Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered, 14950-14955 [E8-5618]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14950
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(SIAPs) that have been developed for
Franklin County Airport and controlled
airspace is required to support these
procedures. Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the Earth are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007,
and effective September 15, 2007, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, part, A subpart I, Section
40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to
assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority as
it proposes to establish Class E airspace
at Canon, GA.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
signed August 15, 2007, effective
September 15, 2007, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
ASO GA E5 Canon, GA [New]
Franklin County Airport, GA
(Lat. 34°20′25″ N., long. 83°07′51″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface of the Earth within a
6.6-mile radius of the Franklin County
Airport.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on
February 26, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group Eastern
Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8–5573 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R3–ES–2008–0030; 1111 FY07 MO–
B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the U.S. Population of
Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
concerning the petition to list as
endangered a population of brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
brook trout throughout its known
historic range in the conterminous
United States. We find that the petition
contains substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the U.S. population of coaster
brook trout may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a status review
of the coaster brook trout. At the
conclusion of the status review, we will
issue a 12-month finding on the
petition. To ensure that the status
review of the coaster brook trout is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
regarding the coaster brook trout
throughout its range. We will make a
determination on critical habitat for this
species if we initiate a listing action.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
May 19, 2008. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the ADDRESSES section
by May 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R3–
ES–2008–0030, Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2651 Coolidge Road—Suite 101, East
Lansing, MI 48823–6316; telephone
517–351–8470; facsimile 517–351–1443.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species. To ensure that the status review
is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting
information on coaster brook trout
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
throughout its range. We request any
additional information, comments, and
suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested parties
concerning the status of coaster brook
trout. We are seeking information
regarding:
(1) The species’ historical and current
population status, distribution, and
trends; its biology and ecology; and
habitat selection;
(2) The effects of potential threat
factors that are the basis for a listing
determination under section 4(a) of the
Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ 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.
(3) Management programs for the
conservation of the coaster brook trout.
We will base our 12-month finding on
a review of the best scientific and
commercial information available,
including all information received
during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this finding by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments must be submitted to
https://www.regulations.gov before
midnight Eastern Time on the date
specified in the DATES section. We will
not accept comments sent by e-mail or
fax or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
anonymous comments; your comment
must include your first and last name,
city, state, country, and postal (zip)
code. Finally, we will not consider
hand-delivered comments that we do
not receive, or mailed comments that
are not postmarked, by the date
specified in the DATES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in
addition to the required items specified
in the previous paragraph, such as your
street address, phone number, or e-mail
address, you may request at the top of
your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
used in preparing this finding, will be
available for public inspection on
https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, East Lansing Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition
and supporting information submitted
with the petition. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition, and publish our notice of
this finding in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information for a 90-day
petition finding, as defined by the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), is ‘‘that
amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the
species status.
The Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter,
Huron Mountain Club, and Marvin J.
Roberson filed a petition dated February
22, 2006, with the Secretary of the
Interior to list as endangered the
naturally spawning lake-dwelling
coaster brook trout throughout its
known historic range in the
conterminous United States and to
designate critical habitat under the Act.
The petition clearly identifies itself as
such and includes the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). On behalf of the petitioners,
Peter Kryn Dykema, Secretary of the
Huron Mountain Club, submitted
supplemental information dated May
23, 2006, in support of the original
petition. This supplemental information
provides further information on the
species status and biology, particularly
for the Salmon Trout River.
In a letter to the petitioners dated
April 27, 2006, we explained that we
would not be able to address their
petition at that time, due to the need to
address higher priority listing actions.
In 2007, the Service directed funds to
address the coaster brook trout 90-day
finding. On September 13, 2007, we
received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14951
over the Service’s failure to make a
determination within 1 year of receiving
the petition, as to whether the coaster
brook trout warrants listing. As
described above, under section 4 of the
Act, the Service is to make a finding, to
the maximum extent practicable within
90 days of receiving a petition,
regarding whether it presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Further, the Act requires that within 12
months after receiving a petition found
to present substantial information, the
Service must make a finding as to
whether the petitioned action is
warranted. A complaint was filed in
U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia on December 17, 2007, for
failure to make a timely finding.
In making this finding, we considered
information provided by the petitioners,
as well as information readily available
in our files at the time of the petition
review. We evaluated that information
in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b).
Our process for making this 90-day
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and the associated regulations is
based on using the ‘‘substantial
scientific and commercial information’’
threshold described above. This finding
does not consider critical habitat,
because any decision concerning the
need for, or identification of, areas to
consider for critical habitat would occur
only if we decide to prepare a proposed
rule to list the species. This notice
constitutes our 90-day finding for the
petition to list the U.S. population of
coaster brook trout.
Species Information
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are
a member of the char genus in the
family Salmonidae; they live in welloxygenated streams, rivers, and lakes of
northeastern North America (Scott and
Crossman 1973, pp. 30, 213). Some
brook trout populations are adfluvial or
anadromous, migrating from lakes and
oceans (respectively) into tributary
streams for feeding and spawning (Lake
Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee
1997, pp. 4–5; Ryther 1997, pp. 1–34).
