Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered, 63094-63115 [2011-25652]
Download as PDF
63094
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0089 MO
92210–0–008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a
Petition To List the California Golden
Trout as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the
California golden trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss aguabonita) as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After review of
all available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
California golden trout is not warranted
at this time. However, we ask the public
to submit to us any new information
that becomes available concerning the
threats to the California golden trout or
its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on October 11,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.
gov at Docket Number FWS–R8–ES–
2011–0089. Supporting documentation
we used in preparing this finding is
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Field Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Leyse, Field Office Listing/
Critical Habitat Coordinator,
Sacramento Field Office (see
ADDRESSES); by telephone at 916–414–
6600; or by facsimile at 916–414–6712.
If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants, to the maximum extent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
practicable, within 90 days after
receiving the petition, we make a
finding as to whether the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
In addition, within 12 months of the
date of the receipt of the petition, we
must make a finding on whether the
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted,
(b) warranted, or (c) warranted but
precluded by other pending proposals.
Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that we treat a petition for which the
requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding,
that is, requiring a subsequent finding to
be made within 12 months. Such 12month findings are to be published
promptly in the Federal Register. This
notice constitutes our 12-month finding
on the October 23, 2000, petition to list
the California golden trout as
endangered.
Previous Federal Actions
On October 23, 2000, we received a
petition dated October 13, 2000, from
Trout Unlimited, requesting that the
California golden trout be listed on an
emergency basis as endangered under
the Act, and that critical habitat be
designated. Included in the petition was
supporting information on the
subspecies’ taxonomy, distribution, and
ecology, as well as information
regarding factors considered by the
petitioners to threaten the subspecies.
We acknowledged receipt of the petition
in a letter to Trout Unlimited, dated
November 7, 2000. In that letter, we also
stated that we would be unable to
address the petition until fiscal year
2002 or later due to court orders and
judicially approved settlement
agreements for listing and critical
habitat determinations under the Act,
which required nearly all of our listing
and critical habitat funding for fiscal
year 2001. The petitioner filed a
complaint in Federal District Court on
November 29, 2001, resulting in a ruling
on June 21, 2002, ordering us to
complete the 90-day finding by
September 19, 2002. We completed the
finding by the requisite date, and
published it in the Federal Register on
September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59241). In
the finding we determined that the
petition presented substantial scientific
or commercial information to indicate
that listing the California golden trout
may be warranted. We also determined
that an emergency rule to list was not
warranted at the time of the 90-day
finding. We concurrently initiated a
status review on which to base our
eventual 12-month finding regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whether listing of the California golden
trout is warranted. On September 22,
2003, Trout Unlimited sent a Notice of
Intent to sue the Service for violating
the Act by failing to make a 12-month
finding within the statutory timeframe.
This 12-month finding resolves that
issue.
Subspecies Information
Taxonomy and Subspecies Description
The California golden trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita)
(formerly known as Volcano Creek
golden trout) is one of three subspecies
of rainbow trout (O. mykiss) native to
the Kern River basin in Tulare and Kern
Counties, California (Behnke 1992, p.
191; Behnke 2002, p. 105; Moyle 2002,
p. 283). The two other subspecies native
to this basin are the Little Kern golden
trout (O. mykiss whitei), which is found
in the Little Kern River and its
tributaries, and the Kern River rainbow
trout (O. mykiss gilberti), which is found
in the Kern River. All three subspecies
most likely originated from successive
invasions of primitive redband trout
(ancestral rainbow trout) of the Kern
River approximately 10,000 to 20,000
years ago (Behnke 1992, p. 189; Behnke
2002, p. 107; Moyle 2002, p. 283). These
fish gained access to the Kern River
drainage during glacial cycles and shortterm interglacial wet cycles that allowed
Lake Tulare to overflow and connect the
Kern River drainage to the San Joaquin
River and Pacific Ocean (Behnke 2002,
p. 109). These primitive forms of
rainbow trout that became isolated in
the Kern River watershed gave rise to
the California golden trout, Little Kern
River golden trout, and the Kern River
rainbow trout due to local selective
factors in their environment (Behnke
2002, p. 111; Moyle 2002, p. 283).
The taxonomy of golden trout in the
Kern River basin has been revised
several times. Originally, four species of
trout were described: Salmo aguabonita
from the South Fork Kern River, S.
roosevelti from Golden Trout Creek, S.
whitei (Little Kern golden trout) from
the Little Kern River, and S. gairdeneri
gilberti (Kern River rainbow trout) from
the lower Kern River (Moyle 2002, p.
284). Trout from the South Fork Kern
River and Golden Trout Creek were later
recognized as color variants of S.
aguabonita (Schreck and Behnke 1971,
p. 994). More recently, rainbow trout
were reclassified as Oncorhynchus
mykiss to reflect their relationship to
Pacific salmon, and California golden
trout in both the South Fork Kern River
and Golden Trout Creek became
recognized as the same subspecies of
rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
aguabonita (Behnke 1992, pp. 163, 172).
Similarly, Little Kern golden trout
became O. mykiss whitei, and Kern
River rainbow trout became O. mykiss
gilberti.
California golden trout are well
known for their bright coloration, red to
red-orange belly and cheeks, bright gold
lower sides, a central lateral band that
is red-orange, and a deep olive-green
back (Moyle 2002, p. 283). Typically, 10
parr marks (oval colorations) are present
along the lateral line on both young fish
and adults, but may be lost in older fish
under some conditions (Behnke 2002, p.
106). The pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins
are orange with a white to yellow tip
preceded by a black band; dorsal fins
may also have a white to yellow tip
(Moyle 2002, p. 283). Body spotting is
highly variable, but spots are usually
scattered across the dorsal surface with
a few below the lateral line (Moyle
2002, p. 283). California golden trout
from Golden Trout Creek have few spots
on the body, primarily concentrated on
and near the caudal peduncle (the
muscle before the tail fin), whereas
California golden trout in the South
Fork Kern River typically have small
dark spots present over most of the
length of the body above the lateral line,
although a few spots can be found
below the lateral line (Fisk 1983, p.1;
Stephens 2001a, p. 4). Golden trout are
rainbow trout, so the basic rainbow
trout characteristics apply to the
subspecies (Moyle 2002, p. 283);
however, golden trout have the lowest
number of vertebrae (59 to 60) and
pyloric caeca (finger-like projections of
the intestine (30 to 32)), and the highest
number of scales along the lateral line
(170 to 200) of any rainbow trout
(Behnke 2002, p. 106). California golden
trout in streams can obtain lengths of 19
to 20 centimeters (cm) (7.5 to 7.9 inches
(in)) (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 168).
California golden trout remain
geographically isolated from Little Kern
golden trout and Kern River rainbow
trout, but historical planting of
nonnative hatchery trout (O. mykiss
irideus) has resulted in hybridization in
most of the range (see the Hybridization
section under Factor E below).
California golden trout also present
behavioral and life-history characters
that help distinguish them from other
subspecies of rainbow trout (see also
discussion under the Habitat and Life
History section below). These include
smaller home ranges (Matthews 1996a,
p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587),
remaining active during both day and
night (Matthews 1996a, pp. 82, 84–85),
a relatively long lifespan (Knapp and
Dudley 1990, p. 169), and the
construction of redds (depressions in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
the substrate for eggs) using relatively
small-grained substrate (Knapp and
Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529).
For purposes of this finding, we have
considered California golden trout to be
those trout within the native range of
the subspecies (see Distribution section
below) that present the morphological
and behavioral characters listed above.
We do not rely on genetic tests
indicating levels of genetic introgression
(infiltration of genes from one species
into the gene pool of another species
through repeated backcrossing of a
hybrid with one of its parent species)
with nonnative trout (see Factor E—
Hybridization section below) to
determine what constitutes a member of
the subspecies because the most recent
genetic analysis of introgression in
California golden trout populations
specifically cautioned against the use of
strict cutoffs of introgression levels in
determining management categories
based on any single genetic test
(Stephens 2007, p. 55). According to
this study, the algorithm used by one
genetic test may result in an estimation
of low levels of introgression where
none actually exist, essentially not
allowing for an unambiguous
determination between low levels of
introgression and genetically ‘‘pure’’
populations (Stephens 2007, p. 56). This
caution against using single methods for
determining cutoffs was due in part to
considerable differences in introgression
estimates for certain populations of
California golden trout, which were
generated by the different
methodologies and assumptions of the
various genetic tests that have been used
to test those populations (Stephens
2007, p. 72), as well as to the general
need for an adequate understanding of
the variance surrounding introgression
estimates (Stephens 2007, p. 57).
