[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63094-63115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25652]
[[Page 63093]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 196
October 11, 2011
Part VI
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a
Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63094]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0089 MO 92210-0-008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the California golden trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss aguabonita) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing the California golden
trout 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 the California golden trout or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 11,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0089. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, CA 95825. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leyse, Field Office Listing/
Critical Habitat Coordinator, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES);
by telephone at 916-414-6600; or by facsimile at 916-414-6712. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, to the maximum extent practicable,
within 90 days after receiving the petition, we make a finding as to
whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In
addition, within 12 months of the date of the receipt of the petition,
we must make a finding on whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded by other
pending proposals. 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 are to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the October 23, 2000,
petition to list the California golden trout as endangered.
Previous Federal Actions
On October 23, 2000, we received a petition dated October 13, 2000,
from Trout Unlimited, requesting that the California golden trout be
listed on an emergency basis as endangered under the Act, and that
critical habitat be designated. Included in the petition was supporting
information on the subspecies' taxonomy, distribution, and ecology, as
well as information regarding factors considered by the petitioners to
threaten the subspecies. We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a
letter to Trout Unlimited, dated November 7, 2000. In that letter, we
also stated that we would be unable to address the petition until
fiscal year 2002 or later due to court orders and judicially approved
settlement agreements for listing and critical habitat determinations
under the Act, which required nearly all of our listing and critical
habitat funding for fiscal year 2001. The petitioner filed a complaint
in Federal District Court on November 29, 2001, resulting in a ruling
on June 21, 2002, ordering us to complete the 90-day finding by
September 19, 2002. We completed the finding by the requisite date, and
published it in the Federal Register on September 20, 2002 (67 FR
59241). In the finding we determined that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
listing the California golden trout may be warranted. We also
determined that an emergency rule to list was not warranted at the time
of the 90-day finding. We concurrently initiated a status review on
which to base our eventual 12-month finding regarding whether listing
of the California golden trout is warranted. On September 22, 2003,
Trout Unlimited sent a Notice of Intent to sue the Service for
violating the Act by failing to make a 12-month finding within the
statutory timeframe. This 12-month finding resolves that issue.
Subspecies Information
Taxonomy and Subspecies Description
The California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita)
(formerly known as Volcano Creek golden trout) is one of three
subspecies of rainbow trout (O. mykiss) native to the Kern River basin
in Tulare and Kern Counties, California (Behnke 1992, p. 191; Behnke
2002, p. 105; Moyle 2002, p. 283). The two other subspecies native to
this basin are the Little Kern golden trout (O. mykiss whitei), which
is found in the Little Kern River and its tributaries, and the Kern
River rainbow trout (O. mykiss gilberti), which is found in the Kern
River. All three subspecies most likely originated from successive
invasions of primitive redband trout (ancestral rainbow trout) of the
Kern River approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years ago (Behnke 1992, p.
189; Behnke 2002, p. 107; Moyle 2002, p. 283). These fish gained access
to the Kern River drainage during glacial cycles and short-term
interglacial wet cycles that allowed Lake Tulare to overflow and
connect the Kern River drainage to the San Joaquin River and Pacific
Ocean (Behnke 2002, p. 109). These primitive forms of rainbow trout
that became isolated in the Kern River watershed gave rise to the
California golden trout, Little Kern River golden trout, and the Kern
River rainbow trout due to local selective factors in their environment
(Behnke 2002, p. 111; Moyle 2002, p. 283).
The taxonomy of golden trout in the Kern River basin has been
revised several times. Originally, four species of trout were
described: Salmo aguabonita from the South Fork Kern River, S.
roosevelti from Golden Trout Creek, S. whitei (Little Kern golden
trout) from the Little Kern River, and S. gairdeneri gilberti (Kern
River rainbow trout) from the lower Kern River (Moyle 2002, p. 284).
Trout from the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek were later
recognized as color variants of S. aguabonita (Schreck and Behnke 1971,
p. 994). More recently, rainbow trout were reclassified as Oncorhynchus
mykiss to reflect their relationship to Pacific salmon, and California
golden trout in both the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek
became recognized as the same subspecies of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss
[[Page 63095]]
aguabonita (Behnke 1992, pp. 163, 172). Similarly, Little Kern golden
trout became O. mykiss whitei, and Kern River rainbow trout became O.
mykiss gilberti.
California golden trout are well known for their bright coloration,
red to red-orange belly and cheeks, bright gold lower sides, a central
lateral band that is red-orange, and a deep olive-green back (Moyle
2002, p. 283). Typically, 10 parr marks (oval colorations) are present
along the lateral line on both young fish and adults, but may be lost
in older fish under some conditions (Behnke 2002, p. 106). The
pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins are orange with a white to yellow tip
preceded by a black band; dorsal fins may also have a white to yellow
tip (Moyle 2002, p. 283). Body spotting is highly variable, but spots
are usually scattered across the dorsal surface with a few below the
lateral line (Moyle 2002, p. 283). California golden trout from Golden
Trout Creek have few spots on the body, primarily concentrated on and
near the caudal peduncle (the muscle before the tail fin), whereas
California golden trout in the South Fork Kern River typically have
small dark spots present over most of the length of the body above the
lateral line, although a few spots can be found below the lateral line
(Fisk 1983, p.1; Stephens 2001a, p. 4). Golden trout are rainbow trout,
so the basic rainbow trout characteristics apply to the subspecies
(Moyle 2002, p. 283); however, golden trout have the lowest number of
vertebrae (59 to 60) and pyloric caeca (finger-like projections of the
intestine (30 to 32)), and the highest number of scales along the
lateral line (170 to 200) of any rainbow trout (Behnke 2002, p. 106).
California golden trout in streams can obtain lengths of 19 to 20
centimeters (cm) (7.5 to 7.9 inches (in)) (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p.
168). California golden trout remain geographically isolated from
Little Kern golden trout and Kern River rainbow trout, but historical
planting of nonnative hatchery trout (O. mykiss irideus) has resulted
in hybridization in most of the range (see the Hybridization section
under Factor E below).
California golden trout also present behavioral and life-history
characters that help distinguish them from other subspecies of rainbow
trout (see also discussion under the Habitat and Life History section
below). These include smaller home ranges (Matthews 1996a, p. 84;
Matthews 1996b, p. 587), remaining active during both day and night
(Matthews 1996a, pp. 82, 84-85), a relatively long lifespan (Knapp and
Dudley 1990, p. 169), and the construction of redds (depressions in the
substrate for eggs) using relatively small-grained substrate (Knapp and
Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529).
For purposes of this finding, we have considered California golden
trout to be those trout within the native range of the subspecies (see
Distribution section below) that present the morphological and
behavioral characters listed above. We do not rely on genetic tests
indicating levels of genetic introgression (infiltration of genes from
one species into the gene pool of another species through repeated
backcrossing of a hybrid with one of its parent species) with nonnative
trout (see Factor E--Hybridization section below) to determine what
constitutes a member of the subspecies because the most recent genetic
analysis of introgression in California golden trout populations
specifically cautioned against the use of strict cutoffs of
introgression levels in determining management categories based on any
single genetic test (Stephens 2007, p. 55). According to this study,
the algorithm used by one genetic test may result in an estimation of
low levels of introgression where none actually exist, essentially not
allowing for an unambiguous determination between low levels of
introgression and genetically ``pure'' populations (Stephens 2007, p.
56). This caution against using single methods for determining cutoffs
was due in part to considerable differences in introgression estimates
for certain populations of California golden trout, which were
generated by the different methodologies and assumptions of the various
genetic tests that have been used to test those populations (Stephens
2007, p. 72), as well as to the general need for an adequate
understanding of the variance surrounding introgression estimates
(Stephens 2007, p. 57). However, while we do not rely on genetic tests
of introgression levels to distinguish California golden trout
populations from nonnative trout, we do consider such genetic
information useful for evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken
to prevent further introgression.
Hybridization between California golden trout and nonnative rainbow
trout is sometimes displayed by an increased number and location of
body spots, especially below the lateral line, and a more rainbow
trout-like body coloration; however, not all hybrid trout display
rainbow trout characteristics (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 24). We have
anecdotal information that suggests there are trout that exhibit
changed coloration and spotting patterns from those ascribed to the
California golden trout (Trout Unlimited 2000, pp. 18, 19) and that
these intergrades may predominate in the lower reaches of the South
Fork Kern River (Sims 2011a). Such reports have not been substantiated
with systematic measures of, or comparison with, introgression levels
or with other morphological or behavioral attributes described above,
and there are no studies that have measured the morphological or
behavioral changes in introgressed California golden trout as compared
to ``pure'' golden trout. Furthermore, there is no documentation that
we are aware of that indicates that additional meristic measures used
to describe California golden trout (such as number of vertebrae, scale
counts, and pyloric caeca) have changed with introgression levels.
Distribution
The historical range of the California golden trout included only
the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek in the upper Kern
River basin. Golden Trout Creek and upper portions of the South Fork
Kern River were once part of the same stream, which became separated by
volcanic activity in the region approximately 10,000 years ago (Cordes
et al. 2003, p. 20). This led to Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork
Kern River as known today (Evermann 1906, pp. 11-14) in two adjacent
watersheds draining the Kern Plateau of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The Golden Trout Creek watershed is 155 square kilometers (km\2\)
(60 square miles (mi\2\)). Golden Trout Creek drainage begins around
3,292 meters (m) (10,800 feet (ft)) elevation near Cirque Peak and
extends to 2,135 m (7,000 ft) elevation at the confluence of Golden
Trout Creek and the Kern River. The headwaters are in the northern
section of the Kern Plateau, and several lakes (Chicken Spring,
Johnson, and Rocky Basins lakes) drain into the watershed. With the
exception of headwater lakes, and the probable exception of upper
reaches of some tributary streams, Golden Trout Creek was historically
occupied by the California golden trout from the headwaters to a series
of waterfalls near the confluence of the creek with the Kern River
(Evermann 1906, pp. 12-14; 28, 30). The waterfalls are impassable and
thus isolate California golden trout in Golden Trout Creek from fish
found in the Kern River. Within Golden Trout Creek, California golden
trout currently maintain the same distribution as they did
historically.
The South Fork Kern River watershed covers 1,380 km\2\ (533 mi\2\).
The South Fork Kern River begins southeast of Cirque Peak at
approximately 3,170 m
[[Page 63096]]
(10,400 ft) in elevation and continues until it reaches Isabella
Reservoir at 794 m (2,605 ft) in elevation. The headwaters are in the
eastern section of the Kern Plateau, starting at South Fork and Mulkey
Meadows. California golden trout were historically known in the South
Fork Kern River from the headwaters to the southern boundary of the
Domeland Wilderness (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 8). The subspecies currently
maintains the same distribution as it did historically within the South
Fork Kern River; however, the degree of genetic introgression from
nonnative rainbow trout increases as one proceeds downstream from
Templeton Barrier (Stephens 2007, pp. 42, 72). There is no evidence to
suggest that the degree of introgression has been sufficient to remove
morphologically and behaviorally distinct California golden trout from
the southern portion of its historical range. Therefore, we are
considering the subspecies to be present in its entire historical range
for purposes of this finding. The range is completely within the Inyo
and Sequoia National Forests, which are administered by the U.S. Forest
Service.
Range Expansion
California golden trout have been widely transplanted outside of
their historical range, but the history of these transplants is poorly
documented. Most of these transplanted fish came from hybridized
Cottonwood Lakes stock that was derived from Golden Trout Creek
(Stephens 2007, pp. 54, 55). Fish were transplanted into fishless lakes
and streams within the Golden Trout Creek watershed, the South Fork
Kern River watershed, and other areas throughout the Sierra Nevada
(such as adjacent to the Kern Plateau, including Ninemile Creek, Cold
Creek, Salmon Creek, many of the lakes and streams to the north in
Sequoia National Park, and all tributaries to the Kern River). In
California, planting records and historical documents indicate that
California golden trout have been stocked in Alpine, El Dorado, Nevada,
Placer, Sierra, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mono, Siskiyou, Trinity, Tulare,
and Tuolumne Counties (Fisk 1983, p. 11). Outside of California, golden
trout were sent to England, Colorado, Utah, Montana, New York, and
Wyoming between 1928 and 1937 (McCloud 1943, p. 194).
For the purposes of this finding, we are analyzing a petitioned
entity that includes populations of California golden trout considered
native to the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek in the upper
Kern River basin. We do not consider introduced populations present
elsewhere as part of the listable entity because we do not consider
them to be native populations. Neither the Act nor our implementing
regulations expressly address whether introduced populations should be
considered part of an entity being evaluated for listing, and no
Service policy addresses the issue. Consequently, in our evaluation of
whether or not to include introduced populations in the potential
listable entity we considered the following:
(1) Our interpretation of the intent of the Act with respect to the
disposition of native populations;
(2) A policy used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to evaluate whether hatchery-origin populations warrant inclusion in
the listable entity; and
(3) A set of guidelines from another organization (International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) with specific criteria for
evaluating the conservation contribution of introduced populations.
Our interpretation is that the Act is intended to preserve native
populations in their ecosystems. While hatchery or introduced
populations of fishes may have some conservation value, this does not
appear to be the case with introduced populations of California golden
trout in California and elsewhere in the United States. These
introduced populations were apparently established to support
recreational fisheries without any formal genetic consideration to
selecting and mating broodstock (group of mature fish kept for breeding
purposes), and are not part of any conservation program to benefit the
native populations. Consequently, we do not consider the introduced
populations of California golden trout in California, England,
Colorado, Utah, Montana, New York, and Wyoming to be part of the
listable entity.
