2004 to 2007, the average spawner return was 463 fish, although in two
of the four spawning streams currently used by the winter/late-run
(Laughing Jacobs Creek and Pine Lake Creek), there were fewer than 70
fish counted annually in each stream (Jackson 2009). In 2008, the
estimated spawner return was 42 individuals with none observed in Pine
Lake Creek and only one kokanee observed in Laughing Jacobs Creek
(Jackson 2009, pp. 1-6). This represented the lowest escapement for
this population on record, although in 2009 the estimated spawner
return was 1,655 individuals, which was the largest escapement recorded
since 2003 (Jackson 2010, p. 11). The longest accessible spawning
stream currently used by the winter/late-run, Lewis Creek, is 0.75 mile
(mi) (1.2 kilometers (km)), and the combined spawning reaches of the
core spawning streams (Lewis Creek, Laughing Jacobs Creek, and Ebright
Creek) total less than 1.0 mile (1.6 km) (Jackson 2006, p. 5). Winter/
late run propagation efforts have recently been implemented, and are
described below.
Winter/Late Run Propagation Efforts
In the fall of 2009, approximately 35,000 eggs were harvested from
mature kokanee collected from Lewis, Ebright, and Laughing Jacobs
Creeks by teams from the Issaquah Creek salmon hatchery. The eggs were
shipped to the Cedar River and Chambers Creek hatcheries in Washington
State for development into fry, for use in supplementing the native
kokanee population in Lake Sammamish. In March 2010, approximately
14,000 kokanee fry were released into Lewis, Ebright, and Laughing
Jacobs Creeks; another release of 20,000 fry into the same creeks was
done on April 14, 2010. The eventual success of these efforts remains
to be determined (https://www.issaquahpress.com/2010/04/20/the-fish-journal-bar-codes-help-kokanee-salmon-in-their-survival/#more-21481).
Sockeye and Kokanee Abundance Trends
Quinn 2005 (p. 319) indicated the estimated average annual
abundance of sockeye salmon per region (catch and escapement of wild
and hatchery fish) from 1981 to 2000 to be 83 million fish (Japan 0.0
million, Russia 10.0 million, Western Alaska 50.4 million, Central
[[Page 61302]]
Alaska 20.3 million, and Southeast Alaska to California 19.3 million).
The estimated catch and escapement of North American sockeye salmon
from 1951 through 2001 was 51.4 million fish from 1,400 populations,
averaging approximately 37,000 fish per population (Quinn 2005, p.
321).
Sockeye populations inhabiting the southern portions of their range
are in decline, whereas those in the northerly regions are generally
stable. In southwestern British Columbia, one-third of the sockeye
spawning runs known since the early 1950s have been lost or have
decreased to such low numbers that spawners are not consistently
monitored (Ridell 1993, in Wood 1995, p. 195). These trends in number
and magnitude of spawning runs imply a loss of genetic diversity,
through the loss of both locally adapted subpopulations and genetic
variation due to low effective population sizes (Wood 1995, p. 195).
Subpopulations in the Hecata Strait-Queen Charlotte Sound, Georgia
Basin/Vancouver Island Area, Skeena River and Fraser River, decreased
in abundance considerably over the last three generations. Towards the
northern end of their distribution, sockeye were generally
characterized by stable-to-increasing trends in adult abundance. There
were several notable exceptions, however, to the north-to-south risk
gradient, including subpopulations in the Columbia and in eastern
Washington State. Many of these are supported through some level of
artificial enhancement, however, which may mask declines in wild
populations (Rand 2008 (IUCN Red List Supporting Documentation, O.
nerka, (https://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/135301/0)).