However, while we do not rely on
genetic tests of introgression levels to
distinguish California golden trout
populations from nonnative trout, we do
consider such genetic information
useful for evaluating the effectiveness of
measures taken to prevent further
introgression.
Hybridization between California
golden trout and nonnative rainbow
trout is sometimes displayed by an
increased number and location of body
spots, especially below the lateral line,
and a more rainbow trout-like body
coloration; however, not all hybrid trout
display rainbow trout characteristics
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 24). We have
anecdotal information that suggests
there are trout that exhibit changed
coloration and spotting patterns from
those ascribed to the California golden
trout (Trout Unlimited 2000, pp. 18, 19)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63095
and that these intergrades may
predominate in the lower reaches of the
South Fork Kern River (Sims 2011a).
Such reports have not been
substantiated with systematic measures
of, or comparison with, introgression
levels or with other morphological or
behavioral attributes described above,
and there are no studies that have
measured the morphological or
behavioral changes in introgressed
California golden trout as compared to
‘‘pure’’ golden trout. Furthermore, there
is no documentation that we are aware
of that indicates that additional meristic
measures used to describe California
golden trout (such as number of
vertebrae, scale counts, and pyloric
caeca) have changed with introgression
levels.
Distribution
The historical range of the California
golden trout included only the South
Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek
in the upper Kern River basin. Golden
Trout Creek and upper portions of the
South Fork Kern River were once part
of the same stream, which became
separated by volcanic activity in the
region approximately 10,000 years ago
(Cordes et al. 2003, p. 20). This led to
Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork
Kern River as known today (Evermann
1906, pp. 11–14) in two adjacent
watersheds draining the Kern Plateau of
the southern Sierra Nevada.
The Golden Trout Creek watershed is
155 square kilometers (km2) (60 square
miles (mi2)). Golden Trout Creek
drainage begins around 3,292 meters (m)
(10,800 feet (ft)) elevation near Cirque
Peak and extends to 2,135 m (7,000 ft)
elevation at the confluence of Golden
Trout Creek and the Kern River. The
headwaters are in the northern section
of the Kern Plateau, and several lakes
(Chicken Spring, Johnson, and Rocky
Basins lakes) drain into the watershed.
With the exception of headwater lakes,
and the probable exception of upper
reaches of some tributary streams,
Golden Trout Creek was historically
occupied by the California golden trout
from the headwaters to a series of
waterfalls near the confluence of the
creek with the Kern River (Evermann
1906, pp. 12–14; 28, 30). The waterfalls
are impassable and thus isolate
California golden trout in Golden Trout
Creek from fish found in the Kern River.
Within Golden Trout Creek, California
golden trout currently maintain the
same distribution as they did
historically.
The South Fork Kern River watershed
covers 1,380 km2 (533 mi2). The South
Fork Kern River begins southeast of
Cirque Peak at approximately 3,170 m
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
63096
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
(10,400 ft) in elevation and continues
until it reaches Isabella Reservoir at 794
m (2,605 ft) in elevation. The
headwaters are in the eastern section of
the Kern Plateau, starting at South Fork
and Mulkey Meadows. California golden
trout were historically known in the
South Fork Kern River from the
headwaters to the southern boundary of
the Domeland Wilderness (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 8). The subspecies currently
maintains the same distribution as it did
historically within the South Fork Kern
River; however, the degree of genetic
introgression from nonnative rainbow
trout increases as one proceeds
downstream from Templeton Barrier
(Stephens 2007, pp. 42, 72). There is no
evidence to suggest that the degree of
introgression has been sufficient to
remove morphologically and
behaviorally distinct California golden
trout from the southern portion of its
historical range. Therefore, we are
considering the subspecies to be present
in its entire historical range for purposes
of this finding. The range is completely
within the Inyo and Sequoia National
Forests, which are administered by the
U.S. Forest Service.
Range Expansion
California golden trout have been
widely transplanted outside of their
historical range, but the history of these
transplants is poorly documented. Most
of these transplanted fish came from
hybridized Cottonwood Lakes stock that
was derived from Golden Trout Creek
(Stephens 2007, pp. 54, 55). Fish were
transplanted into fishless lakes and
streams within the Golden Trout Creek
watershed, the South Fork Kern River
watershed, and other areas throughout
the Sierra Nevada (such as adjacent to
the Kern Plateau, including Ninemile
Creek, Cold Creek, Salmon Creek, many
of the lakes and streams to the north in
Sequoia National Park, and all
tributaries to the Kern River). In
California, planting records and
historical documents indicate that
California golden trout have been
stocked in Alpine, El Dorado, Nevada,
Placer, Sierra, Fresno, Inyo, Madera,
Mono, Siskiyou, Trinity, Tulare, and
Tuolumne Counties (Fisk 1983, p. 11).
Outside of California, golden trout were
sent to England, Colorado, Utah,
Montana, New York, and Wyoming
between 1928 and 1937 (McCloud 1943,
p. 194).
For the purposes of this finding, we
are analyzing a petitioned entity that
includes populations of California
golden trout considered native to the
South Fork Kern River and Golden
Trout Creek in the upper Kern River
basin. We do not consider introduced
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
populations present elsewhere as part of
the listable entity because we do not
consider them to be native populations.
Neither the Act nor our implementing
regulations expressly address whether
introduced populations should be
considered part of an entity being
evaluated for listing, and no Service
policy addresses the issue.
Consequently, in our evaluation of
whether or not to include introduced
populations in the potential listable
entity we considered the following:
(1) Our interpretation of the intent of
the Act with respect to the disposition
of native populations;
(2) A policy used by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
evaluate whether hatchery-origin
populations warrant inclusion in the
listable entity; and
(3) A set of guidelines from another
organization (International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) with
specific criteria for evaluating the
conservation contribution of introduced
populations.
Our interpretation is that the Act is
intended to preserve native populations
in their ecosystems. While hatchery or
introduced populations of fishes may
have some conservation value, this does
not appear to be the case with
introduced populations of California
golden trout in California and elsewhere
in the United States. These introduced
populations were apparently established
to support recreational fisheries without
any formal genetic consideration to
selecting and mating broodstock (group
of mature fish kept for breeding
purposes), and are not part of any
conservation program to benefit the
native populations. Consequently, we
do not consider the introduced
populations of California golden trout in
California, England, Colorado, Utah,
Montana, New York, and Wyoming to
be part of the listable entity.
Habitat and Life History
California golden trout reach sexual
maturity when they are 3 to 4 years old
and begin spawning during the spring or
early summer when maximum water
temperatures consistently exceed 15 to
18 degrees Celsius (°C) (59 to 64 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F)) and average stream
water temperatures exceed 7 to 10 °C
(45 to 50 °F) (Stefferud 1993, pp. 139–
140; Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, p.
528). Spawning begins with female
California golden trout moving fine
gravel substrate to construct a shallow
depression, known as a redd, to lay their
eggs. Although California golden trout
can construct redds using gravel of
smaller average diameter than other
trout species or subspecies, they still
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
select the largest substrates available
(Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528,
529).
Growth of California golden trout
shows a negative correlation with fish
density and a positive correlation with
several factors, including the stability of
the stream bed and banks, and the
presence of aquatic and streamside
vegetation (Knapp and Dudley 1990, pp.
165, 170, 171). Aquatic vegetation
provides habitat for small invertebrates
preyed on by the trout, while
overhanging streamside vegetation
provides habitat for terrestrial
invertebrates that can serve as a food
source when they fall in the water
(Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 170; Moyle
2002, p. 285). Streamside vegetation
also tends to stabilize banks and to
provide cover for young trout from
potential predators such as birds (Moyle
2002, p. 277). Overhanging vegetation,
steep or undercut banks, and deeper
streambeds are all needed by trout
(Moyle 2002, p. 286), in part because
they provide shade and cooler water
during the day. Average daily water
temperatures can fluctuate from 2 to 22
°C (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 163),
while optimal temperatures for trout
range from 15 to 18 °C (59 to 64 °F)
(Moyle 2002, p. 276). Deeper streambeds
and steeper banks are associated with
greater stream stablity, thus helping to
explain the positive correlation between
stream stability and trout growth found
by Knapp and Dudley (1990, pp. 165,
171). Stream stability is also likely
important because erosion of unstable
streams produces higher sediment loads
that can cover redds and interfere with
feeding by clouding the water (Moyle
2002, p. 278).
