[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52257-52260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09se08-22]
[[Page 52257]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0098; 92220-1113-0000-C5]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Delist the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove the Lahontan cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (List) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that removing Lahontan
cutthroat trout from the List may be warranted. Therefore, we will not
initiate a status review in response to this petition. However, we are
currently conducting a 5-year review of this species under section
4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. This review was initiated on February 14, 2007,
and will consider information that has become available since the last
status review. We ask the public to submit to us any new information
that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the
Lahontan cutthroat trout or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 9,
2008. You may submit new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone (775) 861-
6300; facsimile (775) 861-6301. Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob D. Williams, Field Supervisor, or
Selena Werdon, Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 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 this finding within
90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
This finding is based on the information included in and with the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our
regulations in 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
''substantial scientific or commercial information'' threshold. Our
standard for substantial information with regard to a 90-day petition
finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a reasonable
person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be
warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In making this finding, we consider
whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative action
recommended; (2) contains a detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past
and present numbers and distribution of the species and any threats
faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of
the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)). If
we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species and publish the
results of that status review in a 12-month finding.
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) a determination that
that the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
We received a petition dated December 18, 2006, from Dynamic Action
on Wells Group, Inc. (DAWG) requesting that the Lahontan cutthroat
trout be removed from the List. The submission clearly identified
itself as a petition and included the requisite identification
information of the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). This
notice constitutes our 90-day finding on the petition.
Previous Federal Action
On October 13, 1970, we listed Lahontan cutthroat trout as
endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub.
L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275) (35 FR 16047). The species was subsequently
listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On July 16, 1975, we reclassified Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). We also
published findings on two previous petitions to delist populations of
the Lahontan cutthroat trout, one to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in
the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake (51 FR 29671; August 20, 1986) and
the other to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Humboldt River
Drainage Basin in Nevada (59 FR 28329; June 1, 1994), neither of which
resulted in a determination that delisting was warranted.
Species Information
Range and Habitat
Historically, Lahontan cutthroat trout were found in a wide variety
of cold-water habitats including large, terminal, alkaline lakes (e.g.,
Pyramid and Walker Lakes); alpine lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe and
Independence Lake); slow, meandering rivers (e.g., Humboldt River);
mountain rivers (e.g., Carson, Truckee, Walker, and Marys Rivers); and
small headwater tributary streams (e.g., Donner and Prosser Creeks).
Generally, Lahontan cutthroat trout occur in cool flowing water with
available cover of well-vegetated and stable stream banks, in areas
where there are stream velocity breaks, and in
[[Page 52258]]
relatively silt-free, rocky riffle-run areas (Service 1995, p. 19).
The Lahontan cutthroat trout is endemic, or native, to the Lahontan
Basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon
(Service 1995, pp. 3-4). In 1844, there were 11 lake-dwelling
populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout and 400 to 600 stream-dwelling
populations in over 5,794 kilometers (km) (3,600 miles) of streams
within the major basins of Pleistocene Lake Lahontan (Service 1995, p.
6). Lahontan cutthroat trout currently occupy between 123 and 129
streams within the Lahontan Basin (Service 1995, p. 7). The species is
currently found in five historic lakes including Pyramid Lake (Service
2003a, pp. 41-43), Walker Lake (Service 2003b, pp. 18-21), Fallen Leaf
Lake (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 58), Independence Lake (Rissler et al.
2006, pp. 25-27, 34), and Summit Lake (Service 1995, pp. 14-15).
Lahontan cutthroat trout are also found in numerous lakes and streams
within the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere outside their historic range
(Service 1995, pp. 7, 9, 11-13, 18-19, E-9, E-10).
Reproduction
Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit lakes and streams but are
obligatory stream spawners. Small, intermittent, tributary streams and
headwater reaches are sometimes used as spawning sites (Coffin 1981, p.
41; Trotter 1987, pp. 129-132). Spawning generally occurs from April
through July, depending upon stream flow, elevation, and water
temperature (La Rivers 1962, p. 287; McAfee 1966, p. 227; Lea 1968, pp.
68-69; Moyle 2002, p. 291). Fecundity of 600-8,000 eggs per female has
been reported for lacustrine (lake-dwelling) populations (Lea 1968, pp.