Coaster brook trout are a life history
form of brook trout that spend a portion
of their life cycle in the Great Lakes
(Becker 1983, p. 320). These brook trout
are known as ‘‘coasters’’ because they
spend part of their life cycle along the
coast of a lake. Some coaster brook trout
subpopulations or runs are adfluvial
and migrate from Lake Superior to
tributary streams to spawn; other coaster
brook trout subpopulations are
lacustrine and remain in Lake Superior
throughout their life cycle (Quinlan
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
14952
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
1999, p. 15). Coaster brook trout mature
later, live longer, and grow larger than
stream resident brook trout (Becker
1983, p. 318; Lake Superior Brook Trout
Subcommittee 1997, p. 10).
Historically, coaster brook trout
occurred in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior (Bailey and Smith 1981, p.
1549) and in more than 50 streams along
the Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota shores of Lake Superior
(Newman et al. 2003, pp. 34–38). They
have been extirpated in Lakes Huron
and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). Selfsustaining subpopulations or spawning
runs remain in four streams in the U.S.
portion of Lake Superior (Quinlan
2008). Population levels in these
streams are considered low (Quinlan
2008). No harvest is allowed in the four
streams with coaster brook trout
subpopulations in the United States,
(Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park
Service 2007, p. 10). Coaster brook trout
may be harvested within the waters of
Lake Superior itself through angling,
subject to a 20-inch (51-centimeter)
minimum size limit (Baker 2007). Few
coaster brook trout from the Salmon
Trout River subpopulation exceed this
size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p.
21). Additionally, no harvest is allowed
in Lake Superior waters that are within
4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale
National Park (National Park Service
2007, p. 10).
In Canada, coaster brook trout
populations historically occurred in
approximately 60 streams (Newman et
al. 2003, pp. 31–33). Data suggest that
spawning runs remain in a few
Canadian streams in Lake Superior, and
numbers in these streams are described
in general terms as being very low
overall (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources undated, p. 1). Coaster brook
trout populations are also present in
Lake Nipigon (Ontario). Recent
estimates suggest that the Lake Nipigon
spawning population has declined 75
percent compared to the population
level in the 1930s (Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources undated, p. 1).
However, neither the petition nor
information readily available to the
Service provides information regarding
the population size in the 1930s, making
it difficult to determine the accuracy of
the estimated decline. Coaster brook
trout in Canada may be harvested by
anglers in both Lake Superior and its
tributaries, subject to size, bag, and
seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources 2008, pp. 48–49).
Coaster brook trout are not being
considered for protection under
Canada’s Species at Risk Act (Chase
2008).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
The petitioners asked us to list the
naturally spawning anadromous (lakerun) coaster brook trout throughout its
known historical range in the
conterminous U.S.; they asserted that
the Salmon Trout River coaster
population is reproductively isolated
from the in-stream resident brook trout
population and should be considered a
Distinct Population Segment (DPS).
Section 3 of the Act defines the term
‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ 16
U.S.C. 1532(16). In determining whether
an entity constitutes a DPS and is,
therefore, listable under the Act, we
follow the Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy)
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The
policy identifies three elements we are
to consider in making a decision
regarding the status of a possible DPS
for listing under the Act: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs; (2) The
significance of the population segment
to the species to which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing (that is,
whether the population segment, when
treated as if it were a species, is
endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). This finding
considers whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information that the petitioned coaster
brook trout may be a DPS, and if so,
whether the information indicates that
listing may be warranted.
Discreteness
Under the DPS Policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following two conditions: (1)
It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) It
is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
significant differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996).
The petition asserts that coaster brook
trout are ‘‘distinguished from stream
resident brook trout by behavior’’ and
information submitted in association
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with the petition notes that coaster
brook trout ‘‘are distinguished from
stream resident brook trout by behavior,
i.e. anadromy—and by physiology (they
grow much larger, and may be longerlived).’’ Information in our files
supports this assertion because, unlike
resident brook trout that remain in
streams, coaster brook trout are
adfluvial or lacustrine, spending part or
all of their life cycle in the Great Lakes
(Becker 1983, p. 320; Newman et al.
2003, p. 39). Therefore, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
U.S. population of coaster brook trout
may be discrete from stream resident
brook trout because of differences in
behavior and physiology.
The petition also asserts that coaster
brook trout (of the Salmon Trout River)
are ‘‘separated from coaster populations
in the Nipigon River area [in Canada] by
an international boundary.’’ Further, the
petition states that coaster brook trout
programs currently are administered
and implemented by a wide variety of
Federal, State, private, and international
institutions, and that the result has been
duplicated effort, inadequate
communication, and sometimes
contradictory policies and practices.
Finally, the petition states that the
entire reach of the Salmon Trout River
in Marquette County (MI) is owned by
the Huron Mountain Club (HMC, one of
the petitioners) and that, since 1995,
HMC has prohibited its members from
killing coaster brook trout there.