California golden trout have been
known to live as long as 9 years, and
commonly reach 6 to 7 years old (Knapp
and Dudley 1990, p. 169). This long
lifespan is likely due to a short growing
season, high fish densities, and a low
food abundance, all of which promote
slow growth rates and old ages of trout
(Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169).
California golden trout adapted to the
South Fork Kern River and Golden
Trout Creek in the absence of
competitors, although they probably did
coexist with Sacramento suckers
(Catostomus occidentalis) in the South
Fork Kern River (Moyle 2002, p. 284).
Long isolation of California golden trout
from other species has likely resulted in
a lack of competitive ability, making
them vulnerable to replacement by other
trout species (Behnke 1992, p. 191).
Likewise, the subspecies is thought to
have evolved without substantial
interspecific predation risk; the birds
and mammals that might have been
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Agencies, through the MOA, agreed to
formally implement and collaborate on
the Conservation Strategy and make any
necessary adaptive management
changes as the primary mechanism for
the conservation of the California
golden trout. Implementation of many
tasks described in the Conservation
Strategy began while it was under
development, and have continued since
its finalization. Those tasks and other
conservation efforts implemented in
prior years are summarized below
throughout the five-factor analysis.
point that the species meets the
definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to the California golden trout
in relation to the five factors in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In
making our 12-month finding on the
petition, we considered and evaluated
the best available scientific and
commercial information. We reviewed
the petition, information available in
our files, and other available published
and unpublished information.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. The Act treats
subspecies such as the California golden
The Conservation Strategy
trout as species for these purposes (16
Since publication of the 90-day
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under section 4(a)(1)
finding in 2002 (67 FR 59241;
of the Act, a species may be determined
September 20, 2002), the California
to be endangered or threatened based on
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),
any of the following five factors:
the Forest Service, and the Service
(A) The present or threatened
(hereafter referred to collectively as the
destruction, modification, or
Agencies) completed a revised
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
Conservation Assessment and Strategy
recreational, scientific, or educational
for the California Golden Trout
purposes;
(Conservation Strategy) dated
(C) Disease or predation;
September 17, 2004 (CDFG et al. 2004a).
(D) The inadequacy of existing
The Conservation Strategy replaced a
regulatory mechanisms; or
previous guidance document known as
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
the Conservation Strategy for the
Volcano Creek (California) Golden Trout affecting its continued existence.
In considering what factors might
(1999 Conservation Strategy), which had
constitute threats, we must look beyond
been in effect since April 22, 1999. The
Agencies also signed a Memorandum of the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species
Agreement (MOA) on September 17,
responds to the factor in a way that
2004, to implement the Conservation
causes actual impacts to the species. If
Strategy (CDFG et al. 2004b); both the
there is exposure to a factor, but no
Conservation Strategy and MOA are
response, or only a positive response,
currently in effect. The purposes of the
that factor is not a threat. If there is
Conservation Strategy are to:
exposure and the species responds
(1) Protect and restore California
negatively, the factor may be a threat
golden trout genetic integrity and
and we then attempt to determine how
distribution within its native range;
significant a threat it is. If the threat is
(2) Improve riparian and instream
significant, it may drive or contribute to
habitat for the restoration of California
the risk of extinction of the species such
golden trout populations; and
that the species warrants listing as
(3) Expand educational efforts
threatened or endangered as those terms
regarding California golden trout
are defined by the Act. This does not
restoration and protection.
necessarily require empirical proof of a
The Agencies’ intent has been to
threat. The combination of exposure and
encourage ongoing nongovernmental
some corroborating evidence of how the
stakeholder coordination and
species is likely impacted could suffice.
consultation throughout the
The mere identification of factors that
implementation phase of the
could impact a species negatively is not
Conservation Strategy. The
sufficient to compel a finding that
Conservation Strategy is based on
listing is appropriate; we require
adaptive management, with tasks being
removed, added, or adjusted annually as evidence that these factors are operative
new information becomes available. The threats that act on the species to the
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The petition and our subsequent
investigations have identified several
habitat-related activities relevant to the
conservation status of California golden
trout, including: Livestock grazing
management, pack stock use, recreation,
artificial fish barriers, and beavers. We
address each activity below.
likely predators of the California golden
trout occur infrequently in high alpine
areas where California golden trout are
found (Moyle 2002, p. 285). One
possible indication that California
golden trout adapted without predators
is the trout’s active behavior during both
day and night (Matthews 1996a, pp. 82,
84–85).
California golden trout home ranges
were calculated as the linear distance
that encompasses 90 percent of trout
locations, based on movements recorded
using radio-telemetry during the months
of July and September (Matthews 1996a,
p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587).
California golden trout were found to
have small home ranges that average
5 m (16 ft) (Matthews 1996a, p. 84;
Matthews 1996b, p. 587). Movements of
26 to 100 m (86 to 328 ft) were observed,
but these constituted less than 1 percent
of all observations (Matthews 1996b, p.
587).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63097
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Livestock Grazing Management
The combined effect of current
livestock grazing activities in the
Golden Trout Wilderness and legacy
conditions from historically excessive
grazing use have the potential to impact
habitat and the range of the California
golden trout. The following subsections
discuss the effects of excessive
historical grazing, current grazing
management practices, and habitat
restoration and monitoring efforts
within the basins in which the native
stream habitat of the California golden
trout occurs.
Historical Effects of Excessive Grazing
Grazing of livestock in Sierra Nevada
meadows and riparian areas began in
the mid-1700s with the European
settlement of California (Menke et al.
1996, p. 909). Following the gold rush
of the mid-1800s, grazing rose to a level
that exceeded the carrying capacity of
the available range and caused
significant impacts to the grazed
ecosystems (Meehan and Platts 1978,
p. 275; Menke et al. 1996, p. 909).
Approximately 95 percent of the
California golden trout’s native stream
habitat has been subjected to varying
intensities of grazing for more than 130
years (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 31).
Livestock grazing within the national
forests in the southern and high Sierras
has continued with gradual reductions
since the 1920s, except for an increase
during World War II (Menke et al. 1996,
pp. 909–910, 916–919).
Livestock can contribute to the
destabilization of stream banks by
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63098
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
accelerating erosion and increasing bank
disturbance (Kauffman et al. 1983, pp.
684–685; Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, p.
279). Livestock grazing in meadows and
on stream banks can compact soils,
which reduces water infiltration rates
and the soil’s ability to hold water,
thereby increasing surface runoff rates
into adjacent streams, downcutting
streambeds, and lowering the watertable
(Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275–276;
Kauffman et al. 1983, pp. 684–685;
Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 433–
434; Bohn and Buckhouse 1985, p. 378;
Armour et al. 1994, pp. 7–10). In some
cases, excessive livestock grazing has
resulted in the conversion of wet
meadows into dry flats and in
diminished perennial stream flows
(Armour et al. 1994, p. 7). Erosion from
trampling causes stream bank collapse
and an accelerated rate of soil
movement from land into streams
(Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275–276).
Accelerated rates of erosion lead to
elevated instream sediment loads and
depositions, and changes in channel
morphology, which alter the structure of
the aquatic environment used by fish for
spawning (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp.
275–276; Kauffman and Krueger 1984,
pp. 433–434; Bohn and Buckhouse
1985, p. 378). These effects to the
aquatic ecosystem increase with
increases in the intensity of grazing
(Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275–276).
Livestock grazing can cause a nutrient
loading problem due to urination and
defecation in or near the water, and
elevate bacteria levels in areas where
cattle are concentrated near water
(Meehan and Platts 1978, p. 276;
Stephenson and Street 1978, p. 152;
Kauffman and Krueger 1984, p. 432).
The nutrient status of streams can create
a cause and effect relationship between
nutrient levels, bacterial growth, and
insect mortality (Lemly 1998, p. 234).
Growth of filamentous bacteria on the
bodies and gills of aquatic insects was
demonstrated to be an effect of nutrient
loading in livestock-use pastures,
significantly lowering the density of
insect occurrences at downstream sites
(Lemly 1998, pp. 234–235). Aquatic
insects suffered extensive mortality
because of this bacterial growth in
laboratory and field studies, indicating
that elevated bacteria levels can
negatively influence stream insect
populations (Lemly 1998, pp. 234–235,
237), which can result in detrimental
effects to prey species important to fish.