Although Fraser River stocks as well as other West Coast sockeye
salmon stocks had record returns in 2010 (Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC 2010, p. 1) (https://nwifc.org/2010/09/large-fraser-sockeye-run-doesnt-make-up-for-decades-of-poor-fishing/), prior to this
year most Fraser River stocks have exhibited declining trends in
productivity beginning as early as 1960 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) 2010, p. 1). Following returns are expected to again be poor for
the next 3 years (NWIFC 2010, p. 1). The three factors that likely
contributed to this record return are:
(1) Large number of offspring resulting from the 6th largest
spawning escapement since 1952 as a result of reduced fisheries in
2006;
(2) Favorable changes in coastal ocean conditions toward cool
temperatures in early 2008 when sockeye that returned in 2010 were
entering the ocean as juveniles; and
(3) the occurrence of a major volcanic eruption in Alaska's
Aleutian Islands in 2008, which resulted in ash fertilizing the ocean
and triggering an algal bloom that possibly enhanced forage value and
availability (Simon Fraser University et al. 2010, p. 2).
The Snake River sockeye Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has
remained at very low levels of only a few hundred fish, though there
have been recent increases in the number of hatchery-reared fish
returning to spawn. Data quality for the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU make
differentiating between the number of hatchery and natural spawners
difficult, but in either case the size of the population is small,
though possibly growing. Both the Snake River and Ozette Lake ESUs were
listed as endangered and threatened, respectively, under the Act by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries (NOAAF) under
their ESU policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991), (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/sockeyesalmon.htm).
We are unaware of average annual abundance records for kokanee;
however, there are said to be well over 500 kokanee populations in
British Columbia (McPhail 2007, p. 295). No native kokanee are known
from the B.C. portion of the Yukon River (B.C. Ministry of Fisheries
1998, p. 17), and although introduction activities have spread kokanee
throughout the province, only two natural populations are known from
the Mackenzie River system (McPhail 2007, p. 289). There are numerous
introduced kokanee populations maintained through hatchery
introductions to support recreational fisheries; kokanee have been
widely introduced across North America, including areas outside their
larger geographic distribution and farther inland in States and
provinces where they occur naturally (Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 167).
Regulatory Context and Agency Responsibilities
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Regulatory Jurisdiction under the Endangered Species
Act
Under a 1974 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now
NOAAF), NOAAF has Act authority over species that either reside the
major portion of their lifetimes in marine waters or spend part of
their lifetime in estuarine waters if the major portion of the
remaining time is spent in marine waters. The FWS has Act authority
over species that spend the major portion of their lifetimes on land or
in fresh water, or that spent part of their lifetimes in estuarine
waters if a major portion of the remaining time is spent on land or in
fresh water (USFWS and NOAA, 1974).
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) Policies
In addition to the DPS policy, NOAAF applies the ESU policy (56 FR
58612; November 20, 1991), which was adopted prior to adoption of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
DPS Policy. The ESU policy considers a stock of Pacific salmon to be a
distinct population and hence a ``species'' under the Act, if it
represents an ESU of the biological species. A stock must satisfy two
criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) It must be substantially
reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and
(2) It must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy
of the species. Under the ESU policy, the evolutionary legacy of a
species is the genetic variability that is a product of past
evolutionary events and which represents the reservoir upon which
future evolutionary potential depends. This criteria would be met for
purposes of the ESU policy if the population contributed substantially
to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole (i.e.,
extinction of the population would represent a significant loss to the
ecological/genetic diversity of the species). In making this
determination, NOAAF considers whether: (1) The population is
genetically distinct from other conspecific populations; (2) the
population occupies unusual or distinctive habitat; and (3) the
population shows evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its
environment.
NOAAF states that while conclusive evidence does not yet exist
regarding the relationship of resident and anadromous forms of
Oncorhynchus nerka, the available evidence suggests that resident
sockeye and kokanee should not be included in listed anadromous sockeye
ESUs in cases where the strength and duration of reproductive isolation
would provide the opportunity for adaptive divergence in sympatry (64
FR 14530; March 25, 1999). However, NOAAF does include those resident/
residual sockeye within ESUs that spawn with, or adjacent to, sockeye
salmon in the same ESU. NOAAF interprets an ESU as a
[[Page 61303]]
population that is substantially reproductively isolated from
conspecific populations (populations of the same species), which
represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the
species. Although Lake Sammamish kokanee are also Pacific salmon, we
have no authority under NOAAF's ESU policy, and have evaluated the
status of the Lake Sammamish kokanee population under the DPS policy.