Habitat and Life History
California golden trout reach sexual maturity when they are 3 to 4
years old and begin spawning during the spring or early summer when
maximum water temperatures consistently exceed 15 to 18 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (59 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) and average stream
water temperatures exceed 7 to 10 [deg]C (45 to 50 [deg]F) (Stefferud
1993, pp. 139-140; Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, p. 528). Spawning begins
with female California golden trout moving fine gravel substrate to
construct a shallow depression, known as a redd, to lay their eggs.
Although California golden trout can construct redds using gravel of
smaller average diameter than other trout species or subspecies, they
still select the largest substrates available (Knapp and Vredenburg
1996, pp. 528, 529).
Growth of California golden trout shows a negative correlation with
fish density and a positive correlation with several factors, including
the stability of the stream bed and banks, and the presence of aquatic
and streamside vegetation (Knapp and Dudley 1990, pp. 165, 170, 171).
Aquatic vegetation provides habitat for small invertebrates preyed on
by the trout, while overhanging streamside vegetation provides habitat
for terrestrial invertebrates that can serve as a food source when they
fall in the water (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 170; Moyle 2002, p. 285).
Streamside vegetation also tends to stabilize banks and to provide
cover for young trout from potential predators such as birds (Moyle
2002, p. 277). Overhanging vegetation, steep or undercut banks, and
deeper streambeds are all needed by trout (Moyle 2002, p. 286), in part
because they provide shade and cooler water during the day. Average
daily water temperatures can fluctuate from 2 to 22 [deg]C (Knapp and
Dudley 1990, p. 163), while optimal temperatures for trout range from
15 to 18 [deg]C (59 to 64 [deg]F) (Moyle 2002, p. 276). Deeper
streambeds and steeper banks are associated with greater stream
stablity, thus helping to explain the positive correlation between
stream stability and trout growth found by Knapp and Dudley (1990, pp.
165, 171). Stream stability is also likely important because erosion of
unstable streams produces higher sediment loads that can cover redds
and interfere with feeding by clouding the water (Moyle 2002, p. 278).
California golden trout have been known to live as long as 9 years,
and commonly reach 6 to 7 years old (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169).
This long lifespan is likely due to a short growing season, high fish
densities, and a low food abundance, all of which promote slow growth
rates and old ages of trout (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169).
California golden trout adapted to the South Fork Kern River and
Golden Trout Creek in the absence of competitors, although they
probably did coexist with Sacramento suckers (Catostomus occidentalis)
in the South Fork Kern River (Moyle 2002, p. 284). Long isolation of
California golden trout from other species has likely resulted in a
lack of competitive ability, making them vulnerable to replacement by
other trout species (Behnke 1992, p. 191). Likewise, the subspecies is
thought to have evolved without substantial interspecific predation
risk; the birds and mammals that might have been
[[Page 63097]]
likely predators of the California golden trout occur infrequently in
high alpine areas where California golden trout are found (Moyle 2002,
p. 285). One possible indication that California golden trout adapted
without predators is the trout's active behavior during both day and
night (Matthews 1996a, pp. 82, 84-85).
California golden trout home ranges were calculated as the linear
distance that encompasses 90 percent of trout locations, based on
movements recorded using radio-telemetry during the months of July and
September (Matthews 1996a, p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587). California
golden trout were found to have small home ranges that average 5 m (16
ft) (Matthews 1996a, p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587). Movements of 26 to
100 m (86 to 328 ft) were observed, but these constituted less than 1
percent of all observations (Matthews 1996b, p. 587).
The Conservation Strategy
Since publication of the 90-day finding in 2002 (67 FR 59241;
September 20, 2002), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),
the Forest Service, and the Service (hereafter referred to collectively
as the Agencies) completed a revised Conservation Assessment and
Strategy for the California Golden Trout (Conservation Strategy) dated
September 17, 2004 (CDFG et al. 2004a). The Conservation Strategy
replaced a previous guidance document known as the Conservation
Strategy for the Volcano Creek (California) Golden Trout (1999
Conservation Strategy), which had been in effect since April 22, 1999.
The Agencies also signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on September
17, 2004, to implement the Conservation Strategy (CDFG et al. 2004b);
both the Conservation Strategy and MOA are currently in effect. The
purposes of the Conservation Strategy are to:
(1) Protect and restore California golden trout genetic integrity
and distribution within its native range;
(2) Improve riparian and instream habitat for the restoration of
California golden trout populations; and
(3) Expand educational efforts regarding California golden trout
restoration and protection.
The Agencies' intent has been to encourage ongoing nongovernmental
stakeholder coordination and consultation throughout the implementation
phase of the Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy is based
on adaptive management, with tasks being removed, added, or adjusted
annually as new information becomes available. The Agencies, through
the MOA, agreed to formally implement and collaborate on the
Conservation Strategy and make any necessary adaptive management
changes as the primary mechanism for the conservation of the California
golden trout. Implementation of many tasks described in the
Conservation Strategy began while it was under development, and have
continued since its finalization. Those tasks and other conservation
efforts implemented in prior years are summarized below throughout the
five-factor analysis.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act treats
subspecies such as the California golden trout as species for these
purposes (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the California
golden trout in relation to the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month finding on the petition,
we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial information. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition and our subsequent investigations have identified
several habitat-related activities relevant to the conservation status
of California golden trout, including: Livestock grazing management,
pack stock use, recreation, artificial fish barriers, and beavers. We
address each activity below.
Livestock Grazing Management
The combined effect of current livestock grazing activities in the
Golden Trout Wilderness and legacy conditions from historically
excessive grazing use have the potential to impact habitat and the
range of the California golden trout. The following subsections discuss
the effects of excessive historical grazing, current grazing management
practices, and habitat restoration and monitoring efforts within the
basins in which the native stream habitat of the California golden
trout occurs.
Historical Effects of Excessive Grazing
Grazing of livestock in Sierra Nevada meadows and riparian areas
began in the mid-1700s with the European settlement of California
(Menke et al. 1996, p. 909). Following the gold rush of the mid-1800s,
grazing rose to a level that exceeded the carrying capacity of the
available range and caused significant impacts to the grazed ecosystems
(Meehan and Platts 1978, p. 275; Menke et al. 1996, p. 909).
Approximately 95 percent of the California golden trout's native stream
habitat has been subjected to varying intensities of grazing for more
than 130 years (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 31). Livestock grazing within the
national forests in the southern and high Sierras has continued with
gradual reductions since the 1920s, except for an increase during World
War II (Menke et al. 1996, pp. 909-910, 916-919).
Livestock can contribute to the destabilization of stream banks by
[[Page 63098]]
accelerating erosion and increasing bank disturbance (Kauffman et al.
1983, pp. 684-685; Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, p. 279). Livestock grazing
in meadows and on stream banks can compact soils, which reduces water
infiltration rates and the soil's ability to hold water, thereby
increasing surface runoff rates into adjacent streams, downcutting
streambeds, and lowering the watertable (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp.
275-276; Kauffman et al. 1983, pp. 684-685; Kauffman and Krueger 1984,
pp. 433-434; Bohn and Buckhouse 1985, p. 378; Armour et al. 1994, pp.
7-10). In some cases, excessive livestock grazing has resulted in the
conversion of wet meadows into dry flats and in diminished perennial
stream flows (Armour et al. 1994, p. 7). Erosion from trampling causes
stream bank collapse and an accelerated rate of soil movement from land
into streams (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-276). Accelerated rates
of erosion lead to elevated instream sediment loads and depositions,
and changes in channel morphology, which alter the structure of the
aquatic environment used by fish for spawning (Meehan and Platts 1978,
pp. 275-276; Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 433-434; Bohn and Buckhouse
1985, p. 378). These effects to the aquatic ecosystem increase with
increases in the intensity of grazing (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-
276).
Livestock grazing can cause a nutrient loading problem due to
urination and defecation in or near the water, and elevate bacteria
levels in areas where cattle are concentrated near water (Meehan and
Platts 1978, p. 276; Stephenson and Street 1978, p. 152; Kauffman and
Krueger 1984, p. 432). The nutrient status of streams can create a
cause and effect relationship between nutrient levels, bacterial
growth, and insect mortality (Lemly 1998, p. 234). Growth of
filamentous bacteria on the bodies and gills of aquatic insects was
demonstrated to be an effect of nutrient loading in livestock-use
pastures, significantly lowering the density of insect occurrences at
downstream sites (Lemly 1998, pp. 234-235). Aquatic insects suffered
extensive mortality because of this bacterial growth in laboratory and
field studies, indicating that elevated bacteria levels can negatively
influence stream insect populations (Lemly 1998, pp. 234-235, 237),
which can result in detrimental effects to prey species important to
fish.
Several studies have documented the environmentally detrimental
impacts of historical grazing practices in areas within the range of
the California golden trout. Albert (1982, pp. 29-47) studied factors
influencing the riparian condition of streams in the Golden Trout
Wilderness and adjoining watersheds in Sequoia National Park. Her
results showed that stream zones in the South Fork Kern River and
Golden Trout Creek were less stable, had more livestock damage, and
were generally in poorer condition than those in Sequoia National Park,
which had not been grazed for the preceding 50 years. Stream reaches
with light cattle use had channel bottoms that were more stable (less
subject to erosional and depositional changes) than heavily used
reaches (Albert 1982, pp. 48-51).
Odion et al. (1988, pp. 277-289) examined the effects of cattle
grazing and recovery potential in Templeton and Ramshaw Meadows along
the South Fork Kern River. Vegetation change was monitored inside and
outside of exclosures that were established along riparian areas within
the range of California golden trout. Odion et al. (1988, pp. 277-289)
concluded that livestock trampling and defoliation caused a breakdown
of the protective sod layer in the meadows, allowing streams to incise
(where the streambed channel downcuts in elevation, reducing habitat
quality and quantity), produce gullies, and lower the water table.
Subsequently, plants adapted for a dry habitat, such as sagebrush,
invaded the altered meadows. Results of density monitoring indicated
that cattle trampling impaired colonization of plant species important
in stabilizing substrate on stream banks, thus reducing the natural
revegetation potential of bare stream bank habitat (Odion et al. 1988,
p. 283).
Matthews (1996b, pp. 579-589) used radio transmitters to determine
habitat selection and movement patterns of California golden trout in
two stream reaches with different levels of habitat recovery on Mulkey
Creek. The study areas were differentiated by high and low coverage of
Carex rostrata (beaked sedge) along the stream banks. Low coverage
areas were typically associated with signs of cattle degradation, such
as widened stream channels, collapsed banks, and a reduction in areas
with undercut banks. In both low and high sedge reaches, California
golden trout more often selected undercut banks, aquatic vegetation,
and sedge while avoiding bare and collapsed banks caused by livestock
grazing. They were most commonly found in pools and runs (slow moving
areas in a stream), where they used habitat features such as undercut
banks, aquatic vegetation, and sedges, all of which typically can be
damaged by excessive cattle grazing along stream banks.
Knapp and Matthews (1996, pp. 816-817) examined the effects of
excessive livestock grazing on California golden trout and their
habitat inside and outside of grazing exclosures in the South Fork Kern
River watershed. In the 2-year study, most physical parameters of the
stream channels showed large differences between grazed and ungrazed
sites, with ungrazed sites displaying greater canopy shading, stream
depth, bank-full height, and narrower stream width. Densities and
biomass of California golden trout per unit area were significantly
higher in ungrazed versus grazed areas in three out of four
comparisons, but differences were less consistent when density and
biomass were calculated using stream length. Other findings of this
study indicate a significant decrease in stream width in the upper
Ramshaw Meadows exclosure between 1984 and 1993, and a greater number
of willow plants inside exclosures than outside.
Not all studies found differences in grazed and ungrazed areas.
Sarr (1995, pp. 97, 104) did not find significant differences in stream
morphology in his study between grazed and ungrazed reaches on the
South Fork Kern River. In a movement and habitat use study, California
golden trout were monitored with radio transmitters inside and outside
of grazing exclosures on the South Fork Kern River (Matthews 1996a, pp.
78-85). No differences in distance moved or home range were found
between California golden trout inside and outside exclosures, and most
fish were found within 5 m (16.4 ft) of their previously recorded
location.
Current Levels of Grazing Use
Many grazing impacts to the Kern Plateau were originally caused by
unmanaged grazing practices dating back to the late 1800s, during which
tens of thousands of cattle were grazed over long periods of time (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 31). Grazing use has been greatly reduced since then
in order to restore natural habitat conditions (CDFG et al. 2004a, p.
34). Additionally, during the past decade the Inyo National Forest has
completely restricted grazing on two of its four grazing allotments. In
February of 2001, a Decision Notice was signed that implemented a 10-
year period of rest on the Templeton and Whitney grazing allotments to
facilitate recovery of watershed and channel conditions. The notice
indicated that grazing on the two allotments would be reconsidered at
the end of the 10-year period (USFS 2001a, p. 5). The USFS expects to
reach a decision on this issue in June of 2012 (USFS 2011, p. 10).
[[Page 63099]]
Within the Sequoia National Forest from 2001 to 2004, two of the
three available grazing allotments had little or no grazing, while the
third utilized up to 65 percent of the total livestock permitted (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 19). Grazing use levels in the Sequoia National Forest
are lower than permitted largely because of remoteness and
inaccessibility (Anderson 2006), whereas in the Inyo National Forest, a
1995 amendment (typically referred to as Amendment 6, discussed below)
to the Forest-wide grazing utilization standards of the Forest's Land
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has apparently resulted in reduced
cattle use (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Current Grazing Management Practices
In 1995, Amendment 6 to the Inyo National Forest LRMP was developed
to establish forest-wide grazing utilization standards, which are
requirements in addition to existing utilization standards contained in
grazing permits (USFS 1995, pp. 13, 14). The forest-wide standards were
designed, in part, to improve the existing condition of streams
supporting California golden trout in grazed watersheds (USFS 1995, pp.