Several studies have documented the
environmentally detrimental impacts of
historical grazing practices in areas
within the range of the California golden
trout. Albert (1982, pp. 29–47) studied
factors influencing the riparian
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
condition of streams in the Golden
Trout Wilderness and adjoining
watersheds in Sequoia National Park.
Her results showed that stream zones in
the South Fork Kern River and Golden
Trout Creek were less stable, had more
livestock damage, and were generally in
poorer condition than those in Sequoia
National Park, which had not been
grazed for the preceding 50 years.
Stream reaches with light cattle use had
channel bottoms that were more stable
(less subject to erosional and
depositional changes) than heavily used
reaches (Albert 1982, pp. 48–51).
Odion et al. (1988, pp. 277–289)
examined the effects of cattle grazing
and recovery potential in Templeton
and Ramshaw Meadows along the South
Fork Kern River. Vegetation change was
monitored inside and outside of
exclosures that were established along
riparian areas within the range of
California golden trout. Odion et al.
(1988, pp. 277–289) concluded that
livestock trampling and defoliation
caused a breakdown of the protective
sod layer in the meadows, allowing
streams to incise (where the streambed
channel downcuts in elevation,
reducing habitat quality and quantity),
produce gullies, and lower the water
table. Subsequently, plants adapted for
a dry habitat, such as sagebrush,
invaded the altered meadows. Results of
density monitoring indicated that cattle
trampling impaired colonization of
plant species important in stabilizing
substrate on stream banks, thus
reducing the natural revegetation
potential of bare stream bank habitat
(Odion et al. 1988, p. 283).
Matthews (1996b, pp. 579–589) used
radio transmitters to determine habitat
selection and movement patterns of
California golden trout in two stream
reaches with different levels of habitat
recovery on Mulkey Creek. The study
areas were differentiated by high and
low coverage of Carex rostrata (beaked
sedge) along the stream banks. Low
coverage areas were typically associated
with signs of cattle degradation, such as
widened stream channels, collapsed
banks, and a reduction in areas with
undercut banks. In both low and high
sedge reaches, California golden trout
more often selected undercut banks,
aquatic vegetation, and sedge while
avoiding bare and collapsed banks
caused by livestock grazing. They were
most commonly found in pools and
runs (slow moving areas in a stream),
where they used habitat features such as
undercut banks, aquatic vegetation, and
sedges, all of which typically can be
damaged by excessive cattle grazing
along stream banks.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Knapp and Matthews (1996, pp. 816–
817) examined the effects of excessive
livestock grazing on California golden
trout and their habitat inside and
outside of grazing exclosures in the
South Fork Kern River watershed. In the
2-year study, most physical parameters
of the stream channels showed large
differences between grazed and
ungrazed sites, with ungrazed sites
displaying greater canopy shading,
stream depth, bank-full height, and
narrower stream width. Densities and
biomass of California golden trout per
unit area were significantly higher in
ungrazed versus grazed areas in three
out of four comparisons, but differences
were less consistent when density and
biomass were calculated using stream
length. Other findings of this study
indicate a significant decrease in stream
width in the upper Ramshaw Meadows
exclosure between 1984 and 1993, and
a greater number of willow plants inside
exclosures than outside.
Not all studies found differences in
grazed and ungrazed areas. Sarr (1995,
pp. 97, 104) did not find significant
differences in stream morphology in his
study between grazed and ungrazed
reaches on the South Fork Kern River.
In a movement and habitat use study,
California golden trout were monitored
with radio transmitters inside and
outside of grazing exclosures on the
South Fork Kern River (Matthews
1996a, pp. 78–85). No differences in
distance moved or home range were
found between California golden trout
inside and outside exclosures, and most
fish were found within 5 m (16.4 ft) of
their previously recorded location.
Current Levels of Grazing Use
Many grazing impacts to the Kern
Plateau were originally caused by
unmanaged grazing practices dating
back to the late 1800s, during which
tens of thousands of cattle were grazed
over long periods of time (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 31). Grazing use has been
greatly reduced since then in order to
restore natural habitat conditions (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 34). Additionally, during
the past decade the Inyo National Forest
has completely restricted grazing on two
of its four grazing allotments. In
February of 2001, a Decision Notice was
signed that implemented a 10-year
period of rest on the Templeton and
Whitney grazing allotments to facilitate
recovery of watershed and channel
conditions. The notice indicated that
grazing on the two allotments would be
reconsidered at the end of the 10-year
period (USFS 2001a, p. 5). The USFS
expects to reach a decision on this issue
in June of 2012 (USFS 2011, p. 10).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Within the Sequoia National Forest
from 2001 to 2004, two of the three
available grazing allotments had little or
no grazing, while the third utilized up
to 65 percent of the total livestock
permitted (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 19).
Grazing use levels in the Sequoia
National Forest are lower than
permitted largely because of remoteness
and inaccessibility (Anderson 2006),
whereas in the Inyo National Forest, a
1995 amendment (typically referred to
as Amendment 6, discussed below) to
the Forest-wide grazing utilization
standards of the Forest’s Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has
apparently resulted in reduced cattle
use (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Current Grazing Management Practices
In 1995, Amendment 6 to the Inyo
National Forest LRMP was developed to
establish forest-wide grazing utilization
standards, which are requirements in
addition to existing utilization
standards contained in grazing permits
(USFS 1995, pp. 13, 14). The forest-wide
standards were designed, in part, to
improve the existing condition of
streams supporting California golden
trout in grazed watersheds (USFS 1995,
pp. 27, 28). The Amendment allows
Forest Service personnel to tailor
grazing utilization standards to maintain
or improve hydrologic and meadow
conditions. Grazing utilization
standards establish an upper limit of
forage that grazing cattle may consume
before being moved to a new area (Sims
2011b, p. 1). Inyo National Forest
personnel conduct annual monitoring of
representative meadows to determine
whether utilization standards have been
exceeded. If they do find that standards
have been exceeded they adjust the
standards downwards in following years
to allow recovery. The utilization
standards themselves are reassessed
every 5 to 10 years to ensure that they
avoid habitat degradation (including the
degradation of stream habitat) (Sims
2011b, p. 1).
The Inyo National Forest LRMP also
restricts trampling of streambanks to 10
percent of the streambank length along
State trout waters (which include most
of the streams supporting California
golden trout), and to 20 percent along
other waters (USFS 1988a, pp. 78–79).
As with utilization standards, annual
monitoring of representative
streambanks helps assure these
standards are not exceeded, and allows
grazing prescriptions to be adjusted to
promote recovery of the streambanks if
the standards are exceeded (Sims 2011b,
p. 1). Additionally, salt provided for
cattle must be located at least 0.25 mi
(0.4 km) away from riparian areas, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
additional requirements may apply to
specific management areas with unique
characteristics. For example, range
management direction for the Golden
Trout Management Area (#19) amends
grazing allotment plans to include
necessary mitigation measures and
corrective actions if grazing is
significantly impacting fish habitat
(USFS 1988a, p. 236).
On the Sequoia National Forest,
LRMP grazing standards and guidelines
applicable to all streams within the
habitat of the California golden trout
were amended in 2004 (subsequent to
the October 13, 2000, petition to list the
California golden trout) by the adoption
of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (SNFPA) (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 23). The new standards and
guidelines, established for the
protection of rare aquatic populations
such as the California golden trout,
require habitat managers to implement
the following conservation measures:
(1) Prevent disturbance to meadowassociated streambanks and natural lake
and pond shorelines caused by resource
activities from exceeding 20 percent of
stream reach or 20 percent of natural
lake and pond shorelines.
(2) Limit livestock utilization of grass
and grass-like plants to a maximum
consumption of 30 percent of each plant
by volume (or minimum 6 in (15 cm)
stubble height) for meadows in early
seral status; limit livestock utilization of
grass and grass-like plants to a
maximum consumption of 40 percent of
each plant by volume (or minimum of
4 in (10 cm) stubble height for meadows
in late seral status).
(3) Determine ecological status on all
key areas monitored for grazing
utilization prior to establishing
utilization levels.
(4) Limit browsing to no more than 20
percent of the annual leader growth of
mature riparian shrubs and no more
than 20 percent of individual seedlings
(CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 23, 84, 87).
