[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 6, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24915-24922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2008-0048; 1111 FY07 MO B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake Sammamish, 
Washington, as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status 
review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the Lake Sammamish kokanee 
(Oncorhynchus nerka) as a threatened or endangered species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing the Lake Sammamish kokanee may be warranted. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a 
status review of the species, and we will issue a 12-month finding on 
our determination as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. To 
ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting 
information and data regarding this species. We will make a 
determination on critical habitat for this species if, and when, we 
initiate a listing action.

DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on May 6, 2008. 
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 7, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS-R1-ES-2008-0048]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information 
received at http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information 
Solicited section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, Western Washington 
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 510 Desmond 
Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; telephone 360-753-6039; facsimile 
at 360-753-9405. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To 
ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting 
information concerning the status of the Lake Sammamish kokanee. We are 
seeking information regarding the species' historical and current 
status and distribution, its biology and ecology, ongoing conservation 
measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to the species 
and its habitat. We request any additional information, comments, and 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, or any other 
interested parties concerning the status of the Lake Sammamish kokanee.

[[Page 24916]]

    If we determine that listing the Lake Sammamish kokanee is 
warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the 
species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the geographical area 
currently occupied by the species, we also request data and information 
on what may constitute physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, where these features are currently found, 
and whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection. Please provide specific comments and 
information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think we should 
propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why 
such habitat meets the requirements of the Act.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support or opposition 
to the actions under consideration without providing supporting 
information, although noted, will not be considered in making a 
determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species shall be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' Based on the status review, we will issue 
the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) 
of the Act.
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed 
in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying 
information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and materials we receive will be available for public 
inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during 
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding 
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at 
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, 
we are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the 
petition and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal 
Register.
    Our standard for ``substantial information,'' as defined in the 
Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b), with regard to a 90-
day petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted.'' If we find that substantial information was 
presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the 
species. We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner 
that we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in 
the petition and available in our files. We evaluated that information 
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day 
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is limited to a 
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the 
``substantial information'' threshold.
    It is important to note that the ``substantial information'' 
standard for a 90-day finding is in contrast to the Act's ``best 
scientific and commercial data'' standard that applies to a 12-month 
finding as to whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day 
finding is not a status assessment of the species and does not 
constitute a status review under the Act. Our final determination as to 
whether a petitioned action is warranted is not made until we have 
completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted 
following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 
90-day and 12-month finding are different, as described above, a 
positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will 
also be positive.
    On July 9, 2007, we received a formal 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 we list all wild, 
indigenous, naturally-spawned kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Lake 
Sammamish, Washington, as a threatened or endangered species under the 
Endangered Species Act, because of their declining numbers, reduced 
productivity, a decline in the quantity and quality of their habitat, 
and narrowing temporal, spatial, and genetic diversity. The petition 
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a). The petition contained information on kokanee biology and 
distribution. The petition also contained information that may indicate 
the uniqueness of Lake Sammamish kokanee: The discreteness and 
significance of this population; population viability, abundance, and 
productivity; distribution; and genetic diversity. Potential threats 
discussed in the petition include the present and ongoing destruction, 
modification, and curtailment of habitat; the lack of effective 
regulatory measures; and other natural or manmade factors affecting the 
species' continued existence.
    On September 24, 2007, we notified the petitioners that our initial 
review of the petition for Lake Sammamish kokanee concluded that an 
emergency listing was not warranted, and that we anticipated making an 
initial finding within 90 days as to whether the petition contains 
substantial information indicating that the action may be warranted. 
This finding addresses the petition.

Species Information

    The kokanee and the sockeye salmon are two forms of the same 
species, Oncorhynchus nerka (Order Salmoniformes, Family Salmonidae), 
that are native to watersheds in the north Pacific from southern 
Kamchatka to Japan in the western Pacific, and from Alaska to the 
Columbia River in North America (Page and Burr 1991, p. 52; Taylor et 
al. 1996, pp. 402-403). Adult kokanee resemble sockeye salmon, but are 
generally smaller in size at maturity because they are confined to 
freshwater environments, which are less productive than the ocean 
(Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 29). Both 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 sockeye (progeny of anadromous sockeye that 
do not migrate to sea) turn from silver to green (Foote et al. 2004, p. 
70).