27, 28). The Amendment allows Forest Service personnel to tailor
grazing utilization standards to maintain or improve hydrologic and
meadow conditions. Grazing utilization standards establish an upper
limit of forage that grazing cattle may consume before being moved to a
new area (Sims 2011b, p. 1). Inyo National Forest personnel conduct
annual monitoring of representative meadows to determine whether
utilization standards have been exceeded. If they do find that
standards have been exceeded they adjust the standards downwards in
following years to allow recovery. The utilization standards themselves
are reassessed every 5 to 10 years to ensure that they avoid habitat
degradation (including the degradation of stream habitat) (Sims 2011b,
p. 1).
The Inyo National Forest LRMP also restricts trampling of
streambanks to 10 percent of the streambank length along State trout
waters (which include most of the streams supporting California golden
trout), and to 20 percent along other waters (USFS 1988a, pp. 78-79).
As with utilization standards, annual monitoring of representative
streambanks helps assure these standards are not exceeded, and allows
grazing prescriptions to be adjusted to promote recovery of the
streambanks if the standards are exceeded (Sims 2011b, p. 1).
Additionally, salt provided for cattle must be located at least 0.25 mi
(0.4 km) away from riparian areas, and additional requirements may
apply to specific management areas with unique characteristics. For
example, range management direction for the Golden Trout Management
Area (19) amends grazing allotment plans to include necessary
mitigation measures and corrective actions if grazing is significantly
impacting fish habitat (USFS 1988a, p. 236).
On the Sequoia National Forest, LRMP grazing standards and
guidelines applicable to all streams within the habitat of the
California golden trout were amended in 2004 (subsequent to the October
13, 2000, petition to list the California golden trout) by the adoption
of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (CDFG et al. 2004a,
p. 23). The new standards and guidelines, established for the
protection of rare aquatic populations such as the California golden
trout, require habitat managers to implement the following conservation
measures:
(1) Prevent disturbance to meadow-associated streambanks and
natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities from
exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and
pond shorelines.
(2) Limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a
maximum consumption of 30 percent of each plant by volume (or minimum 6
in (15 cm) stubble height) for meadows in early seral status; limit
livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum
consumption of 40 percent of each plant by volume (or minimum of 4 in
(10 cm) stubble height for meadows in late seral status).
(3) Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for
grazing utilization prior to establishing utilization levels.
(4) Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader
growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of
individual seedlings (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 23, 84, 87).
Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Efforts
The Inyo National Forest has installed several exclosures in
riparian areas within the range of the California golden trout to
protect and restore portions of the South Fork Kern River, Mulkey
Creek, Ninemile Creek, and Golden Trout Creek from grazing impacts (see
also Historical Effects of Excessive Grazing section above). Livestock
exclosures totaling several miles exist on numerous stream reaches in
all four grazing allotments within Inyo National Forest. Exclosures in
the Monache and Mulkey allotments, where grazing is currently allowed,
are currently excluding cattle from areas where they would otherwise be
grazing. Exclosures in the Whitney and Templeton allotments, which are
currently being rested from grazing, will only begin to actively
exclude cattle if and when grazing is resumed on those allotments.
Research by Knapp and Matthews (1996, pp. 816-817) in Mulkey and
Ramshaw Meadows showed that areas within exclosures display greater
canopy shading, stream depth, bankful height, and narrower stream
width. Studies by Odion et al. (1988, p. 277) in Ramshaw and Templeton
Meadows indicated that exclosures allowed significantly more pioneer
species to colonize areas that were bare from disturbance. Photo-points
recorded between 1989 and 2005 within a number of these exclosures
indicate recovery in many areas that were once degraded by grazing
(Sims 2006a). For these reasons, livestock exclosures have contributed
to restoring habitat, reducing the effects of grazing, and preventing
future damage to these habitats for the subspecies. Because exclosures
require maintenance, activities conducted pursuant to annual work plans
within the Conservation Strategy have included annual maintenance of
cattle exclosure fencing (McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 17; Sims and
McGuire 2006, p. 12).
In addition to monitoring and cattle exclusion efforts, Inyo
National Forest has completed numerous projects to stabilize soil and
prevent erosion (USFS 2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 35). In
addition to preventing further degradation, such treatments can direct
stream flows to reestablish stream characteristics beneficial to
California golden trout, such as overhanging banks and vegetation.
These restoration and stabilization projects generally involve placing
materials such as rocks or logs at key points of eroding streams in a
given area to catch sediments and prevent further erosion. Since 1996,
such projects have been completed at 19 sites (USFS 2005 in McGuire and
Sims 2006, pp. 35, 37). Between 1933 and the mid-1980s, approximately
800 erosion control structures were installed in the Golden Trout
Wilderness (USFS 1988a, p. 236; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Conservation activities that have been conducted for the benefit of
the California golden trout are described in the report titled,
``Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Accomplishments on the Kern
Plateau'' (Kern Plateau Report) (USFS 2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006,
pp. 32-42), which summarizes watershed improvement and monitoring
projects within the grazing allotments on the
[[Page 63100]]
Kern Plateau since the 1930s. For example, from 2002 to 2003, the
Forest Service implemented intensive monitoring and data collection
over a wide area of the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek
watersheds to assist in determining watershed condition trends (USFS
2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 32). A wide-scale headcut monitoring
effort was initiated in 2003 at various parts of the Kern Plateau on
both active and rested grazing allotments. Photo-points have been
established at various locations on the Kern Plateau to monitor trends
in stream bank stability, headcut migration, and vegetation patterns,
with data collected indicating recovery in many areas that were
affected by grazing (Sims 2006a, p. 1). The Kern Plateau Report also
identifies opportunities for monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of management practices. Recent results from these
monitoring efforts showed significant improvement in meadow condition
and streambank stability for the two allotments rested from grazing
(Templeton and Whitney), and a positive trend in meadow and streambank
conditions for the Mulkey allotment (Weixelman 2011, p. 12). No sites
were shown to decline in condition (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63).
Overall, 64 percent of sites in grazed allotments and 74 percent in
ungrazed allotments are now meeting desired conditions (good to
excellent) (Weixelman 2011, pp. 3, 12).
The Conservation Strategy also includes monitoring of the
effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) to determine their
effectiveness in protecting California golden trout habitat, with an
annual report completed for inclusion in the annual accomplishment
reports (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 54). BMPs are a practice or combination
of practices that are the most effective and practical means of
preventing or reducing water pollution from non-point sources. We also
note that the MOA commits the signatories of the Conservation Strategy
to meet annually to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy,
determine whether the goals and objectives are being adequately
achieved, and discuss whether the strategy requires any adaptive
changes to better conserve the California golden trout (CDFG et al.
2004b, p. 3). This means that changes in management can occur if
conditions or results of monitoring indicate there is a negative change
to the California golden trout's habitat or range. The MOA also
contains a provision that if any element of the Conservation Strategy
is determined infeasible, or if any new threat is identified, then the
Agencies will be notified within 30 days and a meeting will be held to
determine the course of action (CDFG et al. 2004b, p. 4). Thus, in the
event of a change in future conditions that result in an unacceptable
level of impacts due to excessive grazing, appropriate changes in
management can occur.
Summary of Livestock Grazing Management
In summary, historical excessive grazing practices have affected
the stream habitat in nearly the entire native range of the California
golden trout. Habitat degradation has been addressed in recent decades
with numerous conservation efforts, such as reducing the season of use
and number of cattle allowed to graze on an allotment, implementing
grazing standards and guidelines in the LRMPs, resting of grazing
allotments, implementing watershed monitoring, and completing
restoration projects. Monitoring of Golden Trout Creek and upper South
Fork Kern watersheds has found that implementing these conservation
efforts has improved meadow and streambank conditions for three of four
grazing allotments, and has stabilized conditions in the fourth grazing
allotment (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p. 12). Based
on our evaluation of current practices and of recent and ongoing
restoration activities, we do not consider livestock grazing to present
a significant threat to the California golden trout now or into the
future.
Pack Stock Use
Similar to cattle, horses and mules may significantly overgraze,
trample, or pollute streamside habitat if too many are concentrated in
riparian areas too often or for too long. Commercial pack stock trips
are permitted in national forests within the Sierra Nevada, providing
transport services into wilderness areas with the use of horses or
mules. Use of pack stock in the Sierra Nevada increased after World War
II as road access, leisure time, and disposable income increased (Menke
et al. 1996, p. 919). The Inyo National Forest has permitted commercial
pack operators since the 1920s (USFS 2006a, p. 1). Current commercial
pack stock use is approximately 27 percent of the level of use in the
1980s reflecting a decline in the public's need and demand for pack
stock trips. From 2001 to 2005, commercial pack stock outfitters within
the Golden Trout and South Sierra Wilderness Areas averaged 28 percent
of their current authorized use (USFS 2006b, p. 3-18).
Currently, pack stock use within Golden Trout and South Sierra
Wilderness Areas overlaps with historical and current livestock grazing
locations, thus making it difficult to identify impacts to vegetation
that are due specifically to pack stock use (USFS 2006b, p. 3-13).
Monitoring of pack stock grazing impacts on meadows within the
California golden trout's range shows a general trend of decreasing
impacts to stream bank stability. This trend is believed to be due to
restoration efforts and the cancellation of cattle grazing permits
(USFS 2006b, p. 3-12).
Allowable pack stock uses are limited in the Inyo National Forest
by the same restrictions discussed above for cattle, such as the
Amendment 6 forest-wide grazing utilization standards and the 10
percent limit to bank trampling along State trout waters (USFS 200b, p.
3-353). Pack stock grazing is also prohibited in specific meadows,
including Volcano Meadow, South Fork Meadow (at the headwaters of the
South Fork of the Kern River), and parts of Ramshaw Meadow. As
discussed above, these restrictions have resulted in improved
conditions for the majority of monitored habitat for which we have
monitoring results, and stabilized conditions for the remainder of that
habitat (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p. 12).
Accordingly, we consider current habitat management practices
sufficient to prevent pack stock use from posing a significant threat
to the California golden trout.
Recreation
Recreational activities that include hiking, camping, and off-road
vehicle (ORV) use take place throughout the Sierra Nevada and can have
impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats (impacts from fishing
are discussed below under Factor B--Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section). Impacts to
wilderness areas can vary in their extent, longevity, and intensity
(Cole and Landres 1996, pp. 169-170). In easily accessible areas, heavy
foot traffic in riparian areas can trample vegetation, compact soils,
and physically damage stream banks (Kondolf et al. 1996, pp. 1014,
1019). Human foot, horse, bicycle, or ORV trails can replace riparian
habitat with compacted soil (Kondolph et al. 1996, pp. 1014, 1017,
1019), lower the water table, and cause increased erosion.
Recreation is the fastest growing use of national forests (USFS
2001b, p. 453). Because of an increasing demand for wilderness
recreational experiences,
[[Page 63101]]
wilderness land management now includes standards for wilderness
conditions, implementing permit systems, and other visitor management
techniques to reduce impacts to habitat, including riparian habitat
(Cole 2001, pp. 4-5). These wilderness land management techniques are
currently being used on the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests where
they are expected to benefit California golden trout by reducing
impacts on its habitat.
All of the current range of the California golden trout, with the
exception of the Monache Meadow and Kennedy Meadow areas, is
encompassed within the federally designated Golden Trout, South Sierra,
and Domeland Wilderness areas, where access is difficult and impacts
from recreation are lower than in easily accessible areas. Recreational
use currently is low and well-dispersed in these areas. The Forest
Service monitors wilderness use levels and limits wilderness use if
recreation levels are determined to be high (Sims 2006a, p. 1).
Recreational impacts are ameliorated by the implementation of various
management actions, such as camping restrictions, wilderness ranger
presence, and permit requirements. Camping within the Golden Trout
Wilderness is not allowed within 100 ft (30 m) of lakes or streams, and
a permit is required by the Sequoia National Forest for overnight use.
These measures minimize impacts to the fish's habitat. Additionally,
Federal designation of an area as Wilderness prohibits the use of
motorized or mechanized equipment by the public, with limited
exceptions, and therefore provides protection from ORV impacts within
these areas.
On National Forest lands outside of federally designated wilderness
areas, California golden trout stream habitat occurs in high-use areas,
such as Monache and Kennedy Meadows. In these areas, recreational
impacts are occurring and are expected to continue. Recreational use
occurs primarily on the South Fork Kern River through Monache Meadows
on the Inyo National Forest and Kennedy Meadows on the Sequoia National
Forest. Motorized access in Monache Meadows is restricted to use of a
single 4-wheel-drive road that enters to the south of the meadow.
Camping, fishing, and hunting are the primary uses, as well as access
for pack stock (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 21). Kennedy Meadows is easily
accessed by road and receives heavy use during the trout season for
fishing and camping activities. Easily accessible and popular fishing
areas, such as Monache and Kennedy Meadows, are being impacted by
anglers, whose use of the stream banks can lead to collapsed undercut
banks, compacted soils, and disturbed riparian vegetation (Stephens
2001a, p. 64).
Although recreational impacts are expected to continue, they are
localized to a few areas within the native range of the California
golden trout. In addition, the Forest Service and CDFG have implemented
measures identified in the Conservation Strategy to offset recreational
impacts to the subspecies. Restoration and stabilization projects were
implemented adjacent to and within the Monache Allotment in 2004 to
address ORV impacts to the meadow habitat in the South Fork Kern River
drainage. A brochure for recreational users was produced in 2005 and
2006 that informed the public about fishing and requested help with
restoration projects aimed at protecting the California golden trout;
it is available for recreational users at area ranger stations, visitor
centers, and local flyfishing shops. Information regarding volunteer
field activities, opportunities for public involvement, subspecies
information, and agency contacts is also posted on the California Trout
and Trout Unlimited web pages. Through these volunteer field
activities, Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the Federation of
Flyfishers have assisted CDFG and the Forest Service to protect and
restore California golden trout and their habitat.