80-83; Cowan 1983, p. 16; Sigler et al. 1983, p. 17; Moyle 2002, p.
291), while only 100-300 eggs were found in females collected from
small Nevada streams (Coffin 1981, p. 40). Eggs are deposited in small
gravels within riffles or pool crests (Service 1995, p. 21). Eggs
generally hatch within 4-6 weeks, depending on water temperature, and
fry emerge 13-23 days later (Lea 1968, p. 69; Moyle 2002, p. 291).
Genetics
The petitioners provided some information about the genetic
structure of Lahontan cutthroat trout. They state that Lahontan
cutthroat trout populations in the Lahontan Basin are not genetically
distinct and that recent studies to identify Lahontan cutthroat trout
differentiation among Lahontan sub-basins failed to find statistically
significant variation or asserted sub-basin distinctions without
adequate evidence (DAWG 2006, p. 5). However, the petition does not
clearly articulate how this information supports their claim that
Lahontan cutthroat trout should be delisted (i.e., the genetics
information does not contribute to a ``detailed narrative justification
for the recommended measure'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2))).
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (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 information presented in the petition and its
supporting information in the context of the above listed five factors
to determine whether the petition presented substantial information
indicating that delisting the species under the Act may be warranted.
Based on information in the petition and other information available in
our files, our evaluation is presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The petitioners claim that two conditions necessary to delist
Lahontan cutthroat trout have been met, one being habitat conditions in
the Pyramid Lake-Truckee River Basin (the other condition necessary to
delist asserted by the petitioners is discussed under other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E)). The
petitioners state that most diversions from the lower Truckee River
have ended, obstructions to Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning in the
Truckee River have been removed, and Pyramid Lake has increased in
volume and elevation. The petitioners also state that the Truckee River
has generated sufficient flows to maintain a viable Lahontan cutthroat
trout population in Pyramid Lake, and that the Truckee-Pyramid Basin
could form a potential, naturally reproducing, self-sustaining Lahontan
cutthroat trout fishery. However, the petition provides no discussion,
citations, or other sources of more detailed information to support
their claim that the threat has been eliminated.
In addition to the lack of supporting information in the petition,
the petitioners misstate information in the final rule reclassifying
the species from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). The
petitioners assert that in the final rule we determined that Lahontan
cutthroat trout is a threatened species because ``water diversions from
the Truckee River had lowered the water level of Pyramid Lake, silted
up the mouth of the Truckee River at its entry into the lake, and
eliminated much of the Lahontan cutthroat trout annual spawn up the
River from Pyramid Lake'' (DAWG 2006, pp. 3-4). The petitioners also
state that Walker Lake ``was not mentioned as evidence `pertinent to
the determination' '' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). However, the petition
misinterprets the final rule. The final rule stated that ``water
diversions within its native range continue to be a threat'' and noted
that this was ``especially evident'' in Pyramid Lake (40 FR 29864).
While the final rule did not specifically mention Walker Lake, our
reference to water diversions within the native range of Lahontan
cutthroat trout encompassed the Walker River drainage and Walker Lake,
as well as the other streams and lakes discussed above in the Habitat
and Range section. While improved habitat conditions in the Truckee
River and Pyramid Lake would contribute to recovery of Lahontan
cutthroat trout, amelioration of the threat from water diversion also
would involve areas within the native range of Lahontan cutthroat trout
in addition to the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake. Thus, the
petitioners' second assertion that conditions necessary to delist
Lahontan cutthroat trout have been met is also based on a
misinterpretation of the final rule.
To summarize, the petition lacks information to support its
assertion that threats from diversions in the Truckee River have been
eliminated, and is incorrect in its assumptions and interpretations of
the final downlisting rule. Therefore, we find the petition does not
present substantial information demonstrating that delisting Lahontan
cutthroat trout across all or a significant portion of its range may be
warranted at this time due to a lack of threats from any present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species'
habitat or range.
[[Page 52259]]
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide information regarding the effects of
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes on Lahontan cutthroat trout. A review of
information in our files does not suggest that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes currently
threatens Lahontan cutthroat trout. However, we will analyze all
available information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review
under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14,
2007 (72 FR 7064).