NOAAF acknowledges the DPS policy takes a somewhat different
approach from the ESU policy to identifying conservation units, which
may result, in some cases, in the identification of different
conservation units. Although the DPS and ESU policies are consistent,
they will not necessarily result in the same delineation of DPSs under
the Act. The statutory term ``distinct population segment'' is not used
in the scientific literature and does not have a commonly understood
meaning therein. NOAAF's ESU policy and the joint DPS policy apply
somewhat different criteria, with the result that their application may
lead to different outcomes in some cases. The ESU policy relies on
``substantial reproductive isolation'' to delineate a group of
organisms, and emphasizes the consideration of genetic and other
relevant information in evaluating the level of reproductive exchange
among potential ESU components. The DPS policy does not rely on
reproductive isolation to determine ``discreteness,'' but rather on the
marked separation of the population segment from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of biological factors (61 FR 4725;
February 7, 1996). In addition, the DPS policy also considers the
significance of the discrete population segment to the taxon to which
it belongs, which may produce a different result than the important
evolutionary legacy component considered by NOAAF under the ESU policy.
Distinct Population Segment Policy
Defining a Species Under the Act
Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``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.'' Under the DPS policy, three elements are considered in
the decision regarding the establishment and classification of a
population of a vertebrate species as a possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to and removal from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. These elements are: (1) The
discreteness of a population segment in relation to the remainder of
the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population
segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population
segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for
listing, delisting, or reclassification. Our regulations provide
further guidance for determining whether a particular taxon or
population is a species for the purposes of the Act: ``The Secretary
shall rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological
expertise of the Department and the scientific community concerning the
relevant taxonomic group'' (50 CFR 424.11).
Kokanee are classified as Oncorhynchus nerka, which is the same
taxonomic species as sockeye salmon. Because the kokanee life history
form itself is not recognized taxonomically as a distinct species or
subspecies, to determine whether the kokanee population in Lake
Sammamish constitutes a DPS, and thus a listable entity under the Act,
we evaluate this population's discreteness and significance with
respect to the taxon to which it belongs (in other words, all
Oncorhynchus nerka (sockeye and kokanee) populations rangewide).
Accordingly, each of the factors evaluated in this finding have been
considered within that context.
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either of the following
factors:
Discreteness Factor 1: The population is markedly separated from
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this
separation).
Discreteness Factor 2: The population is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of
the Act.
Lake Sammamish Kokanee Discreteness Analysis
Discreteness Factor 1 Examination
Patterns of genetic variation demonstrate that the sockeye and
kokanee within lakes are usually more closely related to each other
than they are to members of their form in other lakes (Foote et al.
1989; Taylor et al. 1996 in Quinn 2005 p. 212). Sympatric kokanee and
sockeye populations are typically temporally or spatially separated;
where that is not the case, assortative mating by body size usually
leads to assortative mating by type (Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 30)
(e.g., sockeye are typically larger and spawn with other sockeye, while
kokanee are smaller and spawn with other kokanee). Historically, a
heritable tendency to remain in a lake system rather than migrate to
sea may have promoted genetic divergence between kokanee and sockeye
forms as they specialized for their freshwater and marine habitat.
These genetic differences would be reinforced by size-specific
preferences for breeding sites, accompanied by the evolution of
isolating mechanisms to reduce interbreeding between the forms (Quinn
p. 210). Kokanee in Lake Sammamish are geographically isolated from
other kokanee, and within Lake Sammamish, kokanee and sockeye are
further isolated by genetic and reproductive behavior (Young et al.
2004, pp. 72-73).
Conclusion: Available data indicate that the Lake Sammamish
population is geographically and reproductively isolated from other
native kokanee and sockeye populations, and genetically and
ecologically discrete from other Oncorhynchus nerka populations,
although a transplanted sockeye population was introduced during the
1930s to the 1950s (NOAA 1997, p. ix).
Discreteness Factor 2 Examination
This factor is not applicable to the discreteness analysis for the
Lake Sammamish kokanee population, as the petitioned Oncorhynchus nerka
population is not delimited by international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Discreteness Analysis Summary
The kokanee population in Lake Sammamish has been determined to be
discrete as a result of its marked separation from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,
or behavioral factors. There are no international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Accordingly, this discreteness criterion is not applicable to our
evaluation.