In summary, recreational activities have the potential to
negatively impact the habitat and range of the California golden trout
through trampling and vegetation loss due to use by pack stock, humans,
and ORVs. We believe that some adverse effects to the California golden
trout from recreation at high-use areas outside of federally designated
Wilderness Areas will continue; however, these effects are expected to
remain localized and not rise to a level that would significantly
affect the subspecies as a whole. We conclude that current wilderness
land management standards afford considerable protection from a variety
of potential recreational impacts to habitat of the California golden
trout in wilderness. Implementation of management activities by the
Forest Service and CDFG have offset recreational impacts to California
golden trout habitat in several high-use recreational areas outside of
designated wilderness. Activities such as public outreach and
stakeholder involvement have been, and continue to be, conducted to
help limit potential recreational impacts over the native range of the
California golden trout. Consequently, we conclude that habitat loss
due to recreational activity does not currently present a significant
threat to the California golden trout, and we do not expect it to
become a significant threat in the future.
Artificial Fish Barriers
Three barriers have been constructed on the South Fork Kern River
to prevent upstream migration of nonnative trout species, and thereby
to reduce their introgression and competition with California golden
trout. Between 1970 and 1973, the Ramshaw Barrier was constructed in a
gorge at the upper end of Ramshaw Meadows; it is located farthest
upstream from the other barriers on the South Fork Kern River. In 1973,
the Templeton Barrier was constructed of rock, chain-link fencing, and
filter fabric at the head of Templeton Gorge, located approximately
11.3 km (7 mi) downstream of the Ramshaw Barrier at the eastern end of
Templeton Meadows. In 1980, Templeton Barrier was replaced with a rock-
filled gabion structure across the river that resembled a small dam. In
1981, the Schaeffer Barrier was constructed 11.3 km (7 mi) downstream
from the Templeton Barrier at the upper end of Monache Meadows.
Although the Ramshaw Barrier has been impassable to fish since
1973, both the Templeton and Schaeffer barriers were determined in 1994
to be on the verge of collapse (Stephens 2001a, p. 33; CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 36). In 1996, the gabion dam at Templeton was replaced with a
rock and concrete dam immediately downstream and in contact with the
existing structure (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37). In 2003, Schaeffer
Barrier was replaced with a reinforced concrete dam that is 2 ft (0.6
m) higher than the old barrier and includes a concrete apron below the
spillway to prevent the formation of a jump pool below the barrier
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37). As a result of these modifications, all
three barriers now effectively prevent upstream fish passage (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 37; Lentz 2011, p. 1).
The construction of these fish barriers and subsequent
modifications likely have had some negative effect on California golden
trout by altering their stream habitat. Dams, water diversions, and
their associated structures can alter the natural flow regime both
upstream and downstream of dams. However, because the barriers have
been constructed to prevent passage of nonnative fish and to protect
the California golden trout rather than to impound water, we expect
that their effect on stream conditions and hydrology are limited to
localized areas where the barriers are placed. The barriers have the
potential to fragment
[[Page 63102]]
the California golden trout's stream habitat because they generally
prevent the upstream movement of fish, including California golden
trout. However, California golden trout may be somewhat insulated from
these effects because they generally do not move far from where they
were hatched, except under unusually high flood flows (Stephens 2003,
p. 5). The barriers also facilitate the restoration of natural prey and
competitor conditions in the California golden trout's stream habitat
by preventing population of the streams by nonnative brown trout (Salmo
trutta). The effects of artificial fish barriers on movement of brown
trout are discussed below under Factor C--Disease or Predation. Effects
on movement of hybridized trout are discussed under Factor E--Other
Natural or Human Factors.
In summary, the three artificial fish barriers that have been
placed on the South Fork Kern River are expected to have localized
effects to the stream habitat of the California golden trout, and are
also expected to benefit the subspecies in the future by allowing
restoration of natural predator and prey relationships within the
habitat. We conclude that the barriers do not constitute a significant
threat to California golden trout at this time or in the future.
Beavers
Beavers (Castor canadensis) currently exist within the native range
of the California golden trout. Although beavers were native to
California's Central Valley in the early 19th century, they were not
generally known from the Sierra Nevada except where introduced by
humans (Tappe 1942, pp. 7, 8, 13, 14, 20). Native beaver populations
experienced great declines during the early exploration of California
by traders and trappers (Tappe 1942, p. 6). Subsequent reestablishment
and introductions have extended their original range (CDFG 2006, p. 1).
In the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountain ranges, beavers inhabit
streams, ponds, and lake margins from Modoc County south to Inyo County
(CDFG 2006, pp. 1, 2). Beavers commonly inhabit riparian areas of mixed
coniferous-deciduous forests and deciduous forests containing abundant
beaver forage and lodge-building material, including Salix spp.
(willows), Alnus spp. (alders), and Populus spp. (cottonwoods) (Allen
1983, p. 1; CDFG 2006).
There is debate over whether beavers are native to the Kern River
basin (Townsend 1979, pp.16-20; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 33). Beavers were
introduced by CDFG in the 1940s and 1950s as a tool to restore meadow
habitat degraded by livestock grazing. Beavers can have positive and
negative effects on trout habitat. Beaver ponds can provide pool
habitat for fish, reduce severe ice conditions, and increase
populations of bottom-dwelling invertebrates suitable for trout to eat
(Gard 1961, p. 240). However, siltation resulting from beaver dams can
also degrade spawning habitat for California golden trout, which
require gravel for spawning (Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529).
In a study conducted on Sagehen Creek on the eastern slope of the
Sierra Nevada, Gard (1961, pp. 240-241) concluded that beavers were a
benefit to trout in this high-elevation creek because they improved
fish habitat, forage, spawning activities, and population numbers.
Currently, large beaver populations occur in upper and lower
Ramshaw Meadows. Additional populations of unknown size also exist at
other locations within the Kern River Plateau (CDFG et al. 2004a, p.
33). As of 2004, negative effects of beaver activity within the native
range of the California golden trout have not been documented (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 33). Additionally, we are currently unaware of any
additional information that document negative effects of beaver within
the range of the California golden trout. The Conservation Strategy
discusses the beaver as a potential issue for the California golden
trout; therefore, CDFG and the Inyo National Forest monitor and
evaluate the effect of beaver activity within the native range of the
California golden trout. For example, beaver populations were monitored
in 2004, 2005, and 2008 at areas on Golden Trout Creek and Ramshaw
Meadow that are considered to have the highest potential impacts from
beaver on golden trout habitat (CDFG and USFS 2006a, pp. 16-17; CDFG
and USFS 2006b, p. 11; McGuire et al. 2009, p. 11). At Ramshaw, two
active dams were observed in 2008 and the beaver population appeared
stable since the previous monitoring in 2005. At Golden Trout Creek, a
single beaver dam had been maintained since 2003. No negative impacts
from the beaver populations were documented. Therefore, we conclude
that beaver activity does not currently constitute a threat to the
California golden trout, nor do we expect it to in the future.
Summary of Factor A
California golden trout stream habitat has historically been
adversely affected by livestock grazing and, to a lesser degree, pack
stock use, recreational activities, and artificial fish barriers.
Conservation efforts related to reducing the effects of livestock
grazing (including reduced seasonal use, reduced numbers of cattle
grazed, resting of grazing allotments, and installation of livestock
exclosures) have improved habitat conditions for the California golden
trout, resulting in improvements to the majority of monitored habitat
for which we have results and stabilization of the remainder of that
habitat (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p. 12). Pack
stock use has a minimal effect on the habitat of the California golden
trout, and those effects are subject to the same protections governing
livestock use. Current wilderness land management standards,
restoration activities, and public outreach and stakeholder involvement
have reduced potential threats of recreational activities. Although
artificial fish barriers have locally altered the stream habitat of the
California golden trout, these structures perform a crucial role in the
prevention of upstream migration of nonnative brown trout and
introgression with nonnative rainbow trout. Finally, available
information does not indicate that beaver activity is a concern to the
California golden trout. Based on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have determined that the California golden
trout is not currently threatened by the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range such
that it warrants listing under the Act, nor do we anticipate it posing
a threat in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
There is no commercial fishing for California golden trout;
however, recreational fishing is permitted by CDFG. In the Golden Trout
Wilderness, the fishing season begins on the last Saturday in April and
ends November 15. CDFG regulations allow anglers to possess five
California golden trout, which is a bag limit guided by State policy to
maintain wild trout stocks (CDFG 1979, p. 1). Regulations allow anglers
to use only artificial lures with barbless hooks. Angler harvest is
light in most areas within the native range of California golden trout
except at Monache Meadows, Kennedy Meadows, and a few other easily
accessible areas (Stephens 2001a, p. 64). Angler harvest does appear to
have depressed the population numbers at these heavily used locations
(Stephens 2001a, pp. 64, 65); however, impacts appear to be localized,
well-regulated, and small enough to allow sustainable
[[Page 63103]]
populations. Angling regulations are posted in fishing areas and
enforced (McGuire et al. 2009, p. 15). Knapp and Matthews (1996, p.
805) reported that California golden trout densities were generally
among the highest ever recorded for a stream-dwelling trout in the
western United States. Surveys conducted at Templeton Meadow on the
South Fork Kern River indicate that California golden trout population
numbers increased from 2,000 trout per mile in 1985 to about 7,000
trout per mile in 1999 (Stephens 2001b, p. 2). This indicates that
California golden trout population numbers were at a high density in
1999 and not at risk from overutilization from recreational fishing. We
are currently unaware of any information that demonstrates a decrease
in fish densities or impacts from overutilization from recreational
fishing as compared to 1999. Accordingly, the relatively limited
harvest of California golden trout does not appear to pose a
significant threat to the survival of the subspecies now or in the
future.
California golden trout are utilized in a nonlethal way for
scientific purposes. Specifically, CDFG, together with conservation
partners and volunteers, has been collecting trout fin tissue samples
since 2003 to conduct genetic evaluations necessary to restore native
golden trout populations. The genetic studies require a small clipping
from a fin, and this process rarely results in the death of an
individual fish. Because scientific collection is being conducted for
the betterment of the subspecies and because it rarely results in death
of fish, we conclude that overutilization for scientific purposes is
not a threat to California golden trout across its range, nor do we
anticipate overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or
education purposes posing a threat in the future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Predation and Competition With Brown Trout
Brown trout are not native to California. They have been introduced
to the South Fork Kern River and have established populations there,
but they have not established populations in Golden Trout Creek. Brown
trout have been noted to thrive in sections of many major west slope
streams in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, although their
distribution, even in small streams, is noted to be often quite
discontinuous, with pools and quieter waters thought to be more to
their liking (Dill and Cordone 1997, p. 100). Brown trout distribution
within specific habitat types has not been quantified for the South
Fork Kern River. The presence of brown trout in the South Fork Kern
River is likely due to stocking of the species at Kennedy Meadows
carried out by CDFG in 1940, 1941, and 1996 (McGuire 2011, pp. 2, 3).
The stocking program predates the construction of the Ramshaw,
Templeton, and Schaeffer fish barriers by at least 30 years (see Factor
A--Artificial Fish Barriers section above).
CDFG and Inyo National Forest have attempted to eradicate brown
trout from the upper reaches of the California golden trout range a
number of times by using piscicides (pesticides specific for fish) and
then restocking the areas with California golden trout. In 1969, brown
trout were present throughout the drainage and even in the headwaters
of the South Fork Kern River where brown trout outnumbered golden trout
by approximately 50 to 1 (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 28, 37). Installation
of the Ramshaw Barrier, in combination with chemical treatments,
resulted in removal of brown trout from the headwaters. Chemical
treatments were conducted from the Ramshaw to Templeton barriers in
1981, and the last treatments from the Templeton to Schaeffer barriers
in 1987. Subsequent monitoring of the treated reach of South Fork Kern
River indicated that the treatment was ineffective due to barrier
deterioration, which is now repaired (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 38). Movie
Stringer Creek, a western tributary to the South Fork Kern River
upstream of Templeton Barrier, was chemically treated in 2000; no other
chemical treatments have occurred since then.
The Strawberry Connection was a constructed diversion on Strawberry
Creek that facilitated a possible hydrologic route for brown trout to
enter the South Fork Kern River above the Templeton Barrier. This
diversion was removed in 1999, and efforts have been made to restore
Strawberry Creek to its historic channel. The Conservation Strategy
indicates some concern that brown trout may still be able to access
waters upstream of the Templeton Barrier during high flows (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 25); however, no brown trout have been located above the
barrier to date. Subsequent to completion of the Conservation Strategy,
the Inyo National Forest conducted an evaluation of the Strawberry
Connection during runoff events to map hydrologic flow (Sims and
McGuire 2006, p. 7). The evaluation noted that, due in part to the
absence of cattle for the previous 5 years, the Strawberry Connection
may be converting back to its natural state (Sims and McGuire 2006, p.
7). The area showed less compacted soils and was in the process of
reverting to a more boggy meadow, with channel flows focusing more
towards Strawberry Creek rather than towards the ``connection'' area.
This indicates the likely elimination of a possible passage for brown
trout around the Templeton Barrier during high water flows (Sims and
McGuire 2006, p. 7).
Annual monitoring of the South Fork Kern River indicates that brown
trout are still not present above the Templeton Barrier (Sims and
McGuire 2006, p. 6; Lentz 2011, p. 2). Brown trout are currently found
in the South Fork Kern River below Templeton Barrier, however, which
includes over 483 km (300 mi) of the stream distance that comprises the
historical range of the California golden trout (Stephens 2001a, p.