[[Page 24917]]

    Sockeye salmon are anadromous, migrating to the Pacific Ocean 
following hatching and rearing in fresh water. They spend 2 to 3 years 
in marine waters before returning to freshwater environments to spawn. 
Kokanee are non-anadromous, spending their entire lives in freshwater 
habitats (Meehan and Bjorn 1991, pp. 56-57). Kokanee young are spawned 
in freshwater streams and subsequently migrate to a nursery lake 
(Burgner 1991, pp. 35-37), where they remain until maturity. When 
mature, they return to natal freshwater streams to spawn and die, 
typically around age four.
    Taylor et al. (1996, pp. 411-414) found multiple episodes of 
independent divergence between sockeye and kokanee throughout their 
current range. As ancestral sockeye populations expanded to new river 
systems, those that could not access the marine environment on a 
regular basis evolved into the non-anadromous kokanee form. This rapid 
adaptive evolution occurred multiple times, resulting in native kokanee 
populations being genetically more similar to their sympatric 
(occupying the same geographic area without interbreeding) sockeye 
populations than kokanee in other river systems (Taylor et al. 1996, 
pp. 401, 413-414).
    Kokanee have been widely introduced in North America in areas 
outside their larger geographic distribution, and further inland in 
States and provinces where they occur naturally (e.g., Maine, 
California, Montana, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Vermont, North Dakota, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Alberta, Saskatchewan, 
Manitoba, Ontario) (Scott and Crossman 1973, p. 167). Native 
populations of kokanee are likely present over most of the range of 
sockeye salmon. The Lake Washington-Sammamish watershed is one of five 
watersheds in Washington that support native populations of resident 
kokanee (Pfeifer 1995 in Jackson 2006, p. 1). In western Washington, 
native populations of kokanee occur in Lake Whatcom (Lake Washington 
watershed), Lake Washington-Lake Sammamish watershed, and Baker Lake 
(Baker River watershed) (Jackson 2006, p. 1). It is thought that the 
Baker Lake kokanee population became established after the native 
sockeye population spawning migration was affected by the construction 
of Lower Baker Dam and the creation of Lake Shannon, followed by the 
construction of Upper Baker Dam (FERC and USACOE 2006, p. 100). 
Therefore, these individuals are most likely ``residual'' sockeye and 
not true kokanee. Native kokanee populations may exist in Ozette Lake, 
Lake Pleasant (Quillayute River watershed), and Quinault Lake (Quinault 
River watershed); however there is uncertainty regarding the origin of 
these stocks (Gustafson et al. 1997, pp. 120-123).
    Kokanee historically spawned in tributaries located throughout Lake 
Washington; however, their current spawning distribution in the Lake 
Washington Basin appears to be limited to the Sammamish River/Lake 
Sammamish drainages, and Cedar River (Walsh Lake) drainages (Gustafson 
et al. 1997, p. 123; Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 3). Surface water 
discharge from Lake Sammamish is through the Sammamish River at the 
north end of the lake, which ultimately flows into Lake Washington. 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). There are also several 
smaller tributaries used for spawning by native kokanee, including 
Ebright Creek, Pine Lake Creek, Laughing Jacobs Creek, and Lewis Creek 
(Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 5). The four major tributaries that 
discharge into the Sammamish River are Swamp Creek, North Creek, Little 
Bear Creek, and Big Bear Creek.
    Although unconfirmed, it is likely that the kokanee that currently 
spawn in the Sammamish River and its major tributaries rear in Lake 
Washington, since if they were to rear in Lake Sammamish, the fry would 
have to migrate upstream to reach the lake. Individuals of what appear 
to be resident O. nerka (sockeye that originate from at least one sea-
going parent but spend their entire life in fresh water) are still 
occasionally collected in Lake Washington (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 
3-4). The origin of kokanee in Walsh Lake in the southern part of the 
Lake Washington Basin is uncertain given that they were first 
documented in 1997, and were not previously observed in surveys 
conducted by the University of Washington in 1977 (Connor et al. 2000, 
p. 22). More recent genetic analysis of the Walsh Lake population 
suggests that this population is introduced, since it genetically more 
closely resembles sockeye from the Baker Lake system in the Skagit 
River watershed than native O. nerka stocks within the basin (Berge and 
Higgins 2003).
    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 (Trout Unlimited 2007, 
p. 9). Winter/late-run kokanee spawn from late fall into winter 
(October through January) in tributaries of Lake Sammamish, including 
Lewis Creek, Ebright Creek, and Laughing Jacobs Creek, with some 
spawners recorded in Vasa Creek, Pine Lake, Sammamish River, and East 
Fork Issaquah Creek (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 9).
    Berggren (1974, p. 9) and Pfeifer (1995, pp. 8-9 and 21-22) report 
escapements (the number of fish arriving at a natal stream or river to 
spawn) of summer/early-run Issaquah Creek kokanee numbering in the 
thousands during the 1970s, but 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. 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. However, no kokanee were 
observed or captured during either of those two years (WDFW 2002, pp. 
5-7), nor were kokanee observed during spawner surveys conducted in 
2003 (Washington Trout 2004, p. 2), leading biologists to conclude that 
the summer/early-run is functionally extinct (Berge and Higgins 2003, 
p. 33; Jackson 2006, p. 1).
    The fall/middle-run kokanee was estimated to have at least 6,000 
and as many as 30,000 spawners in the 1940s in Big Bear Creek, a 
tributary to the Sammamish River (Connor et al. 2000, pp. 13-14), 
although these numbers are confounded by the high numbers of out-of-
basin and in-basin kokanee introductions during this time period 
(Gustafson et al. 1997, p. 113). However, by the 1970s the fall/middle-
run was considered extinct by Washington Department of Game biologists 
(Connor et al. 2000, p. 15).