[[Page 61304]]
Lake Sammamish Kokanee Significance Analysis
Under the DPS policy, a determination as to whether the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is a listable entity under the Act must
first consider its discreteness and significance with regard to the
remainder of the taxon, which includes all other sockeye salmon and
kokanee populations throughout the range of the biological species. 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 is considered in light of Congressional
guidance that the authority to list a DPS be used sparingly, while
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this
examination, we consider available scientific evidence of the
population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Its persistence
in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence
that its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the
taxon; (3) evidence that it is the only surviving natural occurrence of
the taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside of its historical range; or (4) evidence that the
discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of the species
in its genetic characteristics (FR 61 4721; February 7, 1996). A
population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to be
considered significant. Furthermore, since the list of criteria is not
exhaustive, other criteria may be used if appropriate.
Significance Factor 1: Persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon.
Significance Factor 1 Examination
(A) The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin is a large,
interconnected lake system containing two low-elevation mesotrophic
lakes (Edmondson 1979, pp. 234-235; Welch et al. 1977, p. 301).
Mesotrophic lakes are characterized by an intermediate concentration of
nutrients, moderate plant production, some organic sediment
accumulation, some loss of dissolved oxygen in the lower waters, and
moderate water clarity. Other lake systems that support or have
supported native sockeye populations (and by association their native
kokanee populations) are typically oligotrophic in nature (Mullan 1986,
pp. 71-73; Quinn 2005, p. 171). Oligotrophic lakes are characterized by
low concentrations of nutrients, limited plant production, little
accumulation of organic sediment on the bottom, an abundance of
dissolved oxygen, and good water clarity. Oligotrophic lakes are also
typically located at high elevations in interior areas where energetic
costs of anadromous migration are high (Wood 1995, pp. 202-203). In
addition to Lake Sammamish, the two other known exceptions are Lake
Ozette in Washington, which has been characterized as oligotrophic to
mesotrophic (or meso-oligotrophic) (Ritchie and Bourgeois 2010, p. 5),
and Lake Osoyoos, which straddles the Washington and B.C border in the
interior Columbia Basin, which has been characterized as a mesotrophic
system (Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 57).
Although we were unable to find comprehensive information on
limnology as it relates to lake systems occupied by O. nerka, within
the known and studied kokanee lakes, Lake Sammamish is the only
mesotrophic, easily accessible coastal lake, where energetic costs of
migration are minimal, that is known to support a native kokanee
population in the coterminous United States. Mesotrophic lakes
containing Oncorhynchus nerka populations appear to be rare in coastal
British Columbia (Shortreed 2007, p. vi; Woodruff 2010, pp. 47, 56). We
would also expect mesotrophic lakes that support kokanee to be rare or
absent within the northern portion of the species' range and at higher
elevations, since lakes with the lowest productivity are either at high
altitudes or high latitudes (Brylinsky and Mann 1973, p. 2). One
research biologist with the NOAAF Northwest Fishery Science Center,
commented that most sockeye salmon nursery lakes are typically strongly
nutrient limited (i.e., oligotrophic), and kokanee are not common in
easily accessible coastal lakes where the energetic costs of migration
are minimal (Gustafson 2009. pers comm.).
Although the presence of the petitioned entity in a mesotrophic
lake appears to be atypical, we do not have information on the
percentage or extent of mesotrophic lakes occupied by O. nerka
throughout the range of the taxon, and therefore cannot determine
whether this is actually an unusual or unique setting for O. nerka.
However, it is well-documented that the species occupies lakes with a
wide range of thermal regimes and other physical attributes (McPhail
2007, pp. 288, 295; Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 167; Mullen 1986 pp.