43). The remaining stream length in the historical range above the
Templeton Barrier is approximately 161 km (100 mi). The competitive
success of brown trout, where present, over California golden trout is
likely due to the fact that brown trout prey on all life stages of
California golden trout, and are a superior competitor for limited food
and habitat resources (Stephens 2001a, p. 43). The South Fork Kern
River below Schaeffer barrier has never been treated to remove brown
trout. Consequently, brown trout have been present in the lower South
Fork Kern River more than 70 years. Successful sampling of California
golden trout populations for genetic status has been conducted along
the South Fork Kern River (and its tributaries) below Schaeffer
Barrier, demonstrating that the species remains in sufficient numbers
to maintain reproducing populations in these lower reaches, despite the
presence of brown trout.
There is a potential threat of illegal fish transportation due to
the ease of vehicular access to Monache Meadows, the recreational
popularity of this area, and the presence of nonnative salmonids in
downstream portions of the South Fork Kern River. However, enforcement
of State fish and game laws are ongoing, and conservation efforts are
occurring to inform and educate the public about the conservation needs
of the California golden trout. CDFG wildlife protection personnel and
National Forest law enforcement personnel continue to inform visitors
of regulations, including the illegality of possession and
transportation of live trout within the California golden trout's
range. CDFG also produced brochures in 2005 and 2006 to inform the
public about the restoration program. The brochures were distributed to
Forest Service offices and
[[Page 63104]]
visitor centers, and also to local flyfishing shops, thereby informing
the public that transplanting fish is illegal and subject to a fine.
Summary of Predation and Competition With Brown Trout
The risk of predation and interspecific competition from nonnative
trout have been addressed through establishment and repair of the three
fish barriers, elimination of CDFG-sanctioned brown trout stocking
within the native range of the California golden trout, and various
treatments (described above) to eliminate brown trout above the
established barriers. The Forest Service and CDFG have been monitoring
barriers, conducting surveys, and eradicating brown trout.
Electrofishing surveys above and below Templeton and Schaeffer Barriers
are being conducted annually to assess the effectiveness of the
barriers, determine the current status and distribution of brown trout,
and reduce brown trout numbers at the upstream extent of their
distribution (Lentz 2011, p. 2). Although the goals of completely
controlling brown trout in the South Fork Kern River are yet to be
achieved, we nonetheless consider active programs by the Forest Service
and CDFG to discourage illegal transport, and to monitor for and remove
brown trout from California golden trout waters, to be reasonable and
effective approaches for addressing the threat of brown trout.
No brown trout have been found above the Templeton Barrier since
they were eradicated in the early 1980s (McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 10;
Sims and McGuire 2006, p. 6). Mark-recapture tests of golden trout
hybrids captured below the Schaeffer Barrier subsequent to its
improvement in 2003 failed to find any fish that had successfully
navigated past the barrier, indicating that brown trout are also
incapable of passing the barrier (Sims and McGuire 2006, p. 6).
Subsequent elimination of brown trout between the Schaeffer and
Templeton barriers (a goal of the Conservation Strategy (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 28)) is, therefore, possible. Additionally, current
information available to us does not indicate a population-level effect
of brown trout predation or competition that would warrant listing.
Therefore, we conclude that, due to the management efforts being
implemented, risk of predation and competition from brown trout does
not pose a significant threat to the California golden trout throughout
its range, nor do we anticipate predation posing and competition from
brown trout posing a threat in the future.
Whirling Disease
Whirling disease is caused by Myxobolus cerebralis, a metazoan
parasite that penetrates the head and spinal cartilage of fingerling
trout, where it multiplies very rapidly and puts pressure on the organ
of equilibrium. This causes the fish to swim erratically (whirl) and
have difficulty feeding and avoiding predators. In severe infections,
the disease can cause high rates of mortality in young-of-the-year
fish. Those that survive until the cartilage hardens to bone can live a
normal lifespan, but are marred by skeletal deformities. Fish can
reproduce without passing on the parasite to their offspring. Rearing
ponds used in many trout hatcheries provide conditions where the second
host of the parasite (the oligochaete worm Tubifex tubifex) can thrive.
Myxobolus cerebralis has never been found in any golden trout
sampled in California streams (Cox 2006, p. 1; Lentz 2011, p. 1). The
only fish currently stocked within the native range (sterile trout
stocked in Kennedy Meadows) are raised in a hatchery that is certified
free of disease (Stephens 2006, p. 1). Because hatchery-raised
California golden trout are no longer stocked within the native range
of this subspecies, it is extremely unlikely that whirling disease
could be spread to wild California golden trout populations. The
disease has not been found in California golden trout to date, and
there has been no documented loss or decline in California golden trout
populations due to the disease. Although it could represent a future
threat to the California golden trout, at this time the best scientific
and commercial information does not indicate that it is a threat now
nor likely to be a threat in the future.
Summary of Factor C
Although predation by, and competition with, brown trout have posed
a threat to the California golden trout in the past, continuing
conservation measures implemented by the State, cooperating agencies,
and other interested groups have reduced this threat to manageable
levels. Continued improvements of barriers have eliminated brown trout
from the upper reaches of the South Fork Kern River where they were
previously identified as a threat to the California golden trout. In
the lower reaches of the South Fork Kern River, our best information
indicates that populations descended from California golden trout have
not sustained population-level declines due to brown trout. Finally,
whirling disease has not been found in California golden trout to date.
Therefore, we conclude that predation (and competition) with brown
trout and whirling disease do not currently pose a threat to the
California golden trout throughout its range, nor do we anticipate
these to become threats in the future, such that listing under the Act
is warranted.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal Regulations
Management of habitat for the California golden trout falls under
the direction of the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests. Existing
Federal regulatory mechanisms that are relevant to providing protection
for the California golden trout in the Sierra Nevada include the
following: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287), Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960 (MUSY) (16 U.S.C. 528-531), Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management
Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Land and Resource
Management Plans for the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests (USFS 1988a;
CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 79-82), as amended by the SNFPA, and the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
NEPA requires all Federal agencies to formally document, consider,
and publicly disclose the environmental impacts of major Federal
actions and management decisions significantly affecting the human
environment. NEPA documentation is provided in an environmental impact
statement, an environmental assessment, or a categorical exclusion, and
may be subject to administrative or judicial appeal. The California
golden trout has been identified as a sensitive species by the Region 5
(Pacific Southwest Region) Regional Forester. As part of Forest Service
policy, an analysis will be conducted to evaluate potential management
decisions under NEPA, including preparation of a biological evaluation
to determine the potential effect of potential Forest Service actions
on this sensitive subspecies. However, the Forest Service is not
required to select an alternative having the least significant
environmental impacts and may select an action that will adversely
affect sensitive species provided that
[[Page 63105]]
these effects were known and identified in a NEPA document. The NEPA
process in itself is not likely to be considered a regulatory mechanism
that is certain to provide significant protection for the California
golden trout.
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136)
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness
Preservation System made up of Federal lands designated by Congress as
``wilderness areas'' for the purpose of preserving and protecting
designated areas in their natural condition, ``where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.'' The native range of the California
golden trout within the South Fork Kern River lies within three
wilderness areas: Golden Trout, South Sierra, and Domeland. The
Domeland Wilderness was designated in 1964 and is just south of the
South Sierra Wilderness (the road to Kennedy Meadows separates these
two wildernesses). The Golden Trout Wilderness was designated in 1978
specifically to provide protection for California golden trout; Golden
Trout Creek is wholly within this wilderness area. The South Sierra
Wilderness was designated in 1984 and is adjacent to and south of the
Golden Trout Wilderness.
Grazing of livestock is permitted within wilderness areas if it was
established prior to the passage of this Act. The Wilderness Act does
not specifically mention fish stocking, though it does state that the
Wilderness Act shall not affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of
States with wildlife and fish responsibilities in the national forests.
Fish stocking in wilderness areas is a controversial issue (Bahls 1992,
pp. 2568-2578, p. 2568; Landres et al. 2001, pp. 287-294); however,
wilderness designation generally has not limited fish stocking in the
Sierra Nevada (Knapp 1996, pp. 3-12). The Wilderness Act has direction
for managing designated wilderness to protect natural ecological
processes and is a regulatory mechanism that protects California golden
trout habitat from development or other types of habitat conversions,
such as commercial enterprise, road construction, use of motorized
vehicles or other equipment, and structural developments.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287)
Congress established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in
1968 to protect certain outstanding rivers from the harmful effects of
new Federal projects, such as dams, hydroelectric facilities, bank
armoring, and bridges. Rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or
recreational, and fishing is permitted in components of the system
under applicable Federal and State laws. The South Fork Kern River is
designated as Wild and Scenic throughout 66 river km (41 mi) as the
river passes through the South Sierra, Golden Trout, and Domeland
Wildernesses. This regulatory mechanism, along with the Wilderness Act,
thus protects approximately 10 percent of the California golden trout's
range from new Federal projects such as those listed above.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSY) (16 U.S.C. 528-531)
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSY) provides
direction that the national forests be managed using principles of
multiple-use and that the forests produce a sustained yield of products
and services. Specifically, MUSY provides policy that the national
forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.
MUSY directs resource management not to impair the productivity of the
land while giving consideration to the relative values of the various
resources, though not necessarily in terms of the greatest financial
return or unit output. MUSY provides direction to the Forest Service
that fish and wildlife is a value that must be managed for, though
discretion is given to each forest when considering the value of fish
and wildlife relative to the other uses for which it is managing.
Because the entire range of the California golden trout falls within
lands administered by the Forest Service, this regulatory mechanism
aids in the conservation of the subspecies in that fish are an
important benefit for which management must occur.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.)
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act was enacted in 1976, and
as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C.
1901-1908), provides the primary legal foundation for how the Forest
Service manages livestock grazing under its jurisdiction. This Act
requires that a percentage of all monies received through grazing fees
collected on Federal lands (including the Forest Service-administered
lands within the range of the California golden trout) be spent for the
purpose of on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and
improvement, including all forms of rangeland betterment, including
fence construction, water development, and fish and wildlife
enhancement. Half of the appropriated amount must be spent within the
national forest where such monies were derived. FLPMA, as amended, is a
regulatory mechanism that provides for some rangeland improvements
intended for the long-term betterment of forage conditions and
resulting benefits to wildlife, watershed protection, and livestock
production, which if implemented can result in various habitat
improvements and protections for the California golden trout.
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) provides the primary
legal foundation for Forest Service management of the public lands
under its jurisdiction. NFMA includes a provision that planning
regulations will include guidelines for land management plans that
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the
suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet
overall multiple-use objectives. Current planning regulations direct
that forests manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable
populations of existing native and nonnative vertebrate species. Within
each planning area, the provided habitat must support at least a
minimum number of reproductive individuals (36 CFR 219.20). The Forest
Service published new proposed planning regulations on February 14,
2011, which are intended ``to guide the collaborative and science-based
development, amendment, and revision of land management plans that
promote healthy, resilient, diverse, and productive national forests
and grasslands'' (76 FR 8480, pp. 8480, 8481). The proposed regulations
specify that plans must maintain viable populations of species of
conservation concern within the plan area to the extent that it is
within the authority of the Forest Service or the inherent capability
of the plan area to do so (76 FR 8480, p. 8518). Revisions to the Inyo
and Sequoia National Forest LRMPs would follow the regulations
established by this proposed rule, if made final.
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for the Inyo and Sequoia
National Forests
The 1988 Inyo National Forest LRMP, as amended (USFS 1995), and the
1988 Sequoia National Forest LRMP, were
[[Page 63106]]
both amended by the SNFPA (USFS 2004) and provide management direction
for the California golden trout. The Inyo National Forest is expecting
to revise its LRMP in 2014 (Sims 2011c, p. 1), while the date for
revision of the Sequoia National Forest LRMP is uncertain (Galloway
2011, p. 1) Specific direction under the current LRMPs is described in
the following paragraphs.
The Sequoia National Forest LRMP provides direction for managing
general aquatic and riparian species to increase the diversity of the
animal communities. Riparian areas are managed to maintain or restore
habitats for riparian species and those species associated with late
successional stages of vegetation.
The Inyo National Forest LRMP has direction specific for managing a
variety of resources. Specific standards and guidelines concerning
grazing are presented in Factor A above, but in brief, they include
trampling standards, direction for developing range Allotment
Management Plans, conducting annual utilization checks, and locating
salt outside of riparian areas. Direction specific for managing
riparian resources includes forest-wide standards and guidelines aimed
at maintaining or enhancing riparian-dependent resources and includes
(but is not limited to): Giving priority to the rehabilitation of
riparian areas when planning range, wildlife habitat, and watershed
improvements; using Allotment Management Plans as a vehicle for
ensuring protection of riparian areas from unacceptable impacts from
grazing; and rehabilitating or fencing riparian areas that consistently
show resource damage.
On January 12, 2001, a record of decision (ROD) was signed by the
Forest Service for the SNFPA Final Environmental Impact Statement (USFS
2001b). The SNFPA addresses five problem areas: Old-forest ecosystems
and associated species; aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and
associated species; fire and fuels; noxious weeds; and lower west-side
hardwood ecosystems. Subsequent to the establishment of management
direction by the SNFPA ROD, the Regional Forester assembled a review
team to evaluate specific plan elements. The review was completed in
March 2003, and as a result the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement was issued in January 2004 (USFS 2004). Forest Plans were
amended to be consistent with the new (2004) ROD, and all subsequent
project decisions fall under the 2004 direction. Within the native
range of the California golden trout, management of the Inyo and
Sequoia National Forests is affected by the SNFPA (USFS 2004).
Relevant to the California golden trout, the SNFPA aims to protect
and restore aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems and to provide for
the viability of its associated native species through an Aquatic
Management Strategy (AMS). The AMS is a general framework with broad
goals for watershed processes and functions, habitats, attributes, and
populations. There are nine goals associated with the AMS:
(1) Maintenance and restoration of water quality to comply with the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(2) Maintenance and restoration of habitat to support viable
populations of native and desired nonnative riparian-dependent species
and to reduce negative impacts of nonnative species on native
populations.