Information in our files or otherwise
readily available to us supports the
statement that the coaster brook trout
described in the petition (in the Salmon
Trout River and on Isle Royale) are
separated from coaster brook trout
subpopulations in the Nipigon River
area and elsewhere in Canada by an
international boundary, and in addition,
this information indicates that the
boundary delimits differences in control
of exploitation and regulatory
mechanisms (Lake Superior Brook Trout
Subcommittee 1997, p. 4; Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008 p.
48–49). More specifically, differences in
control of exploitation and regulatory
mechanisms between the United States
and Canada relate to allowable harvest
of coaster brook trout and the fishing
regulations that dictate this harvest.
In the United States, coaster brook
trout: (1) May not be harvested in the
four remaining streams with coaster
brook trout subpopulations (Dykema
2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007,
p. 10); (2) may be harvested in the U.S.
waters of Lake Superior within the lake
itself, subject to a 20-inch (51-
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker
2007); and (3) may not be harvested in
Lake Superior waters within 4.5 miles
(7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National
Park, which would protect the
subpopulations of Isle Royale National
Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10).
The lack of coasters in the Salmon Trout
River subpopulation that exceed the 20inch (51-centimeter) size limit (Huckins
and Baker 2004, p. 21) indicates that
few coasters meet the minimum size
limit in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior
where harvest is allowed.
In comparison, coaster brook trout in
Canada may be harvested within Lake
Superior itself and its tributaries,
subject to size, bag, and seasonal limits
(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
2008, p. 48–49), but we have no
information indicating that there are any
locations in Canadian waters occupied
by coaster brook trout where their
harvest is not allowed. Therefore, we
find there is substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned U.S. coaster brook trout
may be discrete from coaster brook trout
in Canada because of an international
boundary that delimits differences in
control of exploitation and regulatory
mechanisms.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
The petition asserts that the coaster
brook trout of the Salmon Trout River
are significant to the brook trout taxon
because their loss ‘‘would result in a
significant gap in the range of the
taxon.’’ Information in our files
indicates that lake-dwelling coaster
brook trout historically occurred in
Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan
(Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549), but
are now extirpated from Lakes Huron
and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). The
coaster brook trout described in the
petition (in the Salmon Trout River and
on Isle Royale) are the last remaining
lake-dwelling brook trout in Lake
Superior (Newman et. al. 2003, p. 39);
thus if the coaster subpopulations in the
Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale
disappear, lake-dwelling brook trout
would be extirpated throughout the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes. Therefore, we
find that the petition presents
substantial information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
U.S. coaster brook trout may be
significant to the species to which it
belongs, based on evidence that loss of
the U.S. population of coaster brook
trout may result in a significant gap in
the range of the taxon.
information indicating that listing the
U.S. population of coaster brook trout
may be warranted. Our threats analysis
and conclusion follow.
DPS Conclusion
Significance
Under our DPS Policy, in addition to
our consideration that a population
segment is discrete, we consider its
biological and ecological significance to
the species to which it belongs. The DPS
policy states that if a population
segment is considered discrete under
one or more of the discreteness criteria,
its biological and ecological significance
will then be considered in light of
Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPSs be used
‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity. Under
the DPS policy, our consideration of
significance may include, but is not
limited to: (1) Evidence of the
persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting that is
unique or unusual for the taxon; (2)
Evidence that loss of the population
segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
Evidence that the population segment
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside its historical range;
or (4) Evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Information Provided in the Petition on
Significance
14953
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
Five-Factor Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. We may list a taxon on the
basis of any one of the following factors:
(A) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or
predation; (D) Inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other
manmade or natural factors affecting its
continued existence. Consistent with
our regulations for making 90-day
findings (50 CFR 424.14(b)), we
evaluated whether the threats to the
U.S. population of coaster brook trout
presented in the petition would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
following evaluation of these threats
was based on information provided or
cited in the petition and found to be
substantial, and information from our
files used to evaluate the information in
the petition.
We have reviewed the information
presented in the petition and have
evaluated it in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). In a 90-day finding, the
question is whether a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We
do not make final determinations
regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, we
determine whether a petition presents
substantial information that a
population may be a DPS. Based on our
evaluation described above, we
conclude that the petition and
information readily available to us do
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the U.S. population of coaster brook
trout may be discrete and significant
within the meaning of our DPS policy,
and therefore may constitute a DPS.
To meet the third element of the DPS
policy, we evaluate the level of a
population segment’s conservation
status in relation to the Act’s standards
for listing. This involves an analysis,
referred to as a threats analysis,
pursuant to the five listing factors
specified in section 4 of the Act. We
thus proceeded with an evaluation of
whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The petition asserts that the following
conditions under Factor A threaten the
coaster brook trout: Dams and river
diversions; toxic pollution related to
organophosphorus compounds (that is,
as used in pesticides), deoxygenation
via decomposition of organic material
and other effluents from paper mills and
other sources, and mercury (from
fungicides and wood pulp treatment);
stream acidification via acid rain, acid
spills, and the proposed Kennecott’s
sulfide mine; changes in water
temperature and flow due to
deforestation and reservoir release, and
dams and diversions; and siltation.