71-73; Quinn 2005, p. 171). These include coastal lakes in Washington
that stratify in summer with surface temperatures near 20 degrees
Celsius (C) (60 degrees Fahrenheit (F)), and remain mixed without
freezing in winter, to lakes in the interior and northern latitudes
that are ice-covered for at least half the year and have summer
temperatures barely above 10 degrees C (50 degrees F). Oncorhynchus
nerka occupies lakes that range in elevation from essentially sea level
to 2,000 m (6,550 ft), and in area from 1 to 2,600 square kilometers
(0.6 to 1,615 square miles), which includes coastal lakes from
Washington to Alaska and lakes in the interior of the Columbia, Fraser,
and Skeena river systems (Quinn 2005, p. 173). Anadromous O. nerka do
not occur naturally in Japan, although other populations are
distributed among several lakes. Native populations occur in Akan and
Chimikeppu Lakes (Kogura et al. 2011, pp. 2-3), and O. nerka also
occurs in Lake Toya, a large oligotrophic lake located in a caldera in
the central area of Hokkaido, in Northern Japan (Sakano et al., 1998,
p. 173). Based on our analysis, we are not aware of any scientific
evidence suggesting or demonstrating that the presence of an O. nerka
population in a mesotrophic lake is beyond the normal range of
variability that would be expected from a species that occupies the
diversity of habitat types where it has been documented, or that this
may represent an important trait from an adaptation/evolutionary
perspective.
In addition, NOAAF (1997, p. 20) states that Oncorhynchus nerka
exhibits the greatest diversity in selection of spawning habitat among
the Pacific salmon, and great variation in river entry timing and the
duration of holding in lakes prior to spawning. The species' adaptation
to a greater diversity of lake environments for 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.
Conclusion: Oncorhynchus nerka exhibiting differing life-history
forms occupy a variety of ecosystems and 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). We acknowledge Lake Sammamish
represents a complex ecological setting. However, the available
information indicates O. nerka occurs in a wide geographical range, and
habitat varies with respect to continental setting, latitude,
elevation,
[[Page 61305]]
and type(s) of waters used to support the species' physical and
biological needs. Given the available information on the diversity and
extent of ecological settings O. nerka occupies within the rest of its
range, the best scientific information available does not suggest that
Lake Sammamish represents a unique or unusual setting that may have
special significance relative to the taxon as a whole.
(B) The kokanee life form has historically been more abundant than
the sockeye life form in Lake Sammamish, although a larger number of
the sockeye life form would be expected because of the relatively easy
access to marine waters. Reports in the literature are equivocal as to
whether sockeye salmon were historically present in the Lake Sammamish
basin prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal,
although kokanee were described as numerous (NOAA 1997, pp. 73-75).
Hendry (1995) in NOAA 1997 (p. 75), stated that limited runs of sockeye
salmon were probably present at the turn of the century in the Lake
Washington/Lake Sammamish drainage, and that it is ``certainly unlikely
that large populations were present.'' Young (2004, p. 1) stated the
Lake Sammamish/Lake Washington watershed supported only small
populations of sockeye, but large populations of kokanee in the period
from 1890 to 1920. In addition, the oral history of the Snoqualmie
Indian Tribe once characterized kokanee as being so abundant that
Tribal members could stand in the tributaries of Lake Sammamish and
scoop up the ``little red fish'' in their hands (Snoqualmie Indian
Tribe and Trout Unlimited 2008, p. 10).
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 (Taylor et al. 1996, pp.
411-414). Kokanee populations are typically located at high elevations
in interior areas where energetic costs of anadromous migration are
high or where productive lakes can support both types (Wood 1995, pp.
202-203). In areas closer to and with easy access to marine waters,
sockeye populations typically dominate and kokanee are not common,
since the energetic costs of migration are minimal (Gustafson 2009,
pers comm.), and marine waters are much more productive. At higher
latitudes, productivity (and growing opportunities) is greater at sea
than in freshwater, as is evidenced by the more rapid growth of salmon
at sea than in streams and lakes (Quinn 2005, p. 6). Since Lake
Sammamish is located close to marine waters and is historically and
presently capable of accommodating anadromous migration, the
expectation would be that this should be a sockeye-dominated system.
The fact that kokanee appears to have been the more common Oncorhynchus
nerka life form in the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish system
historically suggests there may have been at least some partial or
periodic barrier to anadromous sockeye in the past (Young et al. 2004,
p. 1).
