Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, 52257-52260 [E8-20673]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R8–ES–2008–0098; 92220–1113–
0000–C5]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Delist the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout
Background
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove
the Lahontan cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) from
the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (List) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
removing Lahontan cutthroat trout from
the List may be warranted. Therefore,
we will not initiate a status review in
response to this petition. However, we
are currently conducting a 5-year review
of this species under section 4(c)(2)(A)
of the Act. This review was initiated on
February 14, 2007, and will consider
information that has become available
since the last status review. We ask the
public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the Lahontan cutthroat trout or its
habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on September 9,
2008. You may submit new information
concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502;
telephone (775) 861–6300; facsimile
(775) 861–6301. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
D. Williams, Field Supervisor, or Selena
Werdon, Assistant Field Supervisor,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we
make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and publish our
notice of the finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
This finding is based on the
information included in and with the
petition and information available in
our files at the time of the petition
review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and our regulations in 50 CFR
424.14(b), our review is limited to a
determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
’’substantial scientific or commercial
information’’ threshold. Our standard
for substantial information with regard
to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that
amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In
making this finding, we consider
whether the petition: (1) Clearly
indicates the administrative action
recommended; (2) contains a detailed
narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
present numbers and distribution of the
species and any threats faced by the
species; (3) provides information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by appropriate
supporting documentation in the form
of bibliographic references, reprints of
pertinent publications, copies of reports
or letters from authorities and maps (50
CFR 424.14(b)(2)). If we find that
substantial information was presented,
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species and
publish the results of that status review
in a 12-month finding.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52257
The factors for listing, delisting, or
reclassifying species are described at 50
CFR 424.11. We may delist a species
only if the best scientific and
commercial data available substantiate
that it is neither endangered nor
threatened. Delisting may be warranted
as a result of: (1) Extinction; (2)
recovery; or (3) a determination that that
the original data used for classification
of the species as endangered or
threatened were in error.
We received a petition dated
December 18, 2006, from Dynamic
Action on Wells Group, Inc. (DAWG)
requesting that the Lahontan cutthroat
trout be removed from the List. The
submission clearly identified itself as a
petition and included the requisite
identification information of the
petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). This notice constitutes our
90-day finding on the petition.
Previous Federal Action
On October 13, 1970, we listed
Lahontan cutthroat trout as endangered
under the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–
135, 83 Stat. 275) (35 FR 16047). The
species was subsequently listed under
the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). On July 16, 1975, we reclassified
Lahontan cutthroat trout from
endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863).
We also published findings on two
previous petitions to delist populations
of the Lahontan cutthroat trout, one to
delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Truckee River and Pyramid Lake (51 FR
29671; August 20, 1986) and the other
to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Humboldt River Drainage Basin in
Nevada (59 FR 28329; June 1, 1994),
neither of which resulted in a
determination that delisting was
warranted.
Species Information
Range and Habitat
Historically, Lahontan cutthroat trout
were found in a wide variety of coldwater habitats including large, terminal,
alkaline lakes (e.g., Pyramid and Walker
Lakes); alpine lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe
and Independence Lake); slow,
meandering rivers (e.g., Humboldt
River); mountain rivers (e.g., Carson,
Truckee, Walker, and Marys Rivers);
and small headwater tributary streams
(e.g., Donner and Prosser Creeks).
Generally, Lahontan cutthroat trout
occur in cool flowing water with
available cover of well-vegetated and
stable stream banks, in areas where
there are stream velocity breaks, and in
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
52258
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
relatively silt-free, rocky riffle-run areas
(Service 1995, p. 19).