The information presented in the
petition regarding dams and diversions,
toxic pollution, deoxygenation via
decomposition of organic material, acid
level changes in streams, and changes in
water temperature and flow is general.
The petition does not explain how the
concerns expressed would result in the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook
trout. Also, the petition acknowledges
that, with regard to toxic pollution,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
14954
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
deoxygenation, and changes in water
temperature and flow, little research has
been done on their possible impacts to
coaster brook trout in the Upper Great
Lakes.
The petitioners assert that siltation
due to increases in road building may
threaten coaster brook trout in the
Salmon Trout River. In particular, the
petitioners cite a road wash-out in 2005
that deposited 80 tons of sediment into
the river. The petitioners assert that
siltation can affect the reproductive
success of coaster brook trout by filling
in holding areas of migrating adults;
filling hollows that afford protection for
juveniles; filling interstitial spaces in
the substrate that are required for proper
water flow and egg oxygenation; and
decreasing the amount of rooted plants
and algae, which in turn may reduce the
biomass of benthic invertebrates (food
for young coaster brook trout).
Additionally, the petitioners assert that
siltation can interfere with fish
respiration and impact water flow and
clarity, which may subsequently impede
migration and feeding. Two references
are given to support the above
statements regarding the effects of
siltation on fish (Mills 1989, Shearer
1992); these citations were not listed in
the References section of the petition.
Additionally, we did not have these two
references in our files, and we could not
find them using a literature search.
However, readily available sources in
our files corroborated the effects of
siltation on fish reproduction,
respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995,
pp. 79–118). Similarly, although no
reference was provided for the 2005
siltation event, we concur that the event
took place and that future road
washouts in the Salmon Trout River
could result in impacts to the coaster
brook trout downstream (Baker 2007).
Therefore, based principally on
information related to siltation, we find
that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook
trout.
trout means almost none will be caught
by commercial vessels. The petition also
states that both the Huron Mountain
Club and Isle Royale National Park have
restrictions on keeping coaster brook
trout that may be caught during sport
fishing. The petition does not present
any information indicating there is
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes, and we have no information
in our files indicating that there is any
such overutilization. Consequently, we
find that the petition does not present
substantial information for Factor B.
Factor E. Other Manmade or Natural
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
provide substantial information with
respect to competition.
The petition also asserts that small
population size may threaten the
continued survival of the coaster brook
trout population in the Salmon Trout
River. Recent surveys have estimated
that the average annual spawning
population in the Salmon Trout River is
fewer than 200 individuals; this average
may be an underestimate given
limitations of the gear and methods
(Huckins, 2006). The petition compares
this average annual spawning
population to the number of bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) that spawned
in the Jarbidge River annually when it
was emergency-listed (50–125
individuals) (63 FR 42757; August 11,
1998). The petition also compares the
average to the definitions of a strong
subpopulation (greater than 500
spawners) and depressed population
(fewer than 500 spawners) given in the
Determination of Threatened Status for
the Klamath River and Columbia River
Distinct Population Segments of Bull
Trout (63 FR 31647; June 10, 1998).’’
Information in our files supports the
conclusion of a depressed
subpopulation in the Salmon Trout
River (Lake Superior Brook Trout
Subcommittee 1997, p. 4). Surveys also
indicate that coaster brook trout
numbers are low in the three locations
where self-sustaining populations occur
on Isle Royale (National Park Service
2007, p. 10; Quinlan 2008). The annual
spawning population at Tobin Harbor
may be less than 150 (National Park
Service 2007; p. 10). The sizes of the
annual spawning populations at
Siskiwit River and Washington Creek
are unknown but believed to be low
(Quinlan 2008). Although coaster brook
trout have been stocked into several
streams along the U.S. shoreline of Lake
Superior including Whittlesey Creek
(WI) and Grand Portage Creek (MN),
none of these stocking programs has
resulted in self-sustaining populations
(Newman et al. 2003, p. 39; Quinlan
2008). Therefore, based on population
size, we find that the petition presents
substantial information relative to
Factor E.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
With regard to Factor B, the petition
asserts that sport fishing and
commercial fishing threaten the coaster
brook trout. However, the information
presented is limited to noting that a
commercial fishery existed on many
rivers used by coaster brook trout in the
19th century, and that the extremely
low number of extant coaster brook
The petition asserts that the following
factor under Factor E threatens the
coaster brook trout: Competition with
rainbow trout, coho salmon, and brown
trout. However, the petition concludes
that it is doubtful ‘‘that competition
played a large role in reducing coaster
brook trout and there is no direct
evidence to suggest that this has
happened along large areas of the Lake
Superior shoreline’’ (p. 20).