Habitat Restoration and Monitoring
Efforts
The Inyo National Forest has installed
several exclosures in riparian areas
within the range of the California golden
trout to protect and restore portions of
the South Fork Kern River, Mulkey
Creek, Ninemile Creek, and Golden
Trout Creek from grazing impacts (see
also Historical Effects of Excessive
Grazing section above). Livestock
exclosures totaling several miles exist
on numerous stream reaches in all four
grazing allotments within Inyo National
Forest. Exclosures in the Monache and
Mulkey allotments, where grazing is
currently allowed, are currently
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63099
excluding cattle from areas where they
would otherwise be grazing. Exclosures
in the Whitney and Templeton
allotments, which are currently being
rested from grazing, will only begin to
actively exclude cattle if and when
grazing is resumed on those allotments.
Research by Knapp and Matthews
(1996, pp. 816–817) in Mulkey and
Ramshaw Meadows showed that areas
within exclosures display greater
canopy shading, stream depth, bankful
height, and narrower stream width.
Studies by Odion et al. (1988, p. 277) in
Ramshaw and Templeton Meadows
indicated that exclosures allowed
significantly more pioneer species to
colonize areas that were bare from
disturbance. Photo-points recorded
between 1989 and 2005 within a
number of these exclosures indicate
recovery in many areas that were once
degraded by grazing (Sims 2006a). For
these reasons, livestock exclosures have
contributed to restoring habitat,
reducing the effects of grazing, and
preventing future damage to these
habitats for the subspecies. Because
exclosures require maintenance,
activities conducted pursuant to annual
work plans within the Conservation
Strategy have included annual
maintenance of cattle exclosure fencing
(McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 17; Sims
and McGuire 2006, p. 12).
In addition to monitoring and cattle
exclusion efforts, Inyo National Forest
has completed numerous projects to
stabilize soil and prevent erosion (USFS
2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 35).
In addition to preventing further
degradation, such treatments can direct
stream flows to reestablish stream
characteristics beneficial to California
golden trout, such as overhanging banks
and vegetation. These restoration and
stabilization projects generally involve
placing materials such as rocks or logs
at key points of eroding streams in a
given area to catch sediments and
prevent further erosion. Since 1996,
such projects have been completed at 19
sites (USFS 2005 in McGuire and Sims
2006, pp. 35, 37). Between 1933 and the
mid-1980s, approximately 800 erosion
control structures were installed in the
Golden Trout Wilderness (USFS 1988a,
p. 236; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Conservation activities that have been
conducted for the benefit of the
California golden trout are described in
the report titled, ‘‘Watershed
Restoration and Monitoring
Accomplishments on the Kern Plateau’’
(Kern Plateau Report) (USFS 2005 in
McGuire and Sims 2006, pp. 32–42),
which summarizes watershed
improvement and monitoring projects
within the grazing allotments on the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63100
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Kern Plateau since the 1930s. For
example, from 2002 to 2003, the Forest
Service implemented intensive
monitoring and data collection over a
wide area of the South Fork Kern River
and Golden Trout Creek watersheds to
assist in determining watershed
condition trends (USFS 2005 in
McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 32). A widescale headcut monitoring effort was
initiated in 2003 at various parts of the
Kern Plateau on both active and rested
grazing allotments. Photo-points have
been established at various locations on
the Kern Plateau to monitor trends in
stream bank stability, headcut
migration, and vegetation patterns, with
data collected indicating recovery in
many areas that were affected by grazing
(Sims 2006a, p. 1). The Kern Plateau
Report also identifies opportunities for
monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of management practices.
Recent results from these monitoring
efforts showed significant improvement
in meadow condition and streambank
stability for the two allotments rested
from grazing (Templeton and Whitney),
and a positive trend in meadow and
streambank conditions for the Mulkey
allotment (Weixelman 2011, p. 12). No
sites were shown to decline in condition
(Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63). Overall,
64 percent of sites in grazed allotments
and 74 percent in ungrazed allotments
are now meeting desired conditions
(good to excellent) (Weixelman 2011,
pp. 3, 12).
The Conservation Strategy also
includes monitoring of the effectiveness
of best management practices (BMPs) to
determine their effectiveness in
protecting California golden trout
habitat, with an annual report
completed for inclusion in the annual
accomplishment reports (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 54). BMPs are a practice or
combination of practices that are the
most effective and practical means of
preventing or reducing water pollution
from non-point sources. We also note
that the MOA commits the signatories of
the Conservation Strategy to meet
annually to evaluate the effectiveness of
the strategy, determine whether the
goals and objectives are being
adequately achieved, and discuss
whether the strategy requires any
adaptive changes to better conserve the
California golden trout (CDFG et al.
2004b, p. 3). This means that changes in
management can occur if conditions or
results of monitoring indicate there is a
negative change to the California golden
trout’s habitat or range. The MOA also
contains a provision that if any element
of the Conservation Strategy is
determined infeasible, or if any new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Summary of Livestock Grazing
Management
In summary, historical excessive
grazing practices have affected the
stream habitat in nearly the entire native
range of the California golden trout.
Habitat degradation has been addressed
in recent decades with numerous
conservation efforts, such as reducing
the season of use and number of cattle
allowed to graze on an allotment,
implementing grazing standards and
guidelines in the LRMPs, resting of
grazing allotments, implementing
watershed monitoring, and completing
restoration projects. Monitoring of
Golden Trout Creek and upper South
Fork Kern watersheds has found that
implementing these conservation efforts
has improved meadow and streambank
conditions for three of four grazing
allotments, and has stabilized
conditions in the fourth grazing
allotment (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63;
Weixelman 2011, p. 12). Based on our
evaluation of current practices and of
recent and ongoing restoration
activities, we do not consider livestock
grazing to present a significant threat to
the California golden trout now or into
the future.
Currently, pack stock use within
Golden Trout and South Sierra
Wilderness Areas overlaps with
historical and current livestock grazing
locations, thus making it difficult to
identify impacts to vegetation that are
due specifically to pack stock use (USFS
2006b, p. 3–13). Monitoring of pack
stock grazing impacts on meadows
within the California golden trout’s
range shows a general trend of
decreasing impacts to stream bank
stability. This trend is believed to be
due to restoration efforts and the
cancellation of cattle grazing permits
(USFS 2006b, p. 3–12).
Allowable pack stock uses are limited
in the Inyo National Forest by the same
restrictions discussed above for cattle,
such as the Amendment 6 forest-wide
grazing utilization standards and the 10
percent limit to bank trampling along
State trout waters (USFS 200b, p. 3–
353). Pack stock grazing is also
prohibited in specific meadows,
including Volcano Meadow, South Fork
Meadow (at the headwaters of the South
Fork of the Kern River), and parts of
Ramshaw Meadow. As discussed above,
these restrictions have resulted in
improved conditions for the majority of
monitored habitat for which we have
monitoring results, and stabilized
conditions for the remainder of that
habitat (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63;
Weixelman 2011, p. 12). Accordingly,
we consider current habitat
management practices sufficient to
prevent pack stock use from posing a
significant threat to the California
golden trout.
Pack Stock Use
Similar to cattle, horses and mules
may significantly overgraze, trample, or
pollute streamside habitat if too many
are concentrated in riparian areas too
often or for too long. Commercial pack
stock trips are permitted in national
forests within the Sierra Nevada,
providing transport services into
wilderness areas with the use of horses
or mules. Use of pack stock in the Sierra
Nevada increased after World War II as
road access, leisure time, and disposable
income increased (Menke et al. 1996,
p. 919). The Inyo National Forest has
permitted commercial pack operators
since the 1920s (USFS 2006a, p. 1).
Current commercial pack stock use is
approximately 27 percent of the level of
use in the 1980s reflecting a decline in
the public’s need and demand for pack
stock trips. From 2001 to 2005,
commercial pack stock outfitters within
the Golden Trout and South Sierra
Wilderness Areas averaged 28 percent of
their current authorized use (USFS
2006b, p. 3–18).
Recreation
Recreational activities that include
hiking, camping, and off-road vehicle
(ORV) use take place throughout the
Sierra Nevada and can have impacts on
fish and wildlife and their habitats
(impacts from fishing are discussed
below under Factor B—Overutilization
for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes section).
Impacts to wilderness areas can vary in
their extent, longevity, and intensity
(Cole and Landres 1996, pp. 169–170).