[[Page 24918]]

    The winter/late-run kokanee have had highly variable spawner 
returns over the past 11 years (1996-2006), with returns as high as 
4,702 in 2003, and as low as 64 in 1997 (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, 
p. 18). Annual returns averaged 946 fish, with a median return of 594 
fish during this period (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 16). During a 
3-year period from 2004 to 2006, the average spawner return was 568 
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 (Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 18). The longest accessible spawning stream 
for the winter/late-run is 0.75 mile (mi) (1.2 kilometers (km)), and 
the total spawning area of the core spawning streams (Lewis Creek, 
Laughing Jacobs Creek, and Ebright Creek) is less than 1.0 mile (1.6 
km) (Jackson 2006, p. 4).
    Because of the complicated relationships between sockeye and 
kokanee populations, we will continue to work with National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries regarding species or life forms 
under the jurisdiction of each agency.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments

    We consider a species for listing under the Act if available 
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is 
defined in section 3 of the Act to include any subspecies of fish or 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species 
of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 
1532 (16)). We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries), 
developed the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722) to help 
us in determining what constitutes a distinct vertebrate population 
segment (DPS). The policy identifies three elements that we are to 
consider in making a DPS determination. These elements include: (1) The 
discreteness of the 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. If we determine that a population segment meets the 
discreteness and significance standards, then the level of threat to 
that population segment is evaluated based on the five listing factors 
established by the Act to determine whether listing the DPS as either 
threatened or endangered is warranted.
    The petition asserts that the native summer/early-run and fall/
middle-run kokanee are considered functionally extinct, and that the 
native winter/late-run represents the last remaining population in Lake 
Sammamish (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 17). However, the native 
summer/early-run and fall/middle-run of kokanee were included in the 
petitioned action because there may be remnants of those populations, 
which are critically important to the recovery of Lake Sammamish 
kokanee (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 10).
    The petition discusses each of the three elements listed above. 
Following is our evaluation of whether the petition presents 
substantial information that the petitioned entity, the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee, may be a DPS.

Discreteness

    Discreteness refers to the separation of a population segment from 
other members of the taxon based on either: (1) Physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) international 
boundaries within which significant differences in control of 
exploitation, habitat management, conservation status, or regulatory 
mechanisms exist in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Data contained in the petition, referenced in the petition, and 
otherwise available in our files suggest that Lake Sammamish population 
may be genetically and ecologically discrete from other populations of 
kokanee. Kokanee in the Lake Sammamish system appear to be 
reproductively isolated from other kokanee and sockeye populations 
(Young et al. 2004, pp. 72-73), and ecologically unique in that three 
run-timings have historically been exhibited by this population (Berge 
and Higgins 2003, pp. 3-7), although only the winter/late run-timing 
appears to remain expressed. The petitioners assert that not only are 
Lake Sammamish kokanee significantly different genetically from other 
kokanee populations, they are uniquely adapted to this system, given 
that introductions of wild and artificially produced kokanee from other 
watersheds were unable to persist in the Lake Sammamish system (Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 14). The petition also states that each of 
the three run-timings exhibit different average fish lengths that 
correspond to their unique ecological settings and life histories. 
Based on the physical and behavioral factors identified in the 
petition, we find that there is substantial information indicating that 
Lake Sammamish kokanee may meet the discreteness element of our DPS 
policy.