(3) Maintenance and restoration of species diversity in riparian
areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological
functions.
(4) Maintenance and restoration of the distribution and function of
biotic communities and biological diversity in special aquatic habitats
(such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes).
(5) Maintenance and restoration of spatial and temporal
connectivity for aquatic and riparian species within and between
watersheds to provide physically, chemically, and biologically
unobstructed movement for their survival, migration, and reproduction.
(6) Maintenance and restoration of hydrologic connectivity between
floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows and
to sustain diverse habitats.
(7) Maintenance and restoration of watershed conditions as measured
by favorable infiltration characteristics of soils and diverse
vegetation cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain
favorable conditions of stream flows.
(8) Maintenance and restoration of in-stream flows sufficient to
sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow
habitats and to keep sediment regimes within the natural range of
variability.
(9) Maintenance and restoration of the physical structure and
condition of stream banks and shorelines to minimize erosion and
sustain desired habitat diversity.
Riparian conservation objectives were developed to implement the
Aquatic Management Strategy. These objectives contain standards and
guidelines to maintain and restore riparian habitat and species.
The SNFPA ROD also includes two designations for aquatic and
riparian areas: Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) and Riparian
Conservation Areas (RCAs) (CDFG 2004a, p. 23). CARs are sub-watersheds
that contain either known locations of threatened, endangered, or
sensitive species, highly vulnerable populations of native plant or
animal species, or localized populations of rare aquatic or riparian-
dependent plant or animal species. RCAs are the lands around aquatic
features where special standards and guidelines exist to conserve those
features. RCA standards and guidelines apply in CARs except where an
overlapping land allocation has a greater restriction on management
activities. The width of an RCA is 91 m (300 ft) on each side of the
stream for perennial streams, and 46 m (150 ft) on each side of
intermittent and ephemeral streams, both being measured from the
bankfull edge of the stream (the edge of the channel slope descending
from the floodplain). An RCA width of 91 m (300 ft) is applicable to
the California golden trout because it exists in perennial streams.
Several CARs occur within the native range of the California golden
trout. Two CARs occur on the Sequoia National Forest, and one CAR
occurs on the Inyo National Forest.
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary mechanism in the United
States for surface water quality protection. It establishes the basic
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the
United States. It employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory
tools to reduce direct water quality impacts, finance water treatment
facilities, and manage polluted run-off. The Forest Service is the
designated water quality management agency under the CWA Section 208
Management Agency Agreement. Under this Agreement, the Forest Service
is required to implement State-approved BMPs and other measures to
achieve full compliance with all applicable State water quality
standards. Project-level analysis conducted under NEPA is required to
demonstrate compliance with CWA and State water quality standards (USFS
2004). Waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards with
implementation of existing management measures are listed as impaired
under section 303(d) of the CWA. Waters within California golden trout
habitat are not listed as impaired by the State (Strand 2006),
indicating that, in implementing this regulatory
[[Page 63107]]
mechanism, the Forest Service designs land management activities so
that existing levels of water quality and beneficial uses are
maintained and protected.
State Regulations
State regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for
the California golden trout and its habitat include the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.), and the California
Fish and Game Code (14 C.C.R. Sec. 1 et seq.). Applicable sections are
discussed below. In addition, the California Fish and Game Commission
(Commission) has regulatory powers to decide policy such as season, bag
limits, and methods of take for sport fish.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California golden trout was designated as the State freshwater
fish of California in 1947 and was listed as a fish species of special
concern by CDFG in 1995. The status of ``species of special concern''
applies to animals that are not listed under the Act or the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) but meet the following criteria:
Populations are low, scattered, or highly localized and require active
management to prevent them from becoming threatened or endangered
species (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 3).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code Sec.
21000 et seq.)
CEQA is the principal statute mandating environmental assessment of
projects in California. The purpose of CEQA is to evaluate whether a
proposed project may have an adverse effect on the environment
(including native fish and wildlife species), to disclose that
information to the public, and to determine whether significant adverse
effects can be reduced or eliminated by pursuing an alternative course
of action or through mitigation. CEQA applies to projects proposed to
be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local public agencies.
CEQA requires full disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of
public or private projects carried out by or authorized by non-Federal
agencies within the State of California. As such, CEQA provides some
protection for the California golden trout, should projects that would
be subject to CEQA be proposed within the native range of the species.
Fish stocking is not subject to full disclosure of its potential
environmental impacts, as it is exempt from CEQA under Article 19
section 15301(j). However, as discussed elsewhere stocking of nonnative
trout has been discontinued within the species' range.
California Fish and Game Code (14 C.C.R. Sec. 1 et seq.)
The California Fish and Game Commission, a separate entity from
CDFG, is a five-member group appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate. The Commission has set up several policies regarding the
California golden trout. Pursuant to section 703 of the Fish and Game
Code, the Commission has designated certain State waters to be managed
exclusively for wild trout. Those waters include the entire Golden
Trout Creek watershed and the majority of the South Fork Kern watershed
from the headwaters to the southern end of the South Sierra Wilderness.
In 1952, the Commission developed the Golden Trout Policy that
covers the three subspecies of golden trout in the Sierra Nevada. In
summary, the policy states the following:
(1) Certain waters within the high mountainous areas of Madera,
Fresno, Inyo, Mono, and Tulare Counties may be designated by CDFG as
``Golden Trout Waters of California'' and shall be maintained in as
genetically pure state as possible, and rainbow trout and other species
of trout shall not be planted in these designated golden trout waters.
(2) A brood stock shall be maintained in lakes set aside for the
sole purpose of egg production to provide fingerlings for planting
waters.
(3) Hatchery-reared or wild fingerlings may be used for initial
stocking in streams and lakes designated by CDFG, and whenever
practicable, the range of golden trout will be extended through wild
fish or fingerling plantings in native waters, or in other waters
possessing adequate spawning grounds.
(4) The Golden Trout Policy prevails over the general Trout Policy
if the two are in conflict.
Contrary to the Golden Trout Policy that ``rainbow trout and other
species of trout shall not be planted in designated golden trout
waters,'' rainbow trout have been stocked in the South Fork Kern River
at Kennedy Meadows since about 1947. To prevent additional
hybridization, CDFG began planting triploid rainbow trout in 2004, of
which 99 to 100 percent are sterile (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 52; McGuire
2011, p. 3). Although the trout planting has been popular with some
members of the angling public, CDFG discontinued the stocking program
entirely in 2009 (McGuire 2009, p. 9; McGuire 2011, p. 3).
Section 200 of the Fish and Game Code delegates to the Commission
the power to regulate the taking or possession of fish. California
Sport Fishing Regulations include the California golden trout and
require a sport fishing license and the use of barbless hooks to take a
maximum of five California golden trout in the Golden Trout Wilderness
(CDFG 2011a, p. 13). Outside the Golden Trout Wilderness, a fisherman
may possess up to 10 California golden trout, but may only take 5 per
day (CDFG 2011b, p. 2). These limits, coupled with the remote
backcountry condition of much of the subspecies' range, appear
sufficient to prevent angling pressure from posing a threat (see Factor
B--Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes section above).
Section 1603(a) of the California Fish and Game Code necessitates a
permit from CDFG for any activity that may alter the bed, channel, or
bank of any river, stream, or lake. The permit may incorporate measures
to minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife; therefore, this
regulation may offer protection to California golden trout habitat. The
extent to which this regulation has provided the California golden
trout with protection is unknown, as much of the range of this
subspecies is protected under management of federally protected areas
where few habitat modifications subject to this permit have been
proposed. Section 6400 of the California Fish and Game Code declares it
unlawful to place, plant, or cause to be placed or planted in any
waters of California any live fish without permission from CDFG.
Violation could result in a fine of up to $50,000 and 1 year
imprisonment, with revocation of fishing privileges. In addition,
violators would be held liable for damages. Rewards of up to $50,000
may be offered for information leading to the conviction of persons
violating Section 6400, pursuant to Section 2586.
Thus, State regulations provide protections primarily through State
Fish and Game Codes, and enforcement of these regulations by both CDFG
wildlife protection personnel and by Forest Service law enforcement
personnel (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 57-58; McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 18;
Sims and McGuire 2006b, p. 13).
Summary of Factor D
Some Federal and State regulations afford protections for the
California golden trout and their habitat. Implementation of LRMPs, as
amended
[[Page 63108]]
by the SNFPA, provides protections through management direction for the
subspecies and the aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems that it
relies on. State regulations provide some protections through the
Golden Trout Policy and the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, based on the
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
California golden trout is not currently threatened by the inadequate
regulatory mechanisms throughout its range, nor do we anticipate
inadequate regulatory mechanisms posing a threat in the future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Potential Factor E threats include hybridization, fire suppression
activities, invasion of California golden trout waters by the New
Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and climate change. With
regard to hybridization, this potential threat involves introduced
nonnative rainbow trout breeding with the California golden trout. For
purposes of this review, ``hybridization'' refers to the creation of
hybrid individuals due to matings between California golden trout and
nonnative rainbow trout (in this case introduced hatchery trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.) or due to matings between California golden
trout and hybrid trout. Genetic introgression refers to the movement of
genes originally indicative of nonnative trout into the gene pool of
California golden trout populations. Because native California golden
trout, introduced rainbow trout, and hybrid offspring interbreed,
hybridization leads to genetic introgression, and the threats
(discussed below) of both hybridization and introgression are treated
the same.
Hybridization
The petition states that hybridization, due to the substantial
stocking of rainbow trout and hybridized golden trout during the past
100 years, is the most immediate and destructive threat that California
golden trout faces (Trout Unlimited 2000, pp. 17-18). Hybridization and
consequent introgression is thought to dilute the fundamental genetic
characteristics of California golden trout populations (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 24). If the hybridization and introgression continue at large
enough rates, those fundamental genetic characteristics could be lost
entirely, leading to ``genetic extinction'' (Rhymer and Simberloff
1996, p. 100). In the Golden Trout Creek watershed, Trout Unlimited
(2000, pp. 20-24) cites the past stocking of hybridized California
golden trout in the fishless headwater lakes, Johnson Lake, Rocky Basin
Lakes 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Chicken Spring Lake, as potential sources of
hybridization. In the South Fork Kern River watershed, the petition
(Trout Unlimited 2000, p. 18) states that hybridization has resulted
from the extensive official and unofficial stocking of rainbow trout
that has occurred at various places throughout the watershed.
Hybridization in Relation to Implementing the Endangered Species Act
The Act does not directly address questions related to species that
have some degree of hybridization. The purpose of the Act is to
conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which
those species depend. The definition of species under the Act includes
any taxonomic species or subspecies, and distinct population segments
of vertebrate species. Key issues for this status review are the
scientific criteria used by professional zoologists and field
biologists to taxonomically classify individuals, and populations of
interbreeding individuals, as members of the California golden trout
subspecies (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita).
Previous Service positions regarding hybridization, based upon
interpretations in a series of opinions by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Office of the Solicitor, generally precluded conservation
efforts under the authorities of the Act for progeny, or their
descendants, produced by matings between taxonomic species or
subspecies (O'Brien and Mayr 1991, pp. 1-3). However, advances in
biological understanding of natural hybridization (such as Arnold 1997,
pp. 182-183) prompted withdrawal of those opinions. The reasons for
that action were summarized in two sentences in the withdrawal
memorandum (Memorandum from Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife,
U.S. Department of the Interior, to Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, dated December 14, 1990): ``New scientific information
concerning genetic introgression has convinced us that the rigid
standards set out in those previous opinions should be revisited. In
our view, the issue of ``hybrids'' is more properly a biological issue
than a legal one.''
Our increasing understanding of the wide range of possible outcomes
resulting from exchanges of genetic material between taxonomically
distinct species and between entities within taxonomic species that
also can be listed under the Act (i.e., subspecies, DPSs) requires the
Service to address these situations on a case-by-case basis. In some
cases, introgressive hybridization (infiltration of genes from one
species into the gene pool of another species through repeated
backcrossing of a hybrid with one of its parents) may be considered a
natural evolutionary process reflecting active speciation or simple
gene exchange between naturally sympatric species (or those species
that occupy the same or overlapping geographic areas without
interbreeding). Introgressed populations may contain unique or
appreciable portions of the genetic resources of an imperiled or listed
species. For example, populations with genes from another taxon at very
low frequencies may still express important behavioral, life-history,
or ecological adaptations of the indigenous population or species
within a particular geographic area. In other cases, human-caused or
facilitated hybridization may threaten the existence of a taxon, either
because native genes are lost due to sheer numbers of introgressing
genes, or because hybridized individuals have lowered fitness (Rhymer
and Simberloff 1996, pp. 85-86, 92). Consequently, the Service
carefully evaluates the long-term conservation implications for each
taxon separately on a case-by-case basis where introgressive
hybridization may have occurred. The Service performs these evaluations
objectively based on the best scientific and commercial information
available consistent with the intent and purpose of the Act.
A potential dichotomy thus exists under the Act between: (a) The
need to protect the genetic resources of a species in which
introgression has occurred, and (b) the need to minimize or eliminate
the threat of hybridization posed by another taxon. Implementing
actions under the Act that distinguish between these two alternatives
is difficult when imperiled species are involved because a large number
of populations may have experienced varying amounts of genetic
introgression from another taxon. With regard to the California golden
trout, an acceptable level of hybridization has not yet been defined.
Hybridization as a Potential Threat to California Golden Trout
In Golden Trout Creek, which contains approximately 82 km (51 mi)
of native range, movement and reproduction of introgressed California
golden trout from headwater lakes into downstream reaches has resulted
in introgression at low levels, estimated at 0 to 8 percent on average
(Cordes et al.