In easily accessible areas, heavy foot
traffic in riparian areas can trample
vegetation, compact soils, and
physically damage stream banks
(Kondolf et al. 1996, pp. 1014, 1019).
Human foot, horse, bicycle, or ORV
trails can replace riparian habitat with
compacted soil (Kondolph et al. 1996,
pp. 1014, 1017, 1019), lower the water
table, and cause increased erosion.
Recreation is the fastest growing use
of national forests (USFS 2001b, p. 453).
Because of an increasing demand for
wilderness recreational experiences,
threat is identified, then the Agencies
will be notified within 30 days and a
meeting will be held to determine the
course of action (CDFG et al. 2004b, p.
4). Thus, in the event of a change in
future conditions that result in an
unacceptable level of impacts due to
excessive grazing, appropriate changes
in management can occur.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wilderness land management now
includes standards for wilderness
conditions, implementing permit
systems, and other visitor management
techniques to reduce impacts to habitat,
including riparian habitat (Cole 2001,
pp. 4–5). These wilderness land
management techniques are currently
being used on the Inyo and Sequoia
National Forests where they are
expected to benefit California golden
trout by reducing impacts on its habitat.
All of the current range of the
California golden trout, with the
exception of the Monache Meadow and
Kennedy Meadow areas, is
encompassed within the federally
designated Golden Trout, South Sierra,
and Domeland Wilderness areas, where
access is difficult and impacts from
recreation are lower than in easily
accessible areas. Recreational use
currently is low and well-dispersed in
these areas. The Forest Service monitors
wilderness use levels and limits
wilderness use if recreation levels are
determined to be high (Sims 2006a,
p. 1). Recreational impacts are
ameliorated by the implementation of
various management actions, such as
camping restrictions, wilderness ranger
presence, and permit requirements.
Camping within the Golden Trout
Wilderness is not allowed within 100 ft
(30 m) of lakes or streams, and a permit
is required by the Sequoia National
Forest for overnight use. These
measures minimize impacts to the fish’s
habitat. Additionally, Federal
designation of an area as Wilderness
prohibits the use of motorized or
mechanized equipment by the public,
with limited exceptions, and therefore
provides protection from ORV impacts
within these areas.
On National Forest lands outside of
federally designated wilderness areas,
California golden trout stream habitat
occurs in high-use areas, such as
Monache and Kennedy Meadows. In
these areas, recreational impacts are
occurring and are expected to continue.
Recreational use occurs primarily on the
South Fork Kern River through
Monache Meadows on the Inyo National
Forest and Kennedy Meadows on the
Sequoia National Forest. Motorized
access in Monache Meadows is
restricted to use of a single 4-wheeldrive road that enters to the south of the
meadow. Camping, fishing, and hunting
are the primary uses, as well as access
for pack stock (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 21).
Kennedy Meadows is easily accessed by
road and receives heavy use during the
trout season for fishing and camping
activities. Easily accessible and popular
fishing areas, such as Monache and
Kennedy Meadows, are being impacted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
by anglers, whose use of the stream
banks can lead to collapsed undercut
banks, compacted soils, and disturbed
riparian vegetation (Stephens 2001a,
p. 64).
Although recreational impacts are
expected to continue, they are localized
to a few areas within the native range of
the California golden trout. In addition,
the Forest Service and CDFG have
implemented measures identified in the
Conservation Strategy to offset
recreational impacts to the subspecies.
Restoration and stabilization projects
were implemented adjacent to and
within the Monache Allotment in 2004
to address ORV impacts to the meadow
habitat in the South Fork Kern River
drainage. A brochure for recreational
users was produced in 2005 and 2006
that informed the public about fishing
and requested help with restoration
projects aimed at protecting the
California golden trout; it is available for
recreational users at area ranger stations,
visitor centers, and local flyfishing
shops. Information regarding volunteer
field activities, opportunities for public
involvement, subspecies information,
and agency contacts is also posted on
the California Trout and Trout
Unlimited web pages. Through these
volunteer field activities, Trout
Unlimited, California Trout, and the
Federation of Flyfishers have assisted
CDFG and the Forest Service to protect
and restore California golden trout and
their habitat.
In summary, recreational activities
have the potential to negatively impact
the habitat and range of the California
golden trout through trampling and
vegetation loss due to use by pack stock,
humans, and ORVs. We believe that
some adverse effects to the California
golden trout from recreation at high-use
areas outside of federally designated
Wilderness Areas will continue;
however, these effects are expected to
remain localized and not rise to a level
that would significantly affect the
subspecies as a whole. We conclude that
current wilderness land management
standards afford considerable protection
from a variety of potential recreational
impacts to habitat of the California
golden trout in wilderness.
Implementation of management
activities by the Forest Service and
CDFG have offset recreational impacts
to California golden trout habitat in
several high-use recreational areas
outside of designated wilderness.
Activities such as public outreach and
stakeholder involvement have been, and
continue to be, conducted to help limit
potential recreational impacts over the
native range of the California golden
trout. Consequently, we conclude that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63101
habitat loss due to recreational activity
does not currently present a significant
threat to the California golden trout, and
we do not expect it to become a
significant threat in the future.
Artificial Fish Barriers
Three barriers have been constructed
on the South Fork Kern River to prevent
upstream migration of nonnative trout
species, and thereby to reduce their
introgression and competition with
California golden trout. Between 1970
and 1973, the Ramshaw Barrier was
constructed in a gorge at the upper end
of Ramshaw Meadows; it is located
farthest upstream from the other barriers
on the South Fork Kern River. In 1973,
the Templeton Barrier was constructed
of rock, chain-link fencing, and filter
fabric at the head of Templeton Gorge,
located approximately 11.3 km (7 mi)
downstream of the Ramshaw Barrier at
the eastern end of Templeton Meadows.
In 1980, Templeton Barrier was
replaced with a rock-filled gabion
structure across the river that resembled
a small dam. In 1981, the Schaeffer
Barrier was constructed 11.3 km (7 mi)
downstream from the Templeton Barrier
at the upper end of Monache Meadows.
Although the Ramshaw Barrier has
been impassable to fish since 1973, both
the Templeton and Schaeffer barriers
were determined in 1994 to be on the
verge of collapse (Stephens 2001a, p. 33;
CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 36). In 1996, the
gabion dam at Templeton was replaced
with a rock and concrete dam
immediately downstream and in contact
with the existing structure (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 37). In 2003, Schaeffer Barrier
was replaced with a reinforced concrete
dam that is 2 ft (0.6 m) higher than the
old barrier and includes a concrete
apron below the spillway to prevent the
formation of a jump pool below the
barrier (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37). As a
result of these modifications, all three
barriers now effectively prevent
upstream fish passage (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 37; Lentz 2011, p. 1).
The construction of these fish barriers
and subsequent modifications likely
have had some negative effect on
California golden trout by altering their
stream habitat. Dams, water diversions,
and their associated structures can alter
the natural flow regime both upstream
and downstream of dams. However,
because the barriers have been
constructed to prevent passage of
nonnative fish and to protect the
California golden trout rather than to
impound water, we expect that their
effect on stream conditions and
hydrology are limited to localized areas
where the barriers are placed. The
barriers have the potential to fragment
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
63102
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
the California golden trout’s stream
habitat because they generally prevent
the upstream movement of fish,
including California golden trout.
However, California golden trout may be
somewhat insulated from these effects
because they generally do not move far
from where they were hatched, except
under unusually high flood flows
(Stephens 2003, p. 5). The barriers also
facilitate the restoration of natural prey
and competitor conditions in the
California golden trout’s stream habitat
by preventing population of the streams
by nonnative brown trout (Salmo
trutta). The effects of artificial fish
barriers on movement of brown trout are
discussed below under Factor C—
Disease or Predation. Effects on
movement of hybridized trout are
discussed under Factor E—Other
Natural or Human Factors.
In summary, the three artificial fish
barriers that have been placed on the
South Fork Kern River are expected to
have localized effects to the stream
habitat of the California golden trout,
and are also expected to benefit the
subspecies in the future by allowing
restoration of natural predator and prey
relationships within the habitat. We
conclude that the barriers do not
constitute a significant threat to
California golden trout at this time or in
the future.