Consequently, the petition does not
Finding
We have reviewed the petition,
supporting information provided by the
petitioners, and information that was
readily available in our files or
elsewhere (such as the Internet). As
described above, the petition presents
evidence of siltation in the Salmon
Trout River that indicates the present or
threatened destruction or modification
or curtailment of the habitat or range of
coaster brook trout, with impact to fish
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition does not provide
information pertaining to Factor C.
Therefore, we find that the petition does
not present substantial information in
relation to this factor.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
With regard to Factor D, the petition
asserts the following: there is no single
government entity with overall program
authority for managing coaster brook
trout; there is inadequate authority to
prevent conflicting government policies
and programs, land-use practices, and
toxic pollution; there is over-reliance on
hatchery production and stocking;
program funding is inadequate; and
there is a lack of public education and
involvement in coaster brook trout
restoration. The petition also asserts that
existing programs are inadequate to
provide for the long-term viability of
Salvelinus fontinalis in the U.S. and the
restoration and protection of its habitat.
Other than the two sentences making
these very general assertions, the
petition presents no information or
explanation as to why the petitioned
coaster brook trout is threatened as a
result of the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we
find that the petition does not present
substantial information in relation to
Factor D.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
reproduction, respiration, and feeding
(Waters 1995, pp. 79–118). The petition
also presents information regarding
population size, which indicates the
small number estimated to remain poses
a risk to the continued survival of the
petitioned population of coaster brook
trout. We find that the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted,
based on threats posed by siltation and
small population size. Therefore, we are
initiating a status review of coaster
brook trout to determine whether listing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
the species under the Act is warranted.
To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
regarding this species.
References
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available on request from the
East Lansing Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this document
is the staff of Region 3 Endangered
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14955
Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,
MN 55111.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated March 12, 2008.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8–5618 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 55 (Thursday, March 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14950-14955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5618]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), concerning the petition to list as endangered a population of
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster brook trout
throughout its known historic range in the conterminous United States.
We find that the petition contains substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster
brook trout may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a status review of the coaster brook trout.
At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a 12-month
finding on the petition. To ensure that the status review of the
coaster brook trout is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and
commercial information regarding the coaster brook trout throughout its
range. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this
species if we initiate a listing action.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May
19, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by May 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030, Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road--Suite
101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316; telephone 517-351-8470; facsimile
517-351-1443. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review
of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is
complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting information on coaster brook trout
[[Page 14951]]
throughout its range. We request any additional information, comments,
and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
parties concerning the status of coaster brook trout. We are seeking
information regarding:
(1) The species' historical and current population status,
distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat
selection;
(2) The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for
a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' 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.
(3) Management programs for the conservation of the coaster brook
trout.
We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding
by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be
submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before midnight Eastern Time on
the date specified in the DATES section. We will not accept comments
sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must
include your first and last name, city, state, country, and postal
(zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that
we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the
date specified in the DATES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in addition to the required items
specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for
public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and
supporting information submitted with the petition. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
for a 90-day petition finding, as defined by the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the species status.
The Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter, Huron Mountain Club, and Marvin
J. Roberson filed a petition dated February 22, 2006, with the
Secretary of the Interior to list as endangered the naturally spawning
lake-dwelling coaster brook trout throughout its known historic range
in the conterminous United States and to designate critical habitat
under the Act. The petition clearly identifies itself as such and
includes the requisite identification information for the petitioners,
as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). On behalf of the petitioners, Peter
Kryn Dykema, Secretary of the Huron Mountain Club, submitted
supplemental information dated May 23, 2006, in support of the original
petition. This supplemental information provides further information on
the species status and biology, particularly for the Salmon Trout
River.
In a letter to the petitioners dated April 27, 2006, we explained
that we would not be able to address their petition at that time, due
to the need to address higher priority listing actions. In 2007, the
Service directed funds to address the coaster brook trout 90-day
finding. On September 13, 2007, we received a 60-day notice of intent
to sue over the Service's failure to make a determination within 1 year
of receiving the petition, as to whether the coaster brook trout
warrants listing. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, the
Service is to make a finding, to the maximum extent practicable within
90 days of receiving a petition, regarding whether it presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Further, the Act requires that
within 12 months after receiving a petition found to present
substantial information, the Service must make a finding as to whether
the petitioned action is warranted. A complaint was filed in U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia on December 17, 2007, for
failure to make a timely finding.
In making this finding, we considered information provided by the
petitioners, as well as information readily available in our files at
the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and the associated
regulations is based on using the ``substantial scientific and
commercial information'' threshold described above. This finding does
not consider critical habitat, because any decision concerning the need
for, or identification of, areas to consider for critical habitat would
occur only if we decide to prepare a proposed rule to list the species.
This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the
U.S. population of coaster brook trout.
Species Information
Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are a member of the char genus
in the family Salmonidae; they live in well-oxygenated streams, rivers,
and lakes of northeastern North America (Scott and Crossman 1973, pp.