Comparing Lake Sammamish to other nearby water bodies, Lake Whatcom
and Lake Ozette are geographically near marine waters and support
native kokanee populations; however, there are differences. Lake
Whatcom is oligotrophic (Matthews et al. 2002, p. 107), and has an
outlet that presents a long-standing natural barrier to anadromous
migration. Lake Ozette, although also near marine waters, is meso-
oligotrophic and dominated by sockeye.
Although the dominant presence of kokanee in a system where a
greater abundance of the sockeye life form would be expected is
notable, this does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that Lake
Sammamish represents a unique or unusual ecological setting. Quinn
(2005, pp. 10-11), states that all salmon are habitat generalists, and
populations tend to be very productive (i.e., when the population is
below its carrying capacity, each salmon produces many surviving
offspring). They spawn and rear in bodies of water ranging from tiny
creeks above waterfalls in the mountains, or streams discharging
directly into saltwater, to large rivers, and from small beaver ponds
and ephemeral wetlands to the largest lakes of the region. They are
found in a number of large rivers as well as in thousands of smaller
streams. Oncorhynchus nerka is the second most abundant Pacific salmon
species, having a primary spawning range from the Columbia River to the
Kuskokwim River in Alaska. In Asia they range from the Kuril Islands to
the area of the Anadyr River, but the heart of their distribution is
the Kamchatka Peninsula and tributaries of the Bering Sea. They spawn
in coastal systems and also ascent as far as 1,600 km (994 mi) to
Redfish Lake, Idaho (Quinn 2005, p. 14). We have no information on
whether there are any other lake systems that are predominately
occupied by the kokanee life form that would be expected to be
dominated by sockeye.
Conclusion: We have insufficient information to determine the
extent of waterbodies with relatively easy access to marine waters
where the kokanee form may be dominant over the anadromous form of O.
nerka across the range of the taxon. However, given the available
information on the diversity and extent of ecological settings of O.
nerka throughout the rest of its range, there is no information that
would suggest the apparent dominance of the kokanee life form over the
anadromous form in Lake Sammamish (at least since at least the late
19th century) supports a conclusion that Lake Sammamish constitutes a
unique or unusual setting that is significant to the taxon.
Significance Factor 2: Evidence that the loss of the population
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Significance Factor 2 Examination
Lake Sammamish kokanee represent 1 of 11 known native kokanee
populations within the southern extent of their North American range,
and currently, we believe the best available information identifies 9
extant native kokanee populations that occur in the coterminous United
States (Lake Ozette, WA; Lake Sammamish, WA; Lake Whatcom, WA;
Chilliwack Lake, WA; Chain Lake, WA; Osoyoos Lake, WA; Stanley Lake,
ID; Redfish Lake, ID; and Alturas Lake, ID). The number of kokanee
populations in other areas within the range of the taxon is less well
known, but there are said to be well over 500 kokanee populations in
British Columbia (McPhail 2007, p. 295) alone. At one time there were
kokanee in Lake Washington as well as three different runs of kokanee
in Lake Sammamish. All other native kokanee that inhabited the Lake
Washington Basin are thought to be extinct, and the prevailing evidence
indicates that only the winter/late-run kokanee in the Lake Sammamish
Basin remain (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 33; Jackson 2006, p. 1;
Warheit and Bowman 2008, p. 3).
Conclusion: The Lake Sammamish kokanee population is one of three
native kokanee populations (Lake Sammamish, Lake Whatcom, and
Chilliwack Lake) that evolved from sockeye populations within the Puget
Sound and the Strait of Georgia Basin regions. If Lake Sammamish
kokanee were to become extirpated, two other native kokanee populations
would persist from this evolutionary arm of the taxon, and there are
other native kokanee populations in the southern extent of their North
American range, although each of these populations expresses
differences in their geographic and biological characteristics. The
loss of Lake Sammamish kokanee, when considered in relation to
Oncorhynchus
[[Page 61306]]
nerka throughout the remainder of the species' range would mean the
loss of a very small geographic portion of the entire range of the
taxon, since this species occurs in 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). Due to the broad geographic range
of O. nerka, the wide diversity of habitats available to the species,
and the fact that this population is one of several O. nerka
populations within this portion of the range, we find the gap in the
range resulting from the loss of the Lake Sammamish population would
not be significant.