Beavers
Beavers (Castor canadensis) currently
exist within the native range of the
California golden trout. Although
beavers were native to California’s
Central Valley in the early 19th century,
they were not generally known from the
Sierra Nevada except where introduced
by humans (Tappe 1942, pp. 7, 8, 13, 14,
20). Native beaver populations
experienced great declines during the
early exploration of California by traders
and trappers (Tappe 1942, p. 6).
Subsequent reestablishment and
introductions have extended their
original range (CDFG 2006,
p. 1). In the Sierra Nevada and Cascade
Mountain ranges, beavers inhabit
streams, ponds, and lake margins from
Modoc County south to Inyo County
(CDFG 2006, pp. 1, 2). Beavers
commonly inhabit riparian areas of
mixed coniferous-deciduous forests and
deciduous forests containing abundant
beaver forage and lodge-building
material, including Salix spp. (willows),
Alnus spp. (alders), and Populus spp.
(cottonwoods) (Allen 1983, p. 1; CDFG
2006).
There is debate over whether beavers
are native to the Kern River basin
(Townsend 1979, pp.16–20; CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 33). Beavers were introduced
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
by CDFG in the 1940s and 1950s as a
tool to restore meadow habitat degraded
by livestock grazing. Beavers can have
positive and negative effects on trout
habitat. Beaver ponds can provide pool
habitat for fish, reduce severe ice
conditions, and increase populations of
bottom-dwelling invertebrates suitable
for trout to eat (Gard 1961, p. 240).
However, siltation resulting from beaver
dams can also degrade spawning habitat
for California golden trout, which
require gravel for spawning (Knapp and
Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529). In a
study conducted on Sagehen Creek on
the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada,
Gard (1961, pp. 240–241) concluded
that beavers were a benefit to trout in
this high-elevation creek because they
improved fish habitat, forage, spawning
activities, and population numbers.
Currently, large beaver populations
occur in upper and lower Ramshaw
Meadows. Additional populations of
unknown size also exist at other
locations within the Kern River Plateau
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 33). As of 2004,
negative effects of beaver activity within
the native range of the California golden
trout have not been documented (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 33). Additionally, we are
currently unaware of any additional
information that document negative
effects of beaver within the range of the
California golden trout. The
Conservation Strategy discusses the
beaver as a potential issue for the
California golden trout; therefore, CDFG
and the Inyo National Forest monitor
and evaluate the effect of beaver activity
within the native range of the California
golden trout. For example, beaver
populations were monitored in 2004,
2005, and 2008 at areas on Golden Trout
Creek and Ramshaw Meadow that are
considered to have the highest potential
impacts from beaver on golden trout
habitat (CDFG and USFS 2006a, pp. 16–
17; CDFG and USFS 2006b, p. 11;
McGuire et al. 2009, p. 11). At
Ramshaw, two active dams were
observed in 2008 and the beaver
population appeared stable since the
previous monitoring in 2005. At Golden
Trout Creek, a single beaver dam had
been maintained since 2003. No
negative impacts from the beaver
populations were documented.
Therefore, we conclude that beaver
activity does not currently constitute a
threat to the California golden trout, nor
do we expect it to in the future.
Summary of Factor A
California golden trout stream habitat
has historically been adversely affected
by livestock grazing and, to a lesser
degree, pack stock use, recreational
activities, and artificial fish barriers.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Conservation efforts related to reducing
the effects of livestock grazing
(including reduced seasonal use,
reduced numbers of cattle grazed,
resting of grazing allotments, and
installation of livestock exclosures) have
improved habitat conditions for the
California golden trout, resulting in
improvements to the majority of
monitored habitat for which we have
results and stabilization of the
remainder of that habitat (Ettema and
Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p.
12). Pack stock use has a minimal effect
on the habitat of the California golden
trout, and those effects are subject to the
same protections governing livestock
use. Current wilderness land
management standards, restoration
activities, and public outreach and
stakeholder involvement have reduced
potential threats of recreational
activities. Although artificial fish
barriers have locally altered the stream
habitat of the California golden trout,
these structures perform a crucial role in
the prevention of upstream migration of
nonnative brown trout and introgression
with nonnative rainbow trout. Finally,
available information does not indicate
that beaver activity is a concern to the
California golden trout. Based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we have determined that
the California golden trout is not
currently threatened by the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range such
that it warrants listing under the Act,
nor do we anticipate it posing a threat
in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
There is no commercial fishing for
California golden trout; however,
recreational fishing is permitted by
CDFG. In the Golden Trout Wilderness,
the fishing season begins on the last
Saturday in April and ends November
15. CDFG regulations allow anglers to
possess five California golden trout,
which is a bag limit guided by State
policy to maintain wild trout stocks
(CDFG 1979, p. 1). Regulations allow
anglers to use only artificial lures with
barbless hooks. Angler harvest is light in
most areas within the native range of
California golden trout except at
Monache Meadows, Kennedy Meadows,
and a few other easily accessible areas
(Stephens 2001a, p. 64). Angler harvest
does appear to have depressed the
population numbers at these heavily
used locations (Stephens 2001a, pp. 64,
65); however, impacts appear to be
localized, well-regulated, and small
enough to allow sustainable
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
populations. Angling regulations are
posted in fishing areas and enforced
(McGuire et al. 2009, p. 15). Knapp and
Matthews (1996, p. 805) reported that
California golden trout densities were
generally among the highest ever
recorded for a stream-dwelling trout in
the western United States. Surveys
conducted at Templeton Meadow on the
South Fork Kern River indicate that
California golden trout population
numbers increased from 2,000 trout per
mile in 1985 to about 7,000 trout per
mile in 1999 (Stephens 2001b, p. 2).
This indicates that California golden
trout population numbers were at a high
density in 1999 and not at risk from
overutilization from recreational fishing.
We are currently unaware of any
information that demonstrates a
decrease in fish densities or impacts
from overutilization from recreational
fishing as compared to 1999.
Accordingly, the relatively limited
harvest of California golden trout does
not appear to pose a significant threat to
the survival of the subspecies now or in
the future.
California golden trout are utilized in
a nonlethal way for scientific purposes.
Specifically, CDFG, together with
conservation partners and volunteers,
has been collecting trout fin tissue
samples since 2003 to conduct genetic
evaluations necessary to restore native
golden trout populations. The genetic
studies require a small clipping from a
fin, and this process rarely results in the
death of an individual fish. Because
scientific collection is being conducted
for the betterment of the subspecies and
because it rarely results in death of fish,
we conclude that overutilization for
scientific purposes is not a threat to
California golden trout across its range,
nor do we anticipate overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or
education purposes posing a threat in
the future.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Predation and Competition With Brown
Trout
Brown trout are not native to
California. They have been introduced
to the South Fork Kern River and have
established populations there, but they
have not established populations in
Golden Trout Creek. Brown trout have
been noted to thrive in sections of many
major west slope streams in the Sierra
Nevada mountain range, although their
distribution, even in small streams, is
noted to be often quite discontinuous,
with pools and quieter waters thought to
be more to their liking (Dill and
Cordone 1997, p. 100). Brown trout
distribution within specific habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
types has not been quantified for the
South Fork Kern River. The presence of
brown trout in the South Fork Kern
River is likely due to stocking of the
species at Kennedy Meadows carried
out by CDFG in 1940, 1941, and 1996
(McGuire 2011, pp. 2, 3). The stocking
program predates the construction of the
Ramshaw, Templeton, and Schaeffer
fish barriers by at least 30 years (see
Factor A—Artificial Fish Barriers
section above).
CDFG and Inyo National Forest have
attempted to eradicate brown trout from
the upper reaches of the California
golden trout range a number of times by
using piscicides (pesticides specific for
fish) and then restocking the areas with
California golden trout. In 1969, brown
trout were present throughout the
drainage and even in the headwaters of
the South Fork Kern River where brown
trout outnumbered golden trout by
approximately 50 to 1 (CDFG et al.
2004a, pp. 28, 37). Installation of the
Ramshaw Barrier, in combination with
chemical treatments, resulted in
removal of brown trout from the
headwaters. Chemical treatments were
conducted from the Ramshaw to
Templeton barriers in 1981, and the last
treatments from the Templeton to
Schaeffer barriers in 1987. Subsequent
monitoring of the treated reach of South
Fork Kern River indicated that the
treatment was ineffective due to barrier
deterioration, which is now repaired
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 38). Movie
Stringer Creek, a western tributary to the
South Fork Kern River upstream of
Templeton Barrier, was chemically
treated in 2000; no other chemical
treatments have occurred since then.