[[Page 63109]]
2006, pp. 110, 117; Stephens 2006, p. 2). Higher introgression rates
(10 to 12 percent on average) were found in the headwater lakes (Cordes
et al. 2006, p. 117), which had been stocked with hybridized California
golden trout. Since 1995, managers have concentrated efforts to remove
the hybridized trout from these lakes (Johnson Lake, Rocky Basin Lakes,
and Chicken Spring Lake) (Cordes et al. 2001, p. 15). Survey results
indicate that the six lakes are now fishless (Sims and McGuire 2006, p.
4; McGuire et al. 2009, p. 3). Thus, the source for future
introgression has been removed. The removal of these source populations
of introgressed fish will allow rainbow trout alleles to become less
common in the watershed (Cordes et al. 2001, p. 15). Eventually, many
of the rainbow trout alleles may drop out of the population altogether
due to genetic drift (Cordes et al. 2001, p. 15). Within the Golden
Trout Creek watershed, the Volcano Creek population, representing the
only known pure population to date, contains approximately 8 km (5 mi)
of stream habitat. This population is isolated from introgressed trout
by a natural bedrock barrier near its mouth. Cordes et al. (2001, p.
15) found that this population had reduced genetic variability and are
genetically distinct from other populations in Golden Trout Creek;
however, these samples only came from one reach of stream,
necessitating the need for additional analysis.
In the South Fork Kern River, which comprises approximately 644 km
(400 mi) of native range, genetic tests indicate that all California
golden trout have detectable levels of introgression with rainbow
trout, with the downstream populations exhibiting the highest known
levels, congruent with the known historical management of these
populations (Cordes et al. 2003, pp. 16, 40; Stephens 2007, p. 72).
Prior to construction and improvement of the manmade barriers, there
were no upstream impediments to fish movement in the mainstem South
Fork Kern. Currently, there are relatively low levels of introgression
in the headwater reaches, and percentages of rainbow trout alleles are
fairly uniform in samples collected above Templeton Barrier, likely
reflecting the homogenizing effect of previous chemical treatments and
restocking efforts (Cordes et al. 2003, p. 12). With no pure
populations known to exist within this watershed, Cordes et al. (2003,
p. 22) recommend that management focus should be to isolate the
California golden trout with high levels of hybridization in the lower
reaches from those less hybridized in the upper reaches, and to
maintain and expand remaining pure populations if these are identified.
If no pure populations are found, then Cordes et al. (2003, p. 22)
recommend preservation of the existing South Fork Kern River
populations with the lowest levels of introgression. Currently,
introgression levels measured at barrier sites (41 percent at Schaeffer
Barrier, 17 percent at Templeton Barrier, which is upstream) indicate
that separation of lower levels of introgression above Schaeffer
Barrier has been successful.
As both the petition and the Conservation Strategy note, illegal
transport of nonnative or introgressed trout into areas that currently
have low introgression levels, is a serious concern (Trout Unlimited
2000, pp. 26, 27; CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 57, 58). However, as discussed
above under under Factor C--Predation and Competition with Brown
Trout,'' we consider the management actions that have been and are
being undertaken to address this threat to be effective. Additionally,
although the petition indicated that the Schaeffer barrier (the
farthest downstream of the three) has historically been ineffective at
preventing upstream movement (Trout Unlimited 2000, p. 6), the barrier
was repaired in 2003, and is now considered impassable (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 37; Lentz 2011, p. 1). See Factor A--Artificial Fish Barriers
above. In addition, all fish stocking has been discontinued within the
native range of the California golden trout; at Kennedy Meadows
Reservoir, stocking of fertile rainbow trout ended in 2003 and stocking
of sterile rainbow trout ended in 2008 (McGuire 2011, p. 3).
Once more genetic information becomes available, the Conservation
Strategy describes management actions that can be undertaken, starting
with the development and implementation of a peer-reviewed genetics
management plan (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 47). The genetics management
plan is currently in development, with an expected completion date of
December 31, 2011.
In summary, the best available scientific and commercial data, as
described above, indicates that California golden trout in Volcano
Creek and Golden Trout Creek are not threatened by hybridization to the
point where listing is warranted. Stocking of nonsterile fish has
ceased; all fish have been removed from the headwater lakes of Golden
Trout Creek; barriers in the South Fork Kern River to prevent migration
of hybridized fish have been repaired and tested; and measures are in
place to address risks of illegal fish stocking (Sims and McGuire 2006,
pp. 6, 7). We expect that due to the management actions taken to
isolate California golden trout from nonnative trout within their
native range, that, for the species as a whole, the level of
introgression should not increase and may decrease over time.
Therefore, we determine that existing levels of introgression within
the subspecies do not constitute a significant threat, and that
management actions have lowered the extent and likelihood of further
hybridization, such that introgression is unlikely to become a
significant threat in the future.
Fire Suppression Activities
Potential adverse effects to the California golden trout resulting
from fire suppression activities include changed forest structure;
direct mortality due to water drafting (taking of water) from occupied
drainages; hybridization and competition with nonnative trout that may
arise from dropping water from a helicopter within the Golden Trout
Creek and South Fork Kern River watersheds using water that may contain
trout not native to the watersheds; and contamination due to use of
fire retardants for fire suppression.
In some areas within the range of the California golden trout,
long-term fire suppression has changed forest structure and conditions,
resulting in the potential for increased fire severity and intensity
(McKelvey et al. 1996, p. 1038). Fire can cause direct mortality of
fish and aquatic invertebrates within aquatic ecosystems. However, even
in the case of high-severity fires, local extirpations of fish have
been patchy, allowing for relatively rapid recolonization (Gresswell
1999, p. 193). Lasting adverse effects of fire on fish populations have
consequently been limited to areas where native populations had
declined for reasons other than fire, and were already small and
isolated prior to the fire (Gresswell 1999, pp. 193, 212). In contrast,
California golden trout typically show relatively high population
densities where they occur (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169), and known
populations are not typically isolated from each other (Stephens 2007,
p. 72). In 2000, the Manter Fire burned on the Sequoia National Forest,
and surveys found dead California golden trout on Fish Creek and the
South Fork Kern River. Since live fish were seen in these areas after
the fire, it is likely that the fire did not result in total mortality
of the local population (Strand 2006).
[[Page 63110]]
The Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review, which is a
comprehensive Federal fire policy for the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture, was created in 1995 and recognizes the essential role
of fire in maintaining natural systems. Wildland fire use is a
management option on Federal lands and is available to Federal agencies
with an approved land use plan and a fire management plan (USDA and
USDOI 2005, p. 2; USDA and USDOI 2009, pp. 8, 9). The Sequoia National
Forest has begun using wildland fire on a case-by-case basis as a tool
to reduce fuel loading in wilderness areas, most recently in 2010 on
the Big Sheep Fire (Lang 2011, p. 1). In 2004, the Forest Service
completed the Fisheries and Aquatic Input for Wildland Fire Suppression
Planning Specific to Golden Trout Management (McGuire and Sims 2006,
pp. 22-25). Criteria include avoiding moderate to extreme fire
intensities within the Golden Trout watershed, avoiding water transfers
in key areas, and using small intake screens when drafting from water
sources.
Fire retardants and suppressant chemicals are used extensively in
the United States for suppression and control of range and forest
fires, and are often applied in environmentally sensitive areas
(Hamilton et al. 1996, introduction). Laboratory tests of these
chemicals have shown that they cause mortality in fishes and aquatic
invertebrates by releasing surfactants and ammonia when added to water
(Hamilton et al. 1996, pp. 1-5). Fire retardant chemicals dropped in or
near California golden trout habitat could have negative effects on
individuals or isolated populations. On April 20, 2000, direction was
given to all national forests in regard to fire retardant use during
wildland fire suppression activities. Guidance includes avoiding aerial
application of retardant or foam within 91 m (300 ft) of waterways.
Further details concerning delivery from different types of aircraft,
interactions with threatened and endangered species, and exceptions are
given in the document. These guidelines are updated annually and
published in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation
Operations (National Interagency Fire Center 2006, Chapter 12, pp. 1-6)
for the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park
Service, and the Service.
The Forest Service, through the direction of the Conservation
Strategy, created written plans for integration of California golden
trout populations and habitat protection in Forest Service fire
suppression planning. Both the Inyo and the Sequoia National Forests'
fishery biologists have been coordinating with fire personnel to ensure
that measures contained in the plans are implemented (McGuire and Sims
2006, p. 8; Sims and McGuire 2006, p. 5). One such avoidance measure
identifies the need to prevent water transfers from nonnative water
bodies into California golden trout waters during fire suppression
activities, or any other management activity that would use large
quantities of water.
While fire suppression activities have the potential to affect the
California golden trout, evidence indicates that lasting adverse
effects on fish populations are rare. Although inadvertent application
of fire suppression chemicals could negatively affect some isolated
populations, the potential for this is lessened by implementation of
the national direction on aerial applications of these fire retardants.
Furthermore, the Forest Service has incorporated measures into fire
suppression planning documents, and implementation of these measures
reduces the effects that fire management activities would otherwise
have on California golden trout. Therefore, we conclude that fire
suppression activities are not a threat to the California golden trout.
New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)
The New Zealand mudsnail (NZMS) is an invasive nonnative mollusk
that can impact the food chain of native trout by competing with native
invertebrates (including native mollusks) for food and space, and
through altering the physical characteristics of the streams (Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force 2006, p. 1). NZMS are able to withstand a
variety of temperature regimes and can stay alive out of water under
moist conditions for 5 or more days, and are small enough that anglers
can inadvertently transfer this species between different waterbodies
(Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 2006, pp. 1, 2; Sims 2006b, p. 1).
Since they reproduce clonally, one introduced NZMS can begin a new
population. NZMS has the ability to reproduce quickly and mass in high
densities (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 2006, p. 1).
The closest location of NZMS to the California golden trout is in
the Owens River drainage, which is approximately a 2-hour drive to
Horseshoe Meadow trailhead and an hour hike into California golden
trout habitat, or about a 4-hour drive to Monache Meadows (Sims 2006b,
p. 1; Lentz 2011, p. 2). These NZMS were located in 2000 at the lower
Owens River near Bishop; since 2000, NZMS has moved throughout the
Owens drainage including Hot Creek, Rush Creek, and Lone Pine Creek.
Because NZMS can survive on waders for several days, human transport of
the organism to the California golden trout's habitat would be likely
if precautions are not taken by anglers. The Inyo National Forest
requires all permitted fishing guides to follow appropriate
disinfection methods for their gear (Sims 2006b, p. 1).
Several conservation measures reduce the likelihood that this
invasive species will enter the native waters, including the
cooperative effort between the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests and
CDFG to ensure that the transfer of water from nonnative waterbodies
does not occur during fire suppression activities. Also, a brochure has
been distributed that informs the public about how to prevent the
spread of nuisance species, with an Internet link provided to a NZMS
Web site.
In summary, NZMSs have not been found within the native range of
the California golden trout. While it is possible that this invasive
species will continue to spread, ongoing efforts are occurring to
address the risk of spread of NZMS to habitat of the California golden
trout. Consequently, we conclude NZMS is not a threat to the
subspecies.
Climate Change
``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather
statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), including
the mean and variation of surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation, and wind, whereas ``climate change'' refers to a change
in the mean and/or variability of climate properties that persists for
an extended period (typically decades or longer), whether due to
natural processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur
continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at an
accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean-
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: A
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North America
and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia, and
an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic
since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in annual average
temperature of more than 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) across the United States
since
[[Page 63111]]
1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (GCCIUS) 2009,
p. 27). Examples of observed changes in the physical environment
include: An increase in global average sea level, and declines in
mountain glaciers and average snow cover in both the northern and
southern hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30), substantial and accelerating
reductions in Arctic sea-ice (such as Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1), and a
variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the distribution of species,
and the timing of seasonal events (such as GCCIUS 2009, pp. 79-88).
The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis),
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in
similar projections of global temperature change across the different
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All models (not just those involving climate change) have some
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models.
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios,
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p.
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios,
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of
Arctic sea ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797),
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a
key influence on climate change, have been occurring at the mid- to
higher levels of the various emissions scenarios developed in the late
1990's and used by the IPPC for making projections (such as Raupach et
al. 2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Manning et al. 2010, Figure 1, p. 377;
Pielke et al. 2008, entire). Also, the best scientific and commercial
data available indicate that average global surface air temperature is
increasing and several climate-related changes are occurring and will
continue for many decades even if emissions are stabilized soon (such
as Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412;
Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats.
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a
species, occurring individually or in combination, may affect the
status of a species. Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a
function of sensitivity to those changes, exposure to those changes,
and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22).
As described above, in evaluating the status of a species, the Service
uses the best scientific and commercial data available, and this
includes consideration of direct and indirect effects of climate
change. As is the case with all potential threats, if a species is
currently affected or is expected to be affected by one or more
climate-related impacts, this does not necessarily mean the species is
a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Act. If a
species is listed as threatened or endangered, this knowledge regarding
its vulnerability to, and impacts from, climate-associated changes in
environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate
strategies for its recovery.
While projections from global climate model simulations are
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific
information available, various downscaling methods are being used to
provide higher resolution projections that are more relevant to the
spatial scales used to assess impacts to a given species (see Glick et
al., 2011, pp. 58-61). With regard to the area of analysis for the
California golden trout, downscaled projections are not available.
Climate change may potentially impact California golden trout
populations by affecting water temperature, water availability, or the
timing of flows. California golden trout prefer temperatures below 60
[deg]F (15 [deg]C), but can endure daytime temperatures ranging into
the 70's [deg]F (21 [deg]C) so long as temperatures cool again at night
(CDFG 2004a, pp. 11-12). Stretches of the South Fork Kern can currently
reach up to 77 [deg]F (25.2 [deg]C) (CDFG 2004a, p. 55). Stream
temperatures are being monitored, as required by the Conservation
Strategy, but a detailed report has not yet been produced (McGuire et
al. 2009, p. 11).