30, 213). Some brook trout populations are adfluvial or anadromous,
migrating from lakes and oceans (respectively) into tributary streams
for feeding and spawning (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997,
pp. 4-5; Ryther 1997, pp. 1-34). Coaster brook trout are a life history
form of brook trout that spend a portion of their life cycle in the
Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320). These brook trout are known as
``coasters'' because they spend part of their life cycle along the
coast of a lake. Some coaster brook trout subpopulations or runs are
adfluvial and migrate from Lake Superior to tributary streams to spawn;
other coaster brook trout subpopulations are lacustrine and remain in
Lake Superior throughout their life cycle (Quinlan
[[Page 14952]]
1999, p. 15). Coaster brook trout mature later, live longer, and grow
larger than stream resident brook trout (Becker 1983, p. 318; Lake
Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 10).
Historically, coaster brook trout occurred in Lakes Huron,
Michigan, and Superior (Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549) and in more
than 50 streams along the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota shores of
Lake Superior (Newman et al. 2003, pp. 34-38). They have been
extirpated in Lakes Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). Self-sustaining
subpopulations or spawning runs remain in four streams in the U.S.
portion of Lake Superior (Quinlan 2008). Population levels in these
streams are considered low (Quinlan 2008). No harvest is allowed in the
four streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations in the United
States, (Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10). Coaster
brook trout may be harvested within the waters of Lake Superior itself
through angling, subject to a 20-inch (51-centimeter) minimum size
limit (Baker 2007). Few coaster brook trout from the Salmon Trout River
subpopulation exceed this size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21).
Additionally, no harvest is allowed in Lake Superior waters that are
within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National Park
(National Park Service 2007, p. 10).
In Canada, coaster brook trout populations historically occurred in
approximately 60 streams (Newman et al. 2003, pp. 31-33). Data suggest
that spawning runs remain in a few Canadian streams in Lake Superior,
and numbers in these streams are described in general terms as being
very low overall (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1).
Coaster brook trout populations are also present in Lake Nipigon
(Ontario). Recent estimates suggest that the Lake Nipigon spawning
population has declined 75 percent compared to the population level in
the 1930s (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1).
However, neither the petition nor information readily available to the
Service provides information regarding the population size in the
1930s, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of the estimated
decline. Coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested by anglers in
both Lake Superior and its tributaries, subject to size, bag, and
seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, pp. 48-
49). Coaster brook trout are not being considered for protection under
Canada's Species at Risk Act (Chase 2008).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
The petitioners asked us to list the naturally spawning anadromous
(lake-run) coaster brook trout throughout its known historical range in
the conterminous U.S.; they asserted that the Salmon Trout River
coaster population is reproductively isolated from the in-stream
resident brook trout population and should be considered a Distinct
Population Segment (DPS). Section 3 of the Act defines the term
``species'' to include ``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). In
determining whether an entity constitutes a DPS and is, therefore,
listable under the Act, we follow the Policy Regarding the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species
Act (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy identifies
three elements we are to consider in making a decision regarding the
status of a possible DPS for listing under the Act: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the species to which it belongs; (2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) The population
segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for
listing (that is, whether the population segment, when treated as if it
were a species, is endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996). This finding considers whether the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information that the petitioned coaster brook
trout may be a DPS, and if so, whether the information indicates that
listing may be warranted.
Discreteness
Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
two conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of
the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,
or behavioral factors; or (2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control
of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The petition asserts that coaster brook trout are ``distinguished
from stream resident brook trout by behavior'' and information
submitted in association with the petition notes that coaster brook
trout ``are distinguished from stream resident brook trout by behavior,
i.e. anadromy--and by physiology (they grow much larger, and may be
longer-lived).'' Information in our files supports this assertion
because, unlike resident brook trout that remain in streams, coaster
brook trout are adfluvial or lacustrine, spending part or all of their
life cycle in the Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320; Newman et al. 2003,
p. 39). Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial
information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be discrete from stream
resident brook trout because of differences in behavior and physiology.
The petition also asserts that coaster brook trout (of the Salmon
Trout River) are ``separated from coaster populations in the Nipigon
River area [in Canada] by an international boundary.'' Further, the
petition states that coaster brook trout programs currently are
administered and implemented by a wide variety of Federal, State,
private, and international institutions, and that the result has been
duplicated effort, inadequate communication, and sometimes
contradictory policies and practices. Finally, the petition states that
the entire reach of the Salmon Trout River in Marquette County (MI) is
owned by the Huron Mountain Club (HMC, one of the petitioners) and
that, since 1995, HMC has prohibited its members from killing coaster
brook trout there.
Information in our files or otherwise readily available to us
supports the statement that the coaster brook trout described in the
petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are separated
from coaster brook trout subpopulations in the Nipigon River area and
elsewhere in Canada by an international boundary, and in addition, this
information indicates that the boundary delimits differences in control
of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms (Lake Superior Brook Trout
Subcommittee 1997, p. 4; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008 p.
48-49). More specifically, differences in control of exploitation and
regulatory mechanisms between the United States and Canada relate to
allowable harvest of coaster brook trout and the fishing regulations
that dictate this harvest.