The Lahontan cutthroat trout is
endemic, or native, to the Lahontan
Basin of northern Nevada, eastern
California, and southern Oregon
(Service 1995, pp. 3–4). In 1844, there
were 11 lake-dwelling populations of
Lahontan cutthroat trout and 400 to 600
stream-dwelling populations in over
5,794 kilometers (km) (3,600 miles) of
streams within the major basins of
Pleistocene Lake Lahontan (Service
1995, p. 6). Lahontan cutthroat trout
currently occupy between 123 and 129
streams within the Lahontan Basin
(Service 1995, p. 7). The species is
currently found in five historic lakes
including Pyramid Lake (Service 2003a,
pp. 41–43), Walker Lake (Service 2003b,
pp. 18–21), Fallen Leaf Lake (Service
2003a, pp. 41, 58), Independence Lake
(Rissler et al. 2006, pp. 25–27, 34), and
Summit Lake (Service 1995, pp. 14–15).
Lahontan cutthroat trout are also found
in numerous lakes and streams within
the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere
outside their historic range (Service
1995, pp. 7, 9, 11–13, 18–19, E–9, E–10).
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Reproduction
Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit lakes
and streams but are obligatory stream
spawners. Small, intermittent, tributary
streams and headwater reaches are
sometimes used as spawning sites
(Coffin 1981, p. 41; Trotter 1987, pp.
129–132). Spawning generally occurs
from April through July, depending
upon stream flow, elevation, and water
temperature (La Rivers 1962, p. 287;
McAfee 1966, p. 227; Lea 1968, pp. 68–
69; Moyle 2002, p. 291). Fecundity of
600–8,000 eggs per female has been
reported for lacustrine (lake-dwelling)
populations (Lea 1968, pp. 80–83;
Cowan 1983, p. 16; Sigler et al. 1983, p.
17; Moyle 2002, p. 291), while only
100–300 eggs were found in females
collected from small Nevada streams
(Coffin 1981, p. 40). Eggs are deposited
in small gravels within riffles or pool
crests (Service 1995, p. 21). Eggs
generally hatch within 4–6 weeks,
depending on water temperature, and
fry emerge 13–23 days later (Lea 1968,
p. 69; Moyle 2002, p. 291).
Genetics
The petitioners provided some
information about the genetic structure
of Lahontan cutthroat trout. They state
that Lahontan cutthroat trout
populations in the Lahontan Basin are
not genetically distinct and that recent
studies to identify Lahontan cutthroat
trout differentiation among Lahontan
sub-basins failed to find statistically
significant variation or asserted sub-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
basin distinctions without adequate
evidence (DAWG 2006, p. 5). However,
the petition does not clearly articulate
how this information supports their
claim that Lahontan cutthroat trout
should be delisted (i.e., the genetics
information does not contribute to a
‘‘detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure’’ (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2))).
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. In making this finding, we
evaluated information presented in the
petition and its supporting information
in the context of the above listed five
factors to determine whether the
petition presented substantial
information indicating that delisting the
species under the Act may be
warranted. Based on information in the
petition and other information available
in our files, our evaluation is presented
below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the
Species’ Habitat or Range
The petitioners claim that two
conditions necessary to delist Lahontan
cutthroat trout have been met, one being
habitat conditions in the Pyramid LakeTruckee River Basin (the other
condition necessary to delist asserted by
the petitioners is discussed under other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence (Factor E)). The
petitioners state that most diversions
from the lower Truckee River have
ended, obstructions to Lahontan
cutthroat trout spawning in the Truckee
River have been removed, and Pyramid
Lake has increased in volume and
elevation. The petitioners also state that
the Truckee River has generated
sufficient flows to maintain a viable
Lahontan cutthroat trout population in
Pyramid Lake, and that the TruckeePyramid Basin could form a potential,
naturally reproducing, self-sustaining
Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
However, the petition provides no
discussion, citations, or other sources of
more detailed information to support
their claim that the threat has been
eliminated.
In addition to the lack of supporting
information in the petition, the
petitioners misstate information in the
final rule reclassifying the species from
endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863).