Both the Golden Trout Creek and South Fork Kern watersheds are
high-elevation watersheds strongly influenced by snowmelt. The extent
of water contained in the spring snowpack (typically measured as the
snow water equivalent on April 1st) is thus an important predictor of
summer streamflow and temperatures (Mote et al. 2005, p. 40). Most
areas in the western United States have shown decreases since 1950 in
the amount of water contained in their spring snowpacks (Mote et al.
2005, p. 41). However, the water content of spring snowpacks in the
southern Sierras (including the areas surrounding the Golden Trout
Creek and South Fork Kern watersheds) have actually increased over that
same time (Mote et al. 2005, pp. 41, 42; Ray et al. 2010, p. 16). Mote
et al. (2005, pp. 46, 47) attributed this effect to an increase in
precipitation, combined with relatively mild temperature increases at
the high elevations involved. Mote et al. (2005, p. 40) compared the
water content of spring snowpacks across the American West, both as
measured from 1950 to 1997 and as predicted by a hydrologic model
called the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC). The VIC accounts for
vegetation, soil layers, and the interaction of water and heat energy
at the land surface. They found general agreement between the model and
observations, except that the model, while correctly predicting an
increase in snowpack water content for the southern Sierras (Mote et
al. 2005, pp. 41, 42), still under-predicted the amount of snowpack
water content due to a lack of meteorological information for the
highest elevations (Mote et al. 2005, pp. 41, 43).
[[Page 63112]]
Changes in timing of flows may be possible despite predicted trends
in springtime snowpack. For instance the snowpack may be maintained by
increased snowfall, despite earlier melting of some portion of that
snowpack (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1144). This may advance the timing of
relatively warm water entering the Golden Trout Creek and South Fork
Kern watersheds. California golden trout spawn when water temperatures
consistently exceed 59 [deg]F (15 [deg]C) (Knapp and Vredenburg 1996,
p. 1). They also tend to spawn more actively during times of day when
the water is warmest. Earlier meltwater runoff from the snowpack might
reasonably cause the minimum spawning temperatures to be reached
earlier in the year. As the Conservation Strategy notes, California
golden trout tend to grow slowly, in part because of cold water
temperatures and a short growing season (CDFG 2004a, p. 12). Earlier
meltwater runoff may, therefore, have a positive effect on California
golden trout populations.
In summary, modeled and observed data indicate that the water
content of snowpacks in the southern Sierras is likely to increase or
at least remain the same in the future. Streams supporting California
golden trout are, therefore, likely to remain supplied year round with
water in the temperature ranges required by the subspecies. We conclude
that global climate change does not pose a threat to the subspecies,
either now or in the future.
Summary of Factor E
Although California golden trout have historically been adversely
affected by several manmade or human exacerbated factors, those
potential threats have been well-addressed by conservation efforts.
Threats of increased hybridization resulting from natural fish movement
and interbreeding in areas that are currently less-hybridized have been
ameliorated by conservation efforts that include repair and
maintainance of the three fish barriers on the South Fork Kern River,
removal of all fish from the headwater lakes of Golden Trout Creek, and
various genetic monitoring efforts. While these efforts do not
eliminate introgression that has already occurred, they prevent areas
of low introgression, such as the upper reaches of the South Fork Kern
River, from being further introgressed by hybridized fish coming
upstream from lower reaches. This stabilization of the threat has
allowed management efforts, including elimination of introgressed
populations, to proceed in a well-considered manner.
Fire suppression planning and guidance documents, including the
Conservation Strategy (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 87), Interagency Standards
for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (National Interagency Fire Center
2006, chapter 12, pp. 1-6), and the Wildland Fire Use Implementation
Procedures Reference Guide (USDA and USDOI 2005, entire) adequately
address both the direct potential impacts of fire suppression
activities and the indirect habitat impacts that may result from fuels
buildup in the lack of fire. The threat that the New Zealand mudsnail
may be introduced into California golden trout waters is relatively low
due to distance to source areas, and is addressed by public education
efforts. Available data also indicate that water temperature and
availability issues related to climate change will not threaten the
subspecies. Based on the above, we conclude that the California golden
trout is not currently threatened by other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence throughout its range, nor do we
anticipate other natural or manmade factors posing a threat in the
future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the California golden trout is threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by the California golden trout.
We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, other
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with
recognized California golden trout experts and other Federal and State
agencies.
The primary potential threats to the subspecies include livestock
grazing at levels that are environmentally harmful, competition and
predation from introduced brown trout, and hybridization with nonnative
trout. These potential threats are all addressed by a Conservation
Strategy and Memorandum of Agreement that we, the USFS, and CDFG are
currently implementing (CDFG et al. 2004a, entire; CDFG et al. 2004b,
entire). Impacts from environmentally detrimental grazing practices
have been greatly reduced through the resting of grazing allotments and
establishment of cattle exclosures, by the implementation of standards
for maintaining desired vegetative and habitat conditions, and by
significant reductions in the number of cattle using the area.
Predation and competition with brown trout have been addressed by
the discontinuation of brown trout stocking, construction and
improvement of fish barriers, chemical treatments, and annual surveys
to keep brown trout out of cleared areas. Hybridization concerns have
been addressed under the Conservation Strategy through the
discontinuation of fish stocking in the California golden trout's home
range, the removal of hybridized fish from Golden Trout Creek headwater
lakes, and the restoration of fish barriers on the South Fork Kern
River. In the South Fork Kern River, introgression levels appear to be
generally uniform in stream sections that are separated by barriers,
indicating that in general, particular populations are insulated from
increased introgression. In Golden Trout Creek, the source of
introgression has been removed. California golden trout densities have
generally been among the highest ever recorded for a stream-dwelling
trout in the western United States (Knapp and Matthews 1996, p. 805).
Population surveys conducted at Templeton Meadow on the South Fork Kern
River have indicated that population numbers increased between 1985 and
1999 (Stephens 2001b, p. 2), indicating that in general golden trout
population numbers are at a high density and do not appear to be at
risk.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the threats
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that the California golden trout is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout its range at this time.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Under the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the decision
concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS.
These are applied similarly for additions to or removal from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population 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 (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
[[Page 63113]]
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It 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.
(2) It 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.
If the population meets the first two criteria under the DPS
policy, we then proceed to the third element in the process, which is
to evaluate the population segment's conservation status in relation to
the Act's standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species.
The DPS evaluation in this finding concerns the California golden trout
that we were petitioned to list as endangered.
In the threats assessment performed above, we concluded that in
relation to the entire range of the California golden trout, none of
the activities identified as potential threats, either singly or in
combination, constitute a level of risk serious enough to bring a local
population to the point where it would be in danger of extinction,
either now or in the foreseeable future.
Under the DPS Policy, California golden trout in both Golden Trout
Creek and the South Fork Kern River each could meet the criterion for
discreteness as a markedly separate population because while the two
drainages were connected in the geologic past, they became separated by
volcanic activity in the region approximately 10,000 years ago (Cordes
et al. 2003, p. 20). This led to Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork
Kern River as known today (Evermann 1906, pp. 11-14) in two adjacent
watersheds draining the Kern Plateau of the southern Sierra Nevada.
Significance
If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, 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 segment'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
describes four possible classes of information that provide evidence of
a population segment's biological and ecological importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722),
this consideration of the population segment's significance may
include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions
to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be
used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.
California golden trout in Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork
Kern River could each be considered to meet the significance criterion
of the DPS policy because the evidence indicates that the loss of
either population segment could result in a significant gap in the
range of the subspecies.
However, since it is our conclusion that, based on the best
information available, recent management actions and restoration
activities have ameliorated the risks presented by these potential
threats to the extent that they do not present a concentrated level of
risk to California golden trout anywhere in its range, including in
Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork Kern watershed, we conclude that
there is no geographic concentration of threats and thus no need to
proceed further with an evaluation of potential DPSs within the range
of the subspecies. Even if populations of California golden trout were
found to meet the distinctness and significance criteria of the DPS
Policy, we have already found that the conservation status of these
entities would not meet the Act's standards for listing as endangered
or threatened. As a result, no further analysis under the DPS policy is
necessary.
Significant Portion of the Range and Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments
After assessing whether the California golden trout is threatened
or endangered throughout its range, we next consider whether either a
significant portion of the California golden trout's range or a
distinct population segment (DPS) of the species meets the definition
of endangered or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future (threatened).
Significant Portion of the Range
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines the
term ``species'' as follows: ``The term `species' includes any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' The phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and we have never
addressed in our regulations: (1) The consequences of a determination
that a species is either endangered or likely to become so throughout a
significant portion of its range, but not throughout all of its range;
or (2) what qualifies a portion of a range as ``significant.''
Two recent district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of
a defined ``species:'' Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp.
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz.
Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to
list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service
had asserted in both of these determinations that it had authority, in
effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as defined by
the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts
ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the
grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language
of the
[[Page 63114]]
Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language to allow
protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent with the
Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that once a
determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, or
DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's
protections applied consistently to all members of that species
(subject to modification of protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this
finding, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range''
in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing; thus there are
two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify
for listing: a species may be endangered or threatened throughout all
of its range; or a species may be endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an ``endangered
species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened species.''
Therefore, the consequence of finding that a species is endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion of its range is that the
entire species shall be listed as endangered or threatened,
respectively, and the Act's protections shall be applied across the
species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to
the 2007 Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, long-term agency
practice has been established; and it is consistent with the judicial
opinions that have most closely examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' provides an
independent basis for listing and protecting the entire species, we
next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, a portion of the range of a
species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without that portion, the species would
be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy (having
multiple populations distributed across the landscape) may be needed to
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic
events. Representation (the range of variation found in a species)
ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved.
Redundancy, resiliency, and representation are not independent of each
other, and some characteristic of a species or area may contribute to
all three. For example, distribution across a wide variety of habitats
is an indicator of representation, but it may also indicate a broad
geographic distribution contributing to redundancy (decreasing the
chance that any one event affects the entire species), and the
likelihood that some habitat types are less susceptible to certain
threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability of the species to
recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is intended to be
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range may be determined
to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under any one of these
concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine if a portion's
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as
``significant'' by asking whether, without that portion, the
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' establishes a
threshold that is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the
consequences of finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an
SPR would be listing the species throughout its entire range, it is
important to use a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It
would not be meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low
threshold whereby a portion of the range can be considered
``significant'' even if only a negligible increase in extinction risk
would result from its loss. Because nearly any portion of a species'
range can be said to contribute some increment to a species' viability,
use of such a low threshold would require us to impose restrictions and
expend conservation resources disproportionately to conservation
benefit: listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the
range of minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On
the other hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136
(9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range,
[[Page 63115]]
and that we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a
listing.) Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species
would be in danger of extinction everywhere without that portion, i.e.,
if that portion were completely extirpated.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be
``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the portion status analysis
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the
species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based
definition of ``significant'', such portions will not warrant further
consideration.
The most serious of the potential threats to California golden
trout discussed above in the Summary of Information Pertaining to the
Five Factors section are livestock grazing, predation and competition
from brown trout, and hybridization issues with rainbow trout. These
potential threats generally occur across the species range and are not
concentrated in any areas. Even areas that may currently lack one or
more of these potential threats remain at some risk from them. The
level of risk presented by each of these potential threats has, in the
past, been highest in the South Fork Kern watershed. However, recent
management actions and restoration activities have ameliorated the
risks presented by these potential threats to the extent that they do
not present a concentrated level of risk to California golden trout
anywhere in its range, including the South Fork Kern watershed. Efforts
in place to address these potential threats include the development and
implementation of the Conservation Strategy, with its associated
management and monitoring requirements (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 1-4;
McGuire et al. 2009, entire; Lentz 2011, pp. 1, 2); the ongoing
development of a genetics management plan scheduled for completion in
June 2012 (Lentz 2011, p. 2); the construction and renovation of the
three fish passage barriers restricting movement of brown trout and
hybridized fish (Lentz 2011, pp. 1, 2); the eradication of brown trout
above the Templeton barrier (Lentz 2011, p. 2); the curtailment of
stocking of brown and rainbow trout (with the exception of sterile
triploid rainbow trout at Kennedy Meadows) (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 52;
Lentz 2011, p.1); and extensive grazing restrictions and effects-
monitoring across the range (USFS 1988a, pp. 78-79, 236; USFS 1995, pp.
2, 27; Knapp and Mathews 1996, pp. 816, 817; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34;
McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 17; Ettema and Sims 2010, pp. 58-64).
Of the additional potential threats to California golden trout
discussed above under the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section, some are more applicable to the South Fork Kern
watershed (recreation, fish barriers, beavers, angling, illegal trout
transplants, fish stocking, and the New Zealand mud snail), while
others are equally applicable to both watersheds (pack stock use,
collection of fin tissue samples, whirling disease, fire suppression
activities, and climate change). However, for the reasons discussed
above in relation to the entire range of the subspecies, none of these
activities (either singly or in combination) constitute a level of risk
serious enough to bring a local population to the point where it would
be in danger of extinction, either now or in the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the California golden trout is not
threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range.
Moreover, the subspecies currently exists throughout its historical
range (see Distribution section above), so there is no need to address
the question of whether lost historical range is a significant portion
of the species' range.
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
We do not find the California golden trout (or any DPS) to be in
danger of extinction now, nor is this species likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, listing this species as
threatened or endangered under the Act is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the California golden trout to our Sacramento
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it
becomes available. New information will help us monitor the California
golden trout and encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation
develops for the California golden trout or any other species, we will
act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 22, 2011.
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25652 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P