Significance

    If we determine that a population meets the DPS discreteness 
element, we then consider whether it also meets the DPS significance 
element. The DPS policy (61 FR 4722) states that if a population 
segment is considered discrete under one or more of the discreteness 
criteria, its biological and ecological significance will be considered 
in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be 
used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic 
diversity. In making this determination, we consider available 
scientific evidence of the discrete population's importance to the 
taxon to which it belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to 
vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe 
all the classes of information that might be used in determining the 
biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However, 
the DPS policy does provide four possible reasons why a discrete 
population may be significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 
4722), this consideration of the significance may include, but is not 
limited to, the following:
    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in a unique or 
unusual ecological setting;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete segment would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon;
    (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the 
only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside of its historic 
range; or
    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics 
(USFWS 1996).
    The petitioners assert that the Lake Sammamish population is 
significant because it is native to the Sammamish Basin and genetically 
unique among native kokanee and sockeye populations in the western 
United States. They point to several studies demonstrating that this 
population is genetically distinguishable from a number of other 
kokanee and sockeye populations across the west. The petition states 
that: (1) Genetic data highlights the unique genetic structure of the 
runs relative to other kokanee and sockeye across the west; (2) a 
genetic difference exists within the kokanee in Lake Sammamish; and (3) 
artificially-produced kokanee from other

[[Page 24919]]

watersheds were unable to persist in Lake Sammamish, as evident by the 
lack of a genetic signal from those introduced populations (Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 14).
    Information provided by the petitioners, in combination with 
information available in our files, indicates that this population may 
occur in a unique or unusual ecological setting, which suggests that 
the loss of Lake Sammamish kokanee may result in a significant gap in 
the natural range of the taxon. The petition states that the presence 
of three distinct kokanee populations separated both by run timing and 
distribution within the basin is a reflection of the unique ecosystems 
in the different regions of the basin and the kokanee's natural 
selection within those ecosystems (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 19). 
Therefore, information presented in the petition, in combination with 
information available in our files suggests that the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee may meet the significance criteria of our DPS policy.

DPS Conclusion

    We have reviewed the information presented in the petition, and 
have evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In 
a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, 
we determine whether a petition presents substantial information that a 
population may be a DPS. Based on our review, we find that the July 9, 
2007, petition does present substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that the Lake Sammamish kokanee population may 
be a DPS based on genetic and ecological discreteness from other 
populations and representation of a significant gap in the natural 
range of the taxon. Therefore, the Lake Sammamish kokanee population 
may be a listable entity under the Act.
    To meet the third element of the DPS policy, we evaluate the level 
of threat to the DPS based on the five listing factors established by 
the Act. We thus proceeded with an evaluation of information presented 
in the petition, as well as information in our files, to determine 
whether there is substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing of the Lake Sammamish kokanee population may be 
warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.

Threats Analysis

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species 
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 
A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species 
due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or 
predation; (D) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 
Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In 
making this finding, we evaluated whether information on threats to 
Lake Sammamish kokanee presented in the petition and other information 
available in our files at the time of the petition review reasonably 
indicate that listing the species may be warranted. Our evaluation of 
this information is presented below.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

    The petitioners state that present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the Lake 
Sammamish kokanee threatens this population such that listing may be 
warranted. The petition describes significant alterations that have 
occurred to the Lake Sammamish watershed, including: (1) The loss or 
degradation of available kokanee habitat resulting from the 
channelization of the Sammamish River for flood control; (2) the 
degradation of stream and lake water quality resulting from past point-
source pollution and ongoing urbanization; (3) the alteration of stream 
hydrology due to increasing urbanization; and (4) the elimination of 
access to upstream habitats by kokanee because of manmade fish passage 
barriers (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, pp. 22-25). Each of these 
potential threats are discussed below.
    (1) The petition describes how the channelization of the Sammamish 
River for flood control resulted in the significant and continuing 
degradation of the available habitat for kokanee within the Sammamish 
River (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 22), and states that alteration 
of the channel and banks has resulted in significant sedimentation and 
flood scour. The petition states that lake stratification during summer 
likely affects the distribution and survival of kokanee because of 
temperature and pollutants (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 19). 
Information in our files indicates that the Sammamish River system has 
been highly altered, and converted from a meandering 28-mile (45-km) 
river into a 14-mile (22.5-km) narrow, steep-sided, and largely 
straight channel (Kerwin 2001, p. 28). The deepening of the channel and 
hardening of stream banks has significantly decreased its connectivity 
to the floodplain, reduced off-channel and side-channel habitats, and 
disconnected most of the smaller streams from the river, resulting in a 
loss of salmonid refugia and foraging habitat (Kerwin 2001, p. 392). 
Kerwin (2001, pp. 425-449) documented losses of stream channel and lake 
shore complexity and connectivity caused by bank hardening, riparian 
removal, and residential encroachment within Lake Sammamish and its 
tributaries. Jackson (2006, p. 4) states that as a result of decreased 
stream channel complexity, periodic flood events are now directed 
through the modified stream channels of Lake Sammamish tributaries, 
rather than dissipating over their floodplains, creating significant 
scour in the channels during the period when winter/late-run kokanee 
are staging to spawn or are spawning.
    (2) The petition describes the degradation of water quality in Lake 
Sammamish from effluent discharges into Issaquah Creek (the largest 
tributary to Lake Sammamish) in the 1960s by a wastewater treatment 
plant, milk processing plant, fish hatchery, and mining operations 
(Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). The petitioners describe 
ongoing water quality impacts to Lake Sammamish and its tributaries 
from non-point source pollutants related to increased urbanization and 
highway runoff. They also state that water withdrawals in conjunction 
with urbanization have altered stream flows during the dry season, and 
that land use activities in King County, Washington, have resulted in 
increased stream temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen levels 
(Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 25). Information in our files 
indicates poor water quality related to urbanization has been 
identified as a habitat limiting factor for salmonids in Lake Sammamish 
and a number of its tributaries (Kerwin 2001, pp. 423-445).
    (3) The petition describes the alteration of hydrology in kokanee 
spawning streams due to an increase in the percentage of impervious 
surfaces (e.g., sidewalks, roads, parking lots, roof tops), as a result 
of urbanization (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 23). The petitioners 
describe how increased stormwater runoff during the rainy