C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not provide information regarding the effects of
disease or predation on Lahontan cutthroat trout. However, information
in our files suggests that there may be threats to Lahontan cutthroat
trout from disease or predation. We will analyze all available
information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14, 2007
(72 FR 7064). Therefore, we conclude that there is no substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that delisting
Lahontan cutthroat trout may be warranted due to lack of threats from
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition does not present any information pertaining to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, a review of
information in our files suggests that inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may be a concern as it relates to maintenance of
habitat conditions for Lahontan cutthroat trout. We will analyze all
available information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review
under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14,
2007 (72 FR 7064).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petitioners referred to the final rule downlisting the Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened, stating that the final
rule indicated ``introduced Brook trout were strong competitors for
food and space, and Rainbow trout were hybridizing with the Lahontan
cutthroat trout throughout the Lahontan Basin'' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). This
is an accurate representation of the information presented in the final
rule (40 FR 29864).
The petitioners also stated that the final rule listing Lahontan
cutthroat trout as threatened indicated that ``the explicit resolution
of the competition/hybridization problem was `regulated taking by
sport-fishing' and that `sport-fishing was explicitly mentioned as the
method for reducing competition, hybridization, and overcrowding in
streams' '' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). With respect to the idea that sport-
fishing will reduce competition from and hybridization with nonnative
trout, the petitioners misinterpret the information presented in the
final rule. The final rule indicates that (1) Lahontan cutthroat trout
would benefit from regulated taking by sport-fishing because stocking
had led to most suitable streams reaching carrying capacity, and (2)
sport-fishing ``is an acceptable method of preventing overpopulation
which could injure a species by taxing the species' habitat'' (40 FR
29864). Therefore, the final rule acknowledges the role of sport-
fishing in reducing overpopulation in stocked areas, but it does not
indicate that sport-fishing for Lahontan cutthroat trout ameliorates
the threat of competition from and hybridization with nonnative trout.
The petitioners do not present any information to indicate that threats
posed by the presence of these nonnative species have been ameliorated.
In addition, the petitioners provide no data or other information
indicating that sport-fishing will have the effect of ameliorating
those threats. They state that ``the competition and hybridization
experienced by the Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout the Lahontan
Basin has been attenuated by the Nevada Department of Wildlife through
regulated taking by sport-fishing'' (DAWG 2006, p. 6), without
providing substantive support for the statement. Therefore, without any
additional information to evaluate the validity of this statement, we
find that the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that delisting of the Lahontan cutthroat trout across all or
a significant portion of its range may be warranted due to a lack of
threats from other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided
with the petition under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and the Act, including
information in the final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat trout as
threatened. First, our review indicates that the fundamental argument
for delisting presented in the petition was largely based on
misinterpretation of information in the final rule downlisting Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863),
specifically with respect to the extent of the threat from water
diversions, and with respect to any role sport-fishing for Lahontan
cutthroat trout may play in ameliorating the threat of competition and
hybridization with nonnative trout. This resulted in incorrect
information being presented by the petitioners to support their claims.
Second, the petitioners did not provide substantive discussion, data,
citations, or other information supporting their statements suggesting
that the threats identified in the final listing rule have been
ameliorated. Specifically, the petition did not discuss or cite
substantive data or other information supporting the notion that water
diversions are no longer a threat to Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Truckee River and Pyramid Lake and that competition and hybridization
with nonnative trout have been controlled by sport-fishing. The
petition also discussed genetic differentiation of Lahontan cutthroat
trout within the Lahontan Basin, but it did not clearly articulate the
relevance of the information to delisting of the subspecies.
Considering the information in the petition under the Act and our
regulations as stated above, we find that the petition (1) did not
contain a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure,
describing, based on available information, past and present numbers
and distribution of the species and any threats faced by the species;
(2) did not provide information regarding the status of the species
over all or a significant portion of its range; and (3) was not
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Specifically, the supporting documentation that was provided was not
appropriate to support the fundamental rationale for the petitioned
action. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial information demonstrating that delisting Lahontan cutthroat
trout across all or a significant portion of its range may be warranted
at this time. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather and
provide data that will assist with the conservation of Lahontan
cutthroat trout.
[[Page 52260]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff of Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 19, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20673 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P