The petitioners assert that in the final
rule we determined that Lahontan
cutthroat trout is a threatened species
because ‘‘water diversions from the
Truckee River had lowered the water
level of Pyramid Lake, silted up the
mouth of the Truckee River at its entry
into the lake, and eliminated much of
the Lahontan cutthroat trout annual
spawn up the River from Pyramid Lake’’
(DAWG 2006, pp. 3–4). The petitioners
also state that Walker Lake ‘‘was not
mentioned as evidence ‘pertinent to the
determination’ ’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4).
However, the petition misinterprets the
final rule. The final rule stated that
‘‘water diversions within its native
range continue to be a threat’’ and noted
that this was ‘‘especially evident’’ in
Pyramid Lake (40 FR 29864). While the
final rule did not specifically mention
Walker Lake, our reference to water
diversions within the native range of
Lahontan cutthroat trout encompassed
the Walker River drainage and Walker
Lake, as well as the other streams and
lakes discussed above in the Habitat and
Range section. While improved habitat
conditions in the Truckee River and
Pyramid Lake would contribute to
recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout,
amelioration of the threat from water
diversion also would involve areas
within the native range of Lahontan
cutthroat trout in addition to the
Truckee River and Pyramid Lake. Thus,
the petitioners’ second assertion that
conditions necessary to delist Lahontan
cutthroat trout have been met is also
based on a misinterpretation of the final
rule.
To summarize, the petition lacks
information to support its assertion that
threats from diversions in the Truckee
River have been eliminated, and is
incorrect in its assumptions and
interpretations of the final downlisting
rule. Therefore, we find the petition
does not present substantial information
demonstrating that delisting Lahontan
cutthroat trout across all or a significant
portion of its range may be warranted at
this time due to a lack of threats from
any present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
species’ habitat or range.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petition did not provide
information regarding the effects of
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes on Lahontan cutthroat trout. A
review of information in our files does
not suggest that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes currently
threatens Lahontan cutthroat trout.
However, we will analyze all available
information with respect to this factor in
our 5-year review under section 4(c)(2)
of the Act, which was initiated on
February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064).
C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not provide
information regarding the effects of
disease or predation on Lahontan
cutthroat trout. However, information in
our files suggests that there may be
threats to Lahontan cutthroat trout from
disease or predation. We will analyze all
available information with respect to
this factor in our 5-year review under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was
initiated on February 14, 2007 (72 FR
7064). Therefore, we conclude that there
is no substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
delisting Lahontan cutthroat trout may
be warranted due to lack of threats from
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition does not present any
information pertaining to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. However, a review of
information in our files suggests that
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms may be a concern as it
relates to maintenance of habitat
conditions for Lahontan cutthroat trout.
We will analyze all available
information with respect to this factor in
our 5-year review under section 4(c)(2)
of the Act, which was initiated on
February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064).
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
The petitioners referred to the final
rule downlisting the Lahontan cutthroat
trout from endangered to threatened,
stating that the final rule indicated
‘‘introduced Brook trout were strong
competitors for food and space, and
Rainbow trout were hybridizing with
the Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout
the Lahontan Basin’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4).
This is an accurate representation of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
information presented in the final rule
(40 FR 29864).
The petitioners also stated that the
final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat
trout as threatened indicated that ‘‘the
explicit resolution of the competition/
hybridization problem was ‘regulated
taking by sport-fishing’ and that ‘sportfishing was explicitly mentioned as the
method for reducing competition,
hybridization, and overcrowding in
streams’ ’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4). With
respect to the idea that sport-fishing will
reduce competition from and
hybridization with nonnative trout, the
petitioners misinterpret the information
presented in the final rule. The final
rule indicates that (1) Lahontan
cutthroat trout would benefit from
regulated taking by sport-fishing
because stocking had led to most
suitable streams reaching carrying
capacity, and (2) sport-fishing ‘‘is an
acceptable method of preventing
overpopulation which could injure a
species by taxing the species’ habitat’’
(40 FR 29864). Therefore, the final rule
acknowledges the role of sport-fishing
in reducing overpopulation in stocked
areas, but it does not indicate that sportfishing for Lahontan cutthroat trout
ameliorates the threat of competition
from and hybridization with nonnative
trout. The petitioners do not present any
information to indicate that threats
posed by the presence of these
nonnative species have been
ameliorated. In addition, the petitioners
provide no data or other information
indicating that sport-fishing will have
the effect of ameliorating those threats.