[[Page 24920]]

season has increased pollutants and led to more intensive flash flood 
events, which scour stream channels, erode stream banks, cause 
turbidity in spawning tributaries, and contribute significant sediment 
pulses into Lake Sammamish. Water withdrawals in conjunction with land 
cover changes associated with urbanization have reduced summer base 
flows in the system and may prevent upstream migration of summer/early-
run kokanee. However, low base flows are unlikely to impede the return 
of fall and winter-run kokanee adults due to their later migration 
timing. Information in our files indicates that urbanization and the 
conversion of the landscape from a forested watershed to one dominated 
by impervious surfaces has long been known to harm aquatic systems, 
principally through hydrologic changes (Booth et al. 2002, pp. 835-
836). Modifications of the land surface through urbanization results in 
dramatic changes in stream flow patterns, significantly degrading 
instream habitats for fish and other aquatic biota. Kerwin (2001, pp. 
438, 446) noted that impervious surface areas within the watersheds of 
two of the four major spawning tributaries for winter/late-run kokanee 
currently exceed 20 percent (Lewis Creek subbasin), or are projected to 
exceed 20 percent (Laughing Jacobs subbasin) under expected development 
levels, which is double the percentage determined to have demonstrable 
degradation to stream channels in this region (Booth et al. 2002, p. 
842). Booth et al. (2002, p. 838) state that ``imperviousness,'' 
although an imperfect measure of human influence, is clearly associated 
with stream-system decline.
    (4) The petition describes how past and present manmade fish 
passage barriers have prevented kokanee from accessing upstream 
tributary habitats. It states that the Interstate-90 culvert restricts 
winter/late-run kokanee to 0.75 mile (1.2 km) of spawning habitat on 
Lewis Creek (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 25), and that remnants of 
a weir constructed by property owners on Ebright Creek may have 
continued to block upstream passage for winter/late-run kokanee a 
number of years after its removal. The petitioners also claim that the 
State of Washington Issaquah Creek Hatchery blocks 32 miles (51.5 km) 
of potential summer/early-run kokanee spawning habitat on Issaquah 
Creek (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 25). Information in our files 
shows that winter/late-run kokanee that spawn in Lewis, Laughing 
Jacobs, and Ebright creeks only have access to less than one mile of 
stream. Most notable of the three tributaries is Lewis Creek, where 
kokanee have access to 0.75 mile (1.2 km) of stream (the longest of the 
three spawning tributaries) until they reach the Interstate-90 culvert 
that blocks passage to approximately 0.49 acres (0.2 hectares) of 
spawning habitat (Jackson 2006, p. 4). Winter/late-run kokanee were 
able to access Ebright Creek at least into the 1930s (Connor et al. 
2000, p. 11), although passage was blocked by the construction of a 
barrier by property owners for an undetermined period of time prior to 
1973. Conner et al. (2000, p. 28) noted that after this barrier was 
removed in 1973, Ebright Creek may have once again been blocked in the 
late 1980s by the remnants of an old fish weir and the roots of a 
cottonwood tree. There is no information in either the petition or our 
files that indicates kokanee passage into Ebright Creek remained 
blocked after the 1980s. The Washington Department of Game identified 
the Issaquah Creek Hatchery weir as a major factor in the decline of 
kokanee in this stream (Pfeifer 1982, as cited in Connor et al. 2000, 
p. 29).