In the United States, coaster brook trout: (1) May not be harvested
in the four remaining streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations
(Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10); (2) may be
harvested in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior within the lake itself,
subject to a 20-inch (51-
[[Page 14953]]
centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker 2007); and (3) may not be
harvested in Lake Superior waters within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of
Isle Royale National Park, which would protect the subpopulations of
Isle Royale National Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10). The lack
of coasters in the Salmon Trout River subpopulation that exceed the 20-
inch (51-centimeter) size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21)
indicates that few coasters meet the minimum size limit in the U.S.
waters of Lake Superior where harvest is allowed.
In comparison, coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested
within Lake Superior itself and its tributaries, subject to size, bag,
and seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, p. 48-
49), but we have no information indicating that there are any locations
in Canadian waters occupied by coaster brook trout where their harvest
is not allowed. Therefore, we find there is substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that the petitioned U.S. coaster
brook trout may be discrete from coaster brook trout in Canada because
of an international boundary that delimits differences in control of
exploitation and regulatory mechanisms.
Significance
Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a
population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and
ecological significance to the species to which it belongs. The DPS
policy states that if a population segment is considered discrete under
one or more of the discreteness criteria, its biological and ecological
significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance
that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while encouraging
the conservation of genetic diversity. Under the DPS policy, our
consideration of significance may include, but is not limited to: (1)
Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an
ecological setting that is unique or unusual for the taxon; (2)
Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) Evidence that the
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range; or (4) Evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Information Provided in the Petition on Significance
The petition asserts that the coaster brook trout of the Salmon
Trout River are significant to the brook trout taxon because their loss
``would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.''
Information in our files indicates that lake-dwelling coaster brook
trout historically occurred in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan
(Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549), but are now extirpated from Lakes
Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). The coaster brook trout described in
the petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are the
last remaining lake-dwelling brook trout in Lake Superior (Newman et.
al. 2003, p. 39); thus if the coaster subpopulations in the Salmon
Trout River and on Isle Royale disappear, lake-dwelling brook trout
would be extirpated throughout the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes.
Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information
that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the U.S. coaster
brook trout may be significant to the species to which it belongs,
based on evidence that loss of the U.S. population of coaster brook
trout may result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
DPS Conclusion
We have reviewed the information presented in the petition and have
evaluated it in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In a 90-day finding,
the question is whether a petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. We do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this
stage; rather, we determine whether a petition presents substantial
information that a population may be a DPS. Based on our evaluation
described above, we conclude that the petition and information readily
available to us do present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the U.S. population of coaster brook trout
may be discrete and significant within the meaning of our DPS policy,
and therefore may constitute a DPS.
To meet the third element of the DPS policy, we evaluate the level
of a population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing. This involves an analysis, referred to as a
threats analysis, pursuant to the five listing factors specified in
section 4 of the Act. We thus proceeded with an evaluation of whether
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may
be warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.
Five-Factor Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We may list a taxon
on the basis of any one of the following factors: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) Inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other manmade or natural factors
affecting its continued existence. Consistent with our regulations for
making 90-day findings (50 CFR 424.14(b)), we evaluated whether the
threats to the U.S. population of coaster brook trout presented in the
petition would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned
action may be warranted. The following evaluation of these threats was
based on information provided or cited in the petition and found to be
substantial, and information from our files used to evaluate the
information in the petition.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition asserts that the following conditions under Factor A
threaten the coaster brook trout: Dams and river diversions; toxic
pollution related to organophosphorus compounds (that is, as used in
pesticides), deoxygenation via decomposition of organic material and
other effluents from paper mills and other sources, and mercury (from
fungicides and wood pulp treatment); stream acidification via acid
rain, acid spills, and the proposed Kennecott's sulfide mine; changes
in water temperature and flow due to deforestation and reservoir
release, and dams and diversions; and siltation.
The information presented in the petition regarding dams and
diversions, toxic pollution, deoxygenation via decomposition of organic
material, acid level changes in streams, and changes in water
temperature and flow is general. The petition does not explain how the
concerns expressed would result in the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of
the U.S. coaster brook trout. Also, the petition acknowledges that,
with regard to toxic pollution,
[[Page 14954]]
deoxygenation, and changes in water temperature and flow, little
research has been done on their possible impacts to coaster brook trout
in the Upper Great Lakes.