They state that ‘‘the competition and
hybridization experienced by the
Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout the
Lahontan Basin has been attenuated by
the Nevada Department of Wildlife
through regulated taking by sportfishing’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 6), without
providing substantive support for the
statement. Therefore, without any
additional information to evaluate the
validity of this statement, we find that
the petition does not present substantial
information indicating that delisting of
the Lahontan cutthroat trout across all
or a significant portion of its range may
be warranted due to a lack of threats
from other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species’ continued
existence.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and
supporting information provided with
the petition under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)
and the Act, including information in
the final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat
trout as threatened. First, our review
indicates that the fundamental argument
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52259
for delisting presented in the petition
was largely based on misinterpretation
of information in the final rule
downlisting Lahontan cutthroat trout
from endangered to threatened (40 FR
29863), specifically with respect to the
extent of the threat from water
diversions, and with respect to any role
sport-fishing for Lahontan cutthroat
trout may play in ameliorating the threat
of competition and hybridization with
nonnative trout. This resulted in
incorrect information being presented
by the petitioners to support their
claims. Second, the petitioners did not
provide substantive discussion, data,
citations, or other information
supporting their statements suggesting
that the threats identified in the final
listing rule have been ameliorated.
Specifically, the petition did not discuss
or cite substantive data or other
information supporting the notion that
water diversions are no longer a threat
to Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Truckee River and Pyramid Lake and
that competition and hybridization with
nonnative trout have been controlled by
sport-fishing. The petition also
discussed genetic differentiation of
Lahontan cutthroat trout within the
Lahontan Basin, but it did not clearly
articulate the relevance of the
information to delisting of the
subspecies.
Considering the information in the
petition under the Act and our
regulations as stated above, we find that
the petition (1) did not contain a
detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
present numbers and distribution of the
species and any threats faced by the
species; (2) did not provide information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (3) was not accompanied by
appropriate supporting documentation
in the form of bibliographic references,
reprints of pertinent publications,
copies of reports or letters from
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)). Specifically, the
supporting documentation that was
provided was not appropriate to support
the fundamental rationale for the
petitioned action. Therefore, we find
that the petition does not present
substantial information demonstrating
that delisting Lahontan cutthroat trout
across all or a significant portion of its
range may be warranted at this time. We
encourage interested parties to continue
to gather and provide data that will
assist with the conservation of Lahontan
cutthroat trout.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
52260
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
References Cited
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available, upon
request, from the Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
staff of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 19, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–20673 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52257-52260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20673]
[[Page 52257]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0098; 92220-1113-0000-C5]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Delist the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove the Lahontan cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (List) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that removing Lahontan
cutthroat trout from the List may be warranted. Therefore, we will not
initiate a status review in response to this petition. However, we are
currently conducting a 5-year review of this species under section
4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. This review was initiated on February 14, 2007,
and will consider information that has become available since the last
status review. We ask the public to submit to us any new information
that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the
Lahontan cutthroat trout or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 9,
2008. You may submit new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone (775) 861-
6300; facsimile (775) 861-6301. Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob D. Williams, Field Supervisor, or
Selena Werdon, Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination.
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within
90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
This finding is based on the information included in and with the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our
regulations in 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
''substantial scientific or commercial information'' threshold. Our
standard for substantial information with regard to a 90-day petition
finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a reasonable
person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be
warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In making this finding, we consider
whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative action
recommended; (2) contains a detailed narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past
and present numbers and distribution of the species and any threats
faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of
the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)). If
we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species and publish the
results of that status review in a 12-month finding.