Summary of Factor A

    The petition identifies numerous potential factors that may be 
affecting the Lake Sammamish kokanee, including: (1) The loss of stream 
channel and lake shore complexity and connectivity; (2) the degradation 
of stream and lake water quality; (3) the alteration of stream 
hydrology; and (4) the elimination of access to upstream habitats. 
Information in our files also indicates these factors may be affecting 
the population. We therefore conclude that the petition presents 
substantial information to indicate that the present or threatened 
destruction or modification of habitat or range may present a threat to 
Lake Sammamish kokanee.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or 
Educational Purposes

    The petitioners claim that past kokanee egg collections in the Lake 
Sammamish system for transport outside the system had significant 
impact on abundance and productivity of the kokanee population (Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 20). Information in our files indicates that 
although kokanee egg collections took place within both the Lake 
Washington and Lake Sammamish watersheds, the eggs collected were 
largely used for hatchery supplementation of the natural production of 
various stream systems within these basins (Pfeifer 1992, pp. 9, 68-
69). The removal of as many as 14 million eggs from the Bear Creek 
(fall/middle-run) kokanee population in the 1940s (Berge and Higgins 
2003, p. 6) may have contributed significantly to the eventual loss of 
this segment of the population. However, since 1979, Lake Washington 
and Lake Sammamish have been managed for wild kokanee production, and 
there have been no introductions of hatchery broodstocks or nonnative 
stocks to these systems (Pfeifer 1992, p. 9).
    The petitioners provided little information on the impact of 
recreational fisheries to Lake Sammamish kokanee. However, they do 
state that kokanee were an important sport fish in the past. 
Information in our files indicates sport fishing may have contributed 
to initial declines in the population, although there currently is no 
intentional fishery for kokanee in Lake Sammamish, and a harvest ban 
has been in place since 1986 (Pfeifer 1995, p. 12). Nevertheless, some 
kokanee (albeit in low numbers and of unknown stock) are harvested 
illegally (Pfeifer 1995, p. 33), and incidental catch of kokanee 
through other fisheries may occur (Coyle et al. 2001, p. 22).

Summary of Factor B

    The petition identifies egg collections and sport fishing as 
potential factors affecting Lake Sammamish kokanee. Although 
information in the petition indicates that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes likely 
contributed to the population's initial decline, information in our 
files suggests this is no longer a threat to the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present 
substantial information indicating that the overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes may 
present a threat to Lake Sammamish kokanee.

C. Disease or Predation

    Neither the petition nor information in our files presents 
information that would indicate that disease is a current threat to 
Lake Sammamish kokanee, and the effect of disease on the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee population is largely unknown (Connor et al. 2000, p. 30).
    The petition asserts that lake stratification during summer likely 
affects the distribution and survival of kokanee either directly 
because of temperature and pollutants (as described in Factor A), or 
indirectly through the movement and distribution of its zooplankton 
food sources and its predators (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 19). It 
also states that nonnative fish

[[Page 24921]]

species (e.g., black bass (Micropterus spp.), yellow perch (Perca 
flavescens)) and native fish species (e.g., northern pikeminnow 
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii 
clarkii)) prey on young kokanee in Lake Sammamish (Trout Unlimited et 
al. 2007, p. 22) (see also Factor E discussion). The petition also 
states that permanent habitat alteration in the Sammamish River has 
removed areas previously used by kokanee as refugia from predators 
(Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 22). Information in our files 
indicates that predation has been identified as a potential threat to 
kokanee (Pfeifer 1995, p. 16-17; Connor et al. 2000, p. 30; Coyle et 
al. 2001, p. 23). However, the petition did not provide information on 
the rates of predation, and no information is available in our files 
with which to assess this potential threat. Pfeifer (1995, p. 16) 
states that predation in Lake Sammamish is certainly likely, but 
whether it has increased over historic levels is uncertain, since 
appropriate sampling has not occurred. There is, however, anecdotal 
evidence indicating coastal cutthroat populations in the Lake 
Washington basin have increased in abundance since the 1970s (Nowak et 
al. 2004, p. 625).