The petitioners assert that siltation due to increases in road
building may threaten coaster brook trout in the Salmon Trout River. In
particular, the petitioners cite a road wash-out in 2005 that deposited
80 tons of sediment into the river. The petitioners assert that
siltation can affect the reproductive success of coaster brook trout by
filling in holding areas of migrating adults; filling hollows that
afford protection for juveniles; filling interstitial spaces in the
substrate that are required for proper water flow and egg oxygenation;
and decreasing the amount of rooted plants and algae, which in turn may
reduce the biomass of benthic invertebrates (food for young coaster
brook trout). Additionally, the petitioners assert that siltation can
interfere with fish respiration and impact water flow and clarity,
which may subsequently impede migration and feeding. Two references are
given to support the above statements regarding the effects of
siltation on fish (Mills 1989, Shearer 1992); these citations were not
listed in the References section of the petition. Additionally, we did
not have these two references in our files, and we could not find them
using a literature search. However, readily available sources in our
files corroborated the effects of siltation on fish reproduction,
respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). Similarly, although
no reference was provided for the 2005 siltation event, we concur that
the event took place and that future road washouts in the Salmon Trout
River could result in impacts to the coaster brook trout downstream
(Baker 2007). Therefore, based principally on information related to
siltation, we find that the petition presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook trout.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
With regard to Factor B, the petition asserts that sport fishing
and commercial fishing threaten the coaster brook trout. However, the
information presented is limited to noting that a commercial fishery
existed on many rivers used by coaster brook trout in the 19th century,
and that the extremely low number of extant coaster brook trout means
almost none will be caught by commercial vessels. The petition also
states that both the Huron Mountain Club and Isle Royale National Park
have restrictions on keeping coaster brook trout that may be caught
during sport fishing. The petition does not present any information
indicating there is overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes, and we have no information in our
files indicating that there is any such overutilization. Consequently,
we find that the petition does not present substantial information for
Factor B.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition does not provide information pertaining to Factor C.
Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial
information in relation to this factor.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
With regard to Factor D, the petition asserts the following: there
is no single government entity with overall program authority for
managing coaster brook trout; there is inadequate authority to prevent
conflicting government policies and programs, land-use practices, and
toxic pollution; there is over-reliance on hatchery production and
stocking; program funding is inadequate; and there is a lack of public
education and involvement in coaster brook trout restoration. The
petition also asserts that existing programs are inadequate to provide
for the long-term viability of Salvelinus fontinalis in the U.S. and
the restoration and protection of its habitat. Other than the two
sentences making these very general assertions, the petition presents
no information or explanation as to why the petitioned coaster brook
trout is threatened as a result of the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we find that the petition does not
present substantial information in relation to Factor D.
Factor E. Other Manmade or Natural Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The petition asserts that the following factor under Factor E
threatens the coaster brook trout: Competition with rainbow trout, coho
salmon, and brown trout. However, the petition concludes that it is
doubtful ``that competition played a large role in reducing coaster
brook trout and there is no direct evidence to suggest that this has
happened along large areas of the Lake Superior shoreline'' (p. 20).
Consequently, the petition does not provide substantial information
with respect to competition.
The petition also asserts that small population size may threaten
the continued survival of the coaster brook trout population in the
Salmon Trout River. Recent surveys have estimated that the average
annual spawning population in the Salmon Trout River is fewer than 200
individuals; this average may be an underestimate given limitations of
the gear and methods (Huckins, 2006). The petition compares this
average annual spawning population to the number of bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) that spawned in the Jarbidge River annually
when it was emergency-listed (50-125 individuals) (63 FR 42757; August
11, 1998). The petition also compares the average to the definitions of
a strong subpopulation (greater than 500 spawners) and depressed
population (fewer than 500 spawners) given in the Determination of
Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct
Population Segments of Bull Trout (63 FR 31647; June 10, 1998).''
Information in our files supports the conclusion of a depressed
subpopulation in the Salmon Trout River (Lake Superior Brook Trout
Subcommittee 1997, p. 4). Surveys also indicate that coaster brook
trout numbers are low in the three locations where self-sustaining
populations occur on Isle Royale (National Park Service 2007, p. 10;
Quinlan 2008). The annual spawning population at Tobin Harbor may be
less than 150 (National Park Service 2007; p. 10). The sizes of the
annual spawning populations at Siskiwit River and Washington Creek are
unknown but believed to be low (Quinlan 2008). Although coaster brook
trout have been stocked into several streams along the U.S. shoreline
of Lake Superior including Whittlesey Creek (WI) and Grand Portage
Creek (MN), none of these stocking programs has resulted in self-
sustaining populations (Newman et al. 2003, p. 39; Quinlan 2008).
Therefore, based on population size, we find that the petition presents
substantial information relative to Factor E.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition, supporting information provided by
the petitioners, and information that was readily available in our
files or elsewhere (such as the Internet). As described above, the
petition presents evidence of siltation in the Salmon Trout River that
indicates the present or threatened destruction or modification or
curtailment of the habitat or range of coaster brook trout, with impact
to fish
[[Page 14955]]
reproduction, respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). The
petition also presents information regarding population size, which
indicates the small number estimated to remain poses a risk to the
continued survival of the petitioned population of coaster brook trout.
We find that the petition presents substantial information to indicate
that the petitioned action may be warranted, based on threats posed by
siltation and small population size. Therefore, we are initiating a
status review of coaster brook trout to determine whether listing the
species under the Act is warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
regarding this species.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available on
request from the East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this document is the staff of Region 3
Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal
Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated March 12, 2008.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-5618 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