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) a determination that
that the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
We received a petition dated December 18, 2006, from Dynamic Action
on Wells Group, Inc. (DAWG) requesting that the Lahontan cutthroat
trout be removed from the List. The submission clearly identified
itself as a petition and included the requisite identification
information of the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). This
notice constitutes our 90-day finding on the petition.
Previous Federal Action
On October 13, 1970, we listed Lahontan cutthroat trout as
endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub.
L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275) (35 FR 16047). The species was subsequently
listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On July 16, 1975, we reclassified Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). We also
published findings on two previous petitions to delist populations of
the Lahontan cutthroat trout, one to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in
the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake (51 FR 29671; August 20, 1986) and
the other to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Humboldt River
Drainage Basin in Nevada (59 FR 28329; June 1, 1994), neither of which
resulted in a determination that delisting was warranted.
Species Information
Range and Habitat
Historically, Lahontan cutthroat trout were found in a wide variety
of cold-water habitats including large, terminal, alkaline lakes (e.g.,
Pyramid and Walker Lakes); alpine lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe and
Independence Lake); slow, meandering rivers (e.g., Humboldt River);
mountain rivers (e.g., Carson, Truckee, Walker, and Marys Rivers); and
small headwater tributary streams (e.g., Donner and Prosser Creeks).
Generally, Lahontan cutthroat trout occur in cool flowing water with
available cover of well-vegetated and stable stream banks, in areas
where there are stream velocity breaks, and in
[[Page 52258]]
relatively silt-free, rocky riffle-run areas (Service 1995, p. 19).
The Lahontan cutthroat trout is endemic, or native, to the Lahontan
Basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon
(Service 1995, pp. 3-4). In 1844, there were 11 lake-dwelling
populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout and 400 to 600 stream-dwelling
populations in over 5,794 kilometers (km) (3,600 miles) of streams
within the major basins of Pleistocene Lake Lahontan (Service 1995, p.
6). Lahontan cutthroat trout currently occupy between 123 and 129
streams within the Lahontan Basin (Service 1995, p. 7). The species is
currently found in five historic lakes including Pyramid Lake (Service
2003a, pp. 41-43), Walker Lake (Service 2003b, pp. 18-21), Fallen Leaf
Lake (Service 2003a, pp. 41, 58), Independence Lake (Rissler et al.
2006, pp. 25-27, 34), and Summit Lake (Service 1995, pp. 14-15).
Lahontan cutthroat trout are also found in numerous lakes and streams
within the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere outside their historic range
(Service 1995, pp. 7, 9, 11-13, 18-19, E-9, E-10).
Reproduction
Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit lakes and streams but are
obligatory stream spawners. Small, intermittent, tributary streams and
headwater reaches are sometimes used as spawning sites (Coffin 1981, p.
41; Trotter 1987, pp. 129-132). Spawning generally occurs from April
through July, depending upon stream flow, elevation, and water
temperature (La Rivers 1962, p. 287; McAfee 1966, p. 227; Lea 1968, pp.
68-69; Moyle 2002, p. 291). Fecundity of 600-8,000 eggs per female has
been reported for lacustrine (lake-dwelling) populations (Lea 1968, pp.
80-83; Cowan 1983, p. 16; Sigler et al. 1983, p. 17; Moyle 2002, p.
291), while only 100-300 eggs were found in females collected from
small Nevada streams (Coffin 1981, p. 40). Eggs are deposited in small
gravels within riffles or pool crests (Service 1995, p. 21). Eggs
generally hatch within 4-6 weeks, depending on water temperature, and
fry emerge 13-23 days later (Lea 1968, p. 69; Moyle 2002, p. 291).