Significance Factor 3: Evidence that the population represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside of its historical range.
Significance Factor 3 Examination
Since the taxon is widespread, there are 11 known populations of
native kokanee in the coterminous United States within the historic
range, and at least 500 kokanee populations in B.C., Lake Sammamish
kokanee do not represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the
taxon.
Significance Factor 4: Evidence that the population differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics.
Significance Factor 4 Examination
Relatively large genetic differences occur among the largest
sockeye salmon stocks in northwestern, coastal Canadian, and
southeastern parts of the species' range (Wood 1995, p. 197). Surveys
of genetic variation throughout the range of Oncorhynchus nerka provide
new insights about colonization patterns following the last glaciation
and the extent of reproductive isolation among spawning locations (Wood
1995, p. 196). Evidence from geological studies and the distribution of
freshwater fish assemblages strongly suggests that modern sockeye
salmon populations are derived primarily from a northern race that
survived glaciation in the Bering Sea area and a southern race that
survived south of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in the Columbia River (Wood
et al. 2008, p. 208). This 4,000-feet thick (1,219-meters) ice sheet
expanded southward into Northern Washington, Idaho and Montana and had
three main lobes. The Puget lobe that scoured out the Puget Sound, the
Okanogan lobe that blocked the Columbia River at the site of the
present day Grand Coulee dam, and the Purcell lobe that blocked the
North Fork, Clark River near Cabinet Gorge on the Idaho-Montana border.
Postglacial (the time following a glacial period) adaptive evolution
occurred multiple times, resulting in native kokanee populations being
genetically more similar to their sympatric (i.e., occupying the same
geographic area without interbreeding) sockeye populations than kokanee
in other river systems (Taylor et al. 1996, pp. 401, 413-414).
Conclusion: Lake Sammamish kokanee may be 1 of only 11 remaining
native kokanee populations that evolved from the southern race of
sockeye and 1 of 3 that evolved in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
region. Given the presumed large number of kokanee populations across
the range of Oncorhynchus nerka (e.g., 500 kokanee populations in
British Columbia alone (McPhail 2007, p. 295)), based on the genetic
information currently available, the Lake Sammamish kokanee population
does not differ markedly from other O. nerka populations with respect
to the variability beyond the species' norm of distribution, such that
they should be considered biologically or ecologically significant
based on genetic characteristics. Although each O. nerka population
likely expresses some degree of genetic distinctiveness because of
differing responses to evolutionary pressures, Lake Sammamish kokanee
do not demonstrate any unique or unusual genetic distinctiveness beyond
that which would be expected between other populations throughout the
range of the taxon. When measuring this evidence against the DPS
standard, we are required to look for evidence of marked
differentiation of this Lake Sammamish kokanee population segment
compared to other populations of Oncorhynchus nerka throughout the
range of the taxon. More importantly, scientific information to
indicate that the genetic divergence observed in the Lake Sammamish
kokanee population segment confers a fitness advantage or otherwise
contributes to the biological or ecological importance of this
population, in relation to the taxon as a whole, is lacking. With the
additional consideration that the authority to list DPSs be used
``sparingly,'' we conclude this population segment of O. nerka does not
meet the significance element of this factor.
Other Potential Significance Factors Examined
(A) Disease resistance: Infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) is
a serious viral disease of salmonid fish, which was first reported at
fish hatcheries in Oregon and Washington in the 1950s. The causative
virus now exists in many wild and farmed salmonid stocks in the Pacific
Northwest region of North America, and has spread to Europe and some
Asian countries. IHN virus (IHN) affects rainbow/steelhead trout (O.
mykiss), cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki), brown trout (Salmo trutta),
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and Pacific salmon including chinook (O.