Summary of Factor C

    No information on disease was presented in the petition, and no 
information on this potential factor was available in our files. Some 
qualitative information was presented related to predation, which is 
generally consistent with information available in our files. However, 
the petition did not present, and our files do not include, 
quantitative or specific information on the possible impacts of 
predation on Lake Sammamish kokanee. Therefore, we find that the 
petition does not present substantial information indicating that 
disease or predation factors may present a threat to Lake Sammamish 
kokanee.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioners assert that the continued destruction, modification 
and curtailment of habitat and other manmade factors are having 
significant impacts on Lake Sammamish kokanee, and are not regulated in 
a manner that protects the population (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 
25). The petitioners claim that although some conservation benefits to 
Lake Sammamish kokanee may be gained through the recently adopted 
Federal recovery plan for listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Shared 
Strategy Development Committee 2007), this plan does not specifically 
address conservation or recovery of kokanee (Trout Unlimited et al. 
2007, p. 27). Consequently, the petitioners state that the 
effectiveness of this plan to incidentally address currently limiting 
factors of the Lake Sammamish kokanee population is uncertain. The 
petition acknowledges that the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (WDFW) has committed to monitor the winter/late-run spawner 
abundance and hydrological conditions in the three known spawning 
streams as funding and resources allow (Jackson 2006, cited in Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 27). However, the petitioners assert that 
although this monitoring will help refine future management options and 
create a foundation for a recovery plan, it does not ensure persistence 
or recovery of the winter/late-run kokanee population. They state that 
the WDFW is considering a supplementation plan for winter/late-run 
kokanee, but the petitioners remain concerned that implementation of 
the plan is uncertain and cannot conserve or recover the species 
without a comprehensive program that addresses the primary limiting 
factors and factors leading to the decline of the population. The 
petitioners also assert that although scientific reviewers have 
proposed further investigations and studies of the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee population, policy-makers have not taken the next step of 
proposing changes to management actions (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, 
p. 27), and that conservation efforts by WDFW and King County are not 
enough by themselves to recover the winter/late-run kokanee, given the 
multiple municipalities that are affecting the Lake Sammamish 
watershed.
    Information in our files indicates that the Cedar River/Sammamish 
River/Lake Washington watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 8) has 
the highest human population in the State, which is projected to 
increase by 24 percent between 2002 and 2022 (Shared Strategy 
Development Committee 2007, p. 238). Accordingly, we expect that this 
already highly urbanized watershed will be further developed. The Puget 
Sound Salmon Recovery Plan states that regulations, incentives, and 
educational outreach will be used to implement actions to protect or 
restore habitat within the Sammamish River, Issaquah Creek, and Lake 
Sammamish (Shared Strategy Development Committee 2007, p. 242). Where 
these habitat improvement actions overlap with the Lake Sammamish 
kokanee distribution (primarily in the mainstem and lake habitats), 
they are also likely to provide conservation benefits to this species. 
Jackson (2006, p. 5) states that, at a minimum, the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Management Division Region 4 Fish 
Program would annually collect data needed to estimate escapement of 
late-run kokanee in the core spawning tributaries (i.e., Lewis Creek, 
Laughing Jacobs Creek, and Ebright Creek). Jackson (2006, p. 4) also 
states that, if Lake Sammamish tributary habitat improvements are not 
addressed, winter/late-run kokanee productivity will not improve and 
may likely decrease, posing the threat of local or population 
extinction.
    According to information available in our files, existing 
regulations have been somewhat effective in reducing or slowing 
development impacts to Lake Sammamish kokanee habitat, but not in 
eliminating them. Although there is a renewed focus on salmon recovery 
for the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish Basin, the conservation benefits 
to kokanee from recovery actions directed at Chinook salmon remains 
uncertain.

Summary of Factor D

    The petition presents information indicating that existing 
regulations may be inadequate to protect Lake Sammamish kokanee from 
the continued destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat, 
and that conservation or recovery plans that specifically target the 
petitioned species have not been developed. Information in the petition 
and in our files supports these claims. Therefore, we find that the 
petition presents substantial information indicating that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to 
Lake Sammamish kokanee.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The petitioners claim past and current fisheries management is a 
threat to Lake Sammamish kokanee, and describe how the transplanting of 
millions of nonnative kokanee and sockeye into the system created 
competition for spawning grounds, food resources in the lakes, and 
rearing areas (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 21). They also state 
that when the Issaquah Creek hatchery was built in 1937, the weir 
forced the kokanee into holding ponds, preventing them from reaching 
the 32 miles (51 km) of spawning habitat above the barrier. Once it was 
determined that there was no use for the fish, the hatchery drained the 
ponds, leaving the kokanee to die (Kvam et al. 1999; Buehler, 2000, in 
Trout Unlimited et al.