Genetics
The petitioners provided some information about the genetic
structure of Lahontan cutthroat trout. They state that Lahontan
cutthroat trout populations in the Lahontan Basin are not genetically
distinct and that recent studies to identify Lahontan cutthroat trout
differentiation among Lahontan sub-basins failed to find statistically
significant variation or asserted sub-basin distinctions without
adequate evidence (DAWG 2006, p. 5). However, the petition does not
clearly articulate how this information supports their claim that
Lahontan cutthroat trout should be delisted (i.e., the genetics
information does not contribute to a ``detailed narrative justification
for the recommended measure'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2))).
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424)
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A)
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this
finding, we evaluated information presented in the petition and its
supporting information in the context of the above listed five factors
to determine whether the petition presented substantial information
indicating that delisting the species under the Act may be warranted.
Based on information in the petition and other information available in
our files, our evaluation is presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The petitioners claim that two conditions necessary to delist
Lahontan cutthroat trout have been met, one being habitat conditions in
the Pyramid Lake-Truckee River Basin (the other condition necessary to
delist asserted by the petitioners is discussed under other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E)). The
petitioners state that most diversions from the lower Truckee River
have ended, obstructions to Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning in the
Truckee River have been removed, and Pyramid Lake has increased in
volume and elevation. The petitioners also state that the Truckee River
has generated sufficient flows to maintain a viable Lahontan cutthroat
trout population in Pyramid Lake, and that the Truckee-Pyramid Basin
could form a potential, naturally reproducing, self-sustaining Lahontan
cutthroat trout fishery. However, the petition provides no discussion,
citations, or other sources of more detailed information to support
their claim that the threat has been eliminated.
In addition to the lack of supporting information in the petition,
the petitioners misstate information in the final rule reclassifying
the species from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). The
petitioners assert that in the final rule we determined that Lahontan
cutthroat trout is a threatened species because ``water diversions from
the Truckee River had lowered the water level of Pyramid Lake, silted
up the mouth of the Truckee River at its entry into the lake, and
eliminated much of the Lahontan cutthroat trout annual spawn up the
River from Pyramid Lake'' (DAWG 2006, pp. 3-4). The petitioners also
state that Walker Lake ``was not mentioned as evidence `pertinent to
the determination' '' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). However, the petition
misinterprets the final rule. The final rule stated that ``water
diversions within its native range continue to be a threat'' and noted
that this was ``especially evident'' in Pyramid Lake (40 FR 29864).
While the final rule did not specifically mention Walker Lake, our
reference to water diversions within the native range of Lahontan
cutthroat trout encompassed the Walker River drainage and Walker Lake,
as well as the other streams and lakes discussed above in the Habitat
and Range section. While improved habitat conditions in the Truckee
River and Pyramid Lake would contribute to recovery of Lahontan
cutthroat trout, amelioration of the threat from water diversion also
would involve areas within the native range of Lahontan cutthroat trout
in addition to the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake. Thus, the
petitioners' second assertion that conditions necessary to delist
Lahontan cutthroat trout have been met is also based on a
misinterpretation of the final rule.
To summarize, the petition lacks information to support its
assertion that threats from diversions in the Truckee River have been
eliminated, and is incorrect in its assumptions and interpretations of
the final downlisting rule. Therefore, we find the petition does not
present substantial information demonstrating that delisting Lahontan
cutthroat trout across all or a significant portion of its range may be
warranted at this time due to a lack of threats from any present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species'
habitat or range.
[[Page 52259]]
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not provide information regarding the effects of
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes on Lahontan cutthroat trout. A review of
information in our files does not suggest that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes currently
threatens Lahontan cutthroat trout. However, we will analyze all
available information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review
under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14,
2007 (72 FR 7064).