tshawytscha), sockeye/kokanee (O. nerka), chum (O. keta), masou/yamame
(O. masou), amago (O. rhodurus), and coho (O. kisutch) (Iowa State
University, 2007, p. 1). Over 40 million kokanee were introduced into
the Sammamish basin from the Lake Whatcom Hatchery between 1940 and
1978 (Young et al. 2004, p. 65); however, these introduced stocks have
not been successful. The Lake Sammamish kokanee population remains
extant, whereas transplanted stocks were unable to persist (Young et
al. 2004, p. 1). The reasons are unknown, and there has been some
speculation that this could be related to a disease resistance function
to IHN; however, this theory has not been confirmed. This speculation
is based on Young et al. 2004 (p. 3), who stated, ``We note that the
Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin is an IHN positive environment and
that Lake Whatcom is IHN free. We speculate that IHN vulnerability
might explain the apparent lack of success of the Lake Whatcom kokanee
introductions, however, confirmation or refutation would require
further study.'' However, while these authors speculated as to the
vulnerability of Lake Whatcom kokanee to IHN, it does not follow that
Lake Sammamish kokanee are, therefore, resistant to, or tolerant of,
the disease. We were also unable to find any additional studies
regarding disease resistance or disease tolerance of the Lake Sammamish
kokanee, so this idea remains merely speculative at this time.
Even assuming that Lake Sammamish kokanee may be resistant to IHN,
this does not mean disease resistance is unique to kokanee in the Lake
Washington/Lake Sammamish system. We were unable to find any
information on IHN presence in other lakes within the range of
Oncorhynchus nerka, so were unable to determine whether a presumed
resistance or tolerance to IHN (as evidenced by presence of a
population of O. nerka in IHN-positive lakes) is unusual such that a
population evidencing this disease resistance or tolerance would be
significant to the taxon as a whole.
[[Page 61307]]
Conclusion: Although disease resistance or tolerance may be
important to the long-term viability of Oncorhynchus nerka at some
scale, the relevant question for this finding is whether the Lake
Sammamish kokanee population is significant to the taxon as a whole
(i.e., all O. nerka populations and life history forms throughout the
range of the species). Given that there is no evidence indicating that
the Lake Sammamish kokanee are disease resistant or disease tolerant,
and that we were unable to find any information on IHN presence in
other lakes containing O. nerka populations in order to determine
whether Lake Sammamish is atypical, we conclude that the hypothesized
disease resistance or tolerance of the Lake Sammamish kokanee
population does not meet the significance element of the DPS policy.
(B) Multiple run spawning timings: Multiple run timings allow
kokanee and other salmonid populations the ability to exploit a range
of available habitats and reduce risks to extirpation (e.g., stochastic
events, predation, variable climate) by diversifying spawning
distribution over space and time. The Lake Sammamish/Lake Washington
kokanee population historically had at least three distinct run timings
expressed in different locations within the basin. The expression of
multiple-run timings within populations appears to be rare across the
range of kokanee, especially among tributaries (Wood 2009, pers comm.),
although there are at least a few other kokanee populations that are
known to exhibit this trait (Shepard 1999). In addition, the literature
indicates that other kokanee populations have run timings that occur
during similar times of the year as do the run timings of the Lake
Sammamish kokanee (Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 167). With regard to the
taxon-wide examination, NOAAF (1997, p. 20) states that Oncorhynchus
nerka exhibits the greatest diversity in selection of spawning habitat
among the Pacific salmon, and great variation in river entry timing and
the duration of holding in lakes prior to spawning. Bimodal run timing
(two spawning runs in a single season) for O. nerka populations have
been demonstrated in the Russian River in Alaska (Nelson 1979, p. 3),
the Klukshu River, Yukon Territory (Fillatre et al. 2003, p. 1), and
Karluk Lake on Kodiak Island, Alaska (Schmidt et al. 1998, p. 744).
Conclusion: Under the DPS policy, we are required to evaluate the
Lake Sammamish kokanee population segment's significance relative to
the taxon as a whole. Therefore, given the available information on the
number of O. nerka populations across the range of the species (see
sockeye and kokanee abundance trends above), and the presence of
bimodal run timing in other populations, we conclude the presence of
multiple run timings in Lake Sammamish is not significant to the taxon.
DPS Conclusion
On the basis of the best available