[[Page 24922]]

2007, p. 22). The petitioners also claim that the continued operation 
of the weir and hatchery production of Chinook and coho salmon (O. 
kisutch) could limit the recovery of summer/early-run kokanee through 
competition and predation impacts (Trout Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 22). 
Our files also contain information regarding competition associated 
with the introductions of nonnative sockeye salmon, which are believed 
to have increased competition with native juvenile kokanee for food 
resources (Conner et al. 2000, p. 30). Summer/early-run and fall/
middle-run kokanee may be especially vulnerable to redd superimposition 
(the excavation of a new nest on top of an existing nest) by sockeye 
salmon (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 38). Information in our files 
indicates that summer/early-run kokanee were destroyed during past 
hatchery weir operations, which likely contributed to this run's 
decline. Thousands of summer/early-run kokanee were reportedly killed 
at the weir during the 1960s and 1970s because of concerns over 
potential disease transmission (Connor et al. 2000, pp. 27-28). The 
Issaquah Creek weir is still in operation, although the removal of 
kokanee is no longer practiced. There is insufficient information in 
our files to determine if future weir operations will threaten summer/
early-run kokanee, or whether continued Chinook and coho salmon 
production threaten kokanee through predation, although predation has 
been identified by others as a potential concern (Pfeifer 1995, p. 17). 
Information in our files suggests that competition for spawning sites 
with Chinook and coho salmon may be a threat to summer/early-run and 
fall/middle-run kokanee (Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 38), but not to 
winter/late-run kokanee because of differences in habitat use (Berge 
and Higgins 2003, pp. 38-39).
    The petitioners assert that climate change is one of the 
potentially largest future impacts to kokanee, and that although the 
impact of different climate scenarios on salmonids is an active area of 
scientific research, the impact on kokanee has not been thoroughly 
examined. They claim that increases in regional temperatures could 
result in thermal barriers for kokanee in stream and lake habitats; act 
as a fatal stressor to individuals; and alter chemical processes, food 
web dynamics, lake stratification, nutrient cycling, and hydrologic 
patterns. The petition states that while the effects of climate change 
are harder to pinpoint, they are real, imminent and must be proactively 
addressed to ensure that kokanee survive into the future (Trout 
Unlimited et al. 2007, p. 26). Information in our files indicates that 
since 1950, the average annual air temperatures at the majority of 
meteorological stations in the northwestern region have increased by 
approximately 0.25 degrees Celsius (C) per decade, and climate models 
predict an additional increase of 1.5 to 3.2 degrees C by the middle of 
the 21st century (Battin et al. 2007, p. 6720). The increases in air 
temperature for the Puget Sound region during the 20th century are 
evident, and further significant increases are predicted by the middle 
of the 21st century (Snover et al. 2005, p. 13; Battin et al. 2007, p. 
6720). Snover et al. (2005, pp. 6-7) described a range of projected 
habitat changes for waters in the Puget Sound region similar to those 
identified by the petitioners. Nelitz et al. (2007, p. 18) state that 
in the Pacific Region of Canada (British Columbia and Yukon Territory), 
watersheds where thermal regimes are currently near the upper tolerance 
limits for salmon migration and spawning will likely be the most 
vulnerable to future changes and resultant adverse effects on salmon.

Summary of Factor E

    The petition presents information indicating that competition with 
other salmonids may pose a threat to some of the Lake Sammamish kokanee 
runs, and potential climate change impacts could threaten the 
population. Based on that information and on information available in 
our files, we conclude that substantial information exists to indicate 
that other natural or manmade factors may present a threat to Lake 
Sammamish kokanee.

Finding

    We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the 
petition, and evaluated the information to determine whether the 
sources cited support the claims made in the petition. We also reviewed 
reliable information that was readily available in our files to 
evaluate the petition.
    Berge and Higgens (2003, p. 3) state that the distribution of 
native kokanee in the greater Lake Washington watershed appears to be 
limited to the Lake Sammamish population. Populations that spawned in 
Lake Washington tributaries (other than the Sammamish River system) 
appear to be functionally extinct (Berge and Higgins 2003, pp. 3, 26). 
The Lake Sammamish population diversity and abundance has also declined 
significantly, with apparently only one of the three run-timings 
remaining extant (Connor et al. 2000, p. 15; Berge and Higgins 2003, p. 
21, 33; Jackson 2006, p. 1).
    If, as the petitioners suggest, Lake Sammamish kokanee constitute a 
distinct vertebrate population segment, we find that the petition 
presents substantial information to indicate that listing Lake 
Sammamish kokanee under the Act may be warranted due to: (1) The 
present destruction, modification, or curtailment of the population's 
habitat or range (Factor A); (2) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D); and (3) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
    In summary, we conclude that the petition has presented substantial 
information that listing may be warranted for Lake Sammamish kokanee. 
As such, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing 
Lake Sammamish kokanee under the Act is warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this document are staff of the Western 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 28, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-9832 Filed 5-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P