C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not provide information regarding the effects of
disease or predation on Lahontan cutthroat trout. However, information
in our files suggests that there may be threats to Lahontan cutthroat
trout from disease or predation. We will analyze all available
information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14, 2007
(72 FR 7064). Therefore, we conclude that there is no substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that delisting
Lahontan cutthroat trout may be warranted due to lack of threats from
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition does not present any information pertaining to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, a review of
information in our files suggests that inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may be a concern as it relates to maintenance of
habitat conditions for Lahontan cutthroat trout. We will analyze all
available information with respect to this factor in our 5-year review
under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was initiated on February 14,
2007 (72 FR 7064).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petitioners referred to the final rule downlisting the Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened, stating that the final
rule indicated ``introduced Brook trout were strong competitors for
food and space, and Rainbow trout were hybridizing with the Lahontan
cutthroat trout throughout the Lahontan Basin'' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). This
is an accurate representation of the information presented in the final
rule (40 FR 29864).
The petitioners also stated that the final rule listing Lahontan
cutthroat trout as threatened indicated that ``the explicit resolution
of the competition/hybridization problem was `regulated taking by
sport-fishing' and that `sport-fishing was explicitly mentioned as the
method for reducing competition, hybridization, and overcrowding in
streams' '' (DAWG 2006, p. 4). With respect to the idea that sport-
fishing will reduce competition from and hybridization with nonnative
trout, the petitioners misinterpret the information presented in the
final rule. The final rule indicates that (1) Lahontan cutthroat trout
would benefit from regulated taking by sport-fishing because stocking
had led to most suitable streams reaching carrying capacity, and (2)
sport-fishing ``is an acceptable method of preventing overpopulation
which could injure a species by taxing the species' habitat'' (40 FR
29864). Therefore, the final rule acknowledges the role of sport-
fishing in reducing overpopulation in stocked areas, but it does not
indicate that sport-fishing for Lahontan cutthroat trout ameliorates
the threat of competition from and hybridization with nonnative trout.
The petitioners do not present any information to indicate that threats
posed by the presence of these nonnative species have been ameliorated.
In addition, the petitioners provide no data or other information
indicating that sport-fishing will have the effect of ameliorating
those threats. They state that ``the competition and hybridization
experienced by the Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout the Lahontan
Basin has been attenuated by the Nevada Department of Wildlife through
regulated taking by sport-fishing'' (DAWG 2006, p. 6), without
providing substantive support for the statement. Therefore, without any
additional information to evaluate the validity of this statement, we
find that the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that delisting of the Lahontan cutthroat trout across all or
a significant portion of its range may be warranted due to a lack of
threats from other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided
with the petition under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) and the Act, including
information in the final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat trout as
threatened. First, our review indicates that the fundamental argument
for delisting presented in the petition was largely based on
misinterpretation of information in the final rule downlisting Lahontan
cutthroat trout from endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863),
specifically with respect to the extent of the threat from water
diversions, and with respect to any role sport-fishing for Lahontan
cutthroat trout may play in ameliorating the threat of competition and
hybridization with nonnative trout. This resulted in incorrect
information being presented by the petitioners to support their claims.
Second, the petitioners did not provide substantive discussion, data,
citations, or other information supporting their statements suggesting
that the threats identified in the final listing rule have been
ameliorated. Specifically, the petition did not discuss or cite
substantive data or other information supporting the notion that water
diversions are no longer a threat to Lahontan cutthroat trout in the
Truckee River and Pyramid Lake and that competition and hybridization
with nonnative trout have been controlled by sport-fishing. The
petition also discussed genetic differentiation of Lahontan cutthroat
trout within the Lahontan Basin, but it did not clearly articulate the
relevance of the information to delisting of the subspecies.
Considering the information in the petition under the Act and our
regulations as stated above, we find that the petition (1) did not
contain a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure,
describing, based on available information, past and present numbers
and distribution of the species and any threats faced by the species;
(2) did not provide information regarding the status of the species
over all or a significant portion of its range; and (3) was not
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Specifically, the supporting documentation that was provided was not
appropriate to support the fundamental rationale for the petitioned
action. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial information demonstrating that delisting Lahontan cutthroat
trout across all or a significant portion of its range may be warranted
at this time. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather and
provide data that will assist with the conservation of Lahontan
cutthroat trout.
[[Page 52260]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff of Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 19, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20673 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P