The Strawberry Connection was a
constructed diversion on Strawberry
Creek that facilitated a possible
hydrologic route for brown trout to enter
the South Fork Kern River above the
Templeton Barrier. This diversion was
removed in 1999, and efforts have been
made to restore Strawberry Creek to its
historic channel. The Conservation
Strategy indicates some concern that
brown trout may still be able to access
waters upstream of the Templeton
Barrier during high flows (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 25); however, no brown trout
have been located above the barrier to
date. Subsequent to completion of the
Conservation Strategy, the Inyo National
Forest conducted an evaluation of the
Strawberry Connection during runoff
events to map hydrologic flow (Sims
and McGuire 2006, p. 7). The evaluation
noted that, due in part to the absence of
cattle for the previous 5 years, the
Strawberry Connection may be
converting back to its natural state (Sims
and McGuire 2006, p. 7). The area
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63103
showed less compacted soils and was in
the process of reverting to a more boggy
meadow, with channel flows focusing
more towards Strawberry Creek rather
than towards the ‘‘connection’’ area.
This indicates the likely elimination of
a possible passage for brown trout
around the Templeton Barrier during
high water flows (Sims and McGuire
2006, p. 7).
Annual monitoring of the South Fork
Kern River indicates that brown trout
are still not present above the
Templeton Barrier (Sims and McGuire
2006, p. 6; Lentz 2011, p. 2). Brown
trout are currently found in the South
Fork Kern River below Templeton
Barrier, however, which includes over
483 km (300 mi) of the stream distance
that comprises the historical range of
the California golden trout (Stephens
2001a, p. 43). The remaining stream
length in the historical range above the
Templeton Barrier is approximately 161
km (100 mi). The competitive success of
brown trout, where present, over
California golden trout is likely due to
the fact that brown trout prey on all life
stages of California golden trout, and are
a superior competitor for limited food
and habitat resources (Stephens 2001a,
p. 43). The South Fork Kern River below
Schaeffer barrier has never been treated
to remove brown trout. Consequently,
brown trout have been present in the
lower South Fork Kern River more than
70 years. Successful sampling of
California golden trout populations for
genetic status has been conducted along
the South Fork Kern River (and its
tributaries) below Schaeffer Barrier,
demonstrating that the species remains
in sufficient numbers to maintain
reproducing populations in these lower
reaches, despite the presence of brown
trout.
There is a potential threat of illegal
fish transportation due to the ease of
vehicular access to Monache Meadows,
the recreational popularity of this area,
and the presence of nonnative
salmonids in downstream portions of
the South Fork Kern River. However,
enforcement of State fish and game laws
are ongoing, and conservation efforts are
occurring to inform and educate the
public about the conservation needs of
the California golden trout. CDFG
wildlife protection personnel and
National Forest law enforcement
personnel continue to inform visitors of
regulations, including the illegality of
possession and transportation of live
trout within the California golden
trout’s range. CDFG also produced
brochures in 2005 and 2006 to inform
the public about the restoration
program. The brochures were
distributed to Forest Service offices and
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
63104
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
visitor centers, and also to local
flyfishing shops, thereby informing the
public that transplanting fish is illegal
and subject to a fine.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Summary of Predation and Competition
With Brown Trout
The risk of predation and interspecific
competition from nonnative trout have
been addressed through establishment
and repair of the three fish barriers,
elimination of CDFG-sanctioned brown
trout stocking within the native range of
the California golden trout, and various
treatments (described above) to
eliminate brown trout above the
established barriers. The Forest Service
and CDFG have been monitoring
barriers, conducting surveys, and
eradicating brown trout. Electrofishing
surveys above and below Templeton
and Schaeffer Barriers are being
conducted annually to assess the
effectiveness of the barriers, determine
the current status and distribution of
brown trout, and reduce brown trout
numbers at the upstream extent of their
distribution (Lentz 2011, p. 2). Although
the goals of completely controlling
brown trout in the South Fork Kern
River are yet to be achieved, we
nonetheless consider active programs by
the Forest Service and CDFG to
discourage illegal transport, and to
monitor for and remove brown trout
from California golden trout waters, to
be reasonable and effective approaches
for addressing the threat of brown trout.
No brown trout have been found
above the Templeton Barrier since they
were eradicated in the early 1980s
(McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 10; Sims
and McGuire 2006, p. 6). Markrecapture tests of golden trout hybrids
captured below the Schaeffer Barrier
subsequent to its improvement in 2003
failed to find any fish that had
successfully navigated past the barrier,
indicating that brown trout are also
incapable of passing the barrier (Sims
and McGuire 2006, p. 6). Subsequent
elimination of brown trout between the
Schaeffer and Templeton barriers (a goal
of the Conservation Strategy (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 28)) is, therefore, possible.
Additionally, current information
available to us does not indicate a
population-level effect of brown trout
predation or competition that would
warrant listing. Therefore, we conclude
that, due to the management efforts
being implemented, risk of predation
and competition from brown trout does
not pose a significant threat to the
California golden trout throughout its
range, nor do we anticipate predation
posing and competition from brown
trout posing a threat in the future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Whirling Disease
Whirling disease is caused by
Myxobolus cerebralis, a metazoan
parasite that penetrates the head and
spinal cartilage of fingerling trout,
where it multiplies very rapidly and
puts pressure on the organ of
equilibrium. This causes the fish to
swim erratically (whirl) and have
difficulty feeding and avoiding
predators. In severe infections, the
disease can cause high rates of mortality
in young-of-the-year fish. Those that
survive until the cartilage hardens to
bone can live a normal lifespan, but are
marred by skeletal deformities. Fish can
reproduce without passing on the
parasite to their offspring. Rearing
ponds used in many trout hatcheries
provide conditions where the second
host of the parasite (the oligochaete
worm Tubifex tubifex) can thrive.
Myxobolus cerebralis has never been
found in any golden trout sampled in
California streams (Cox 2006, p. 1; Lentz
2011, p. 1). The only fish currently
stocked within the native range (sterile
trout stocked in Kennedy Meadows) are
raised in a hatchery that is certified free
of disease (Stephens 2006, p. 1).
Because hatchery-raised California
golden trout are no longer stocked
within the native range of this
subspecies, it is extremely unlikely that
whirling disease could be spread to wild
California golden trout populations. The
disease has not been found in California
golden trout to date, and there has been
no documented loss or decline in
California golden trout populations due
to the disease. Although it could
represent a future threat to the
California golden trout, at this time the
best scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that it is
a threat now nor likely to be a threat in
the future.
Summary of Factor C
Although predation by, and
competition with, brown trout have
posed a threat to the California golden
trout in the past, continuing
conservation measures implemented by
the State, cooperating agencies, and
other interested groups have reduced
this threat to manageable levels.
Continued improvements of barriers
have eliminated brown trout from the
upper reaches of the South Fork Kern
River where they were previously
identified as a threat to the California
golden trout. In the lower reaches of the
South Fork Kern River, our best
information indicates that populations
descended from California golden trout
have not sustained population-level
declines due to brown trout. Finally,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whirling disease has not been found in
California golden trout to date.
Therefore, we conclude that predation
(and competition) with brown trout and
whirling disease do not currently pose
a threat to the California golden trout
throughout its range, nor do we
anticipate these to become threats in the
future, such that listing under the Act is
warranted.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal Regulations
Management of habitat for the
California golden trout falls under the
direction of the Sequoia and Inyo
National Forests. Existing Federal
regulatory mechanisms that are relevant
to providing protection for the
California golden trout in the Sierra
Nevada include the following: National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Wilderness Act of
1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136), Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271–
1287), Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield
Act of 1960 (MUSY) (16 U.S.C. 528–
531), Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Land and Resource
Management Plans for the Inyo and
Sequoia National Forests (USFS 1988a;
CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 79–82), as
amended by the SNFPA, and the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
NEPA requires all Federal agencies to
formally document, consider, and
publicly disclose the environmental
impacts of major Federal actions and
management decisions significantly
affecting the human environment. NEPA
documentation is provided in an
environmental impact statement, an
environmental assessment, or a
categorical exclusion, and may be
subject to administrative or judicial
appeal. The California golden trout has
been identified as a sensitive species by
the Region 5 (Pacific Southwest Region)
Regional Forester. As part of Forest
Service policy, an analysis will be
conducted to evaluate potential
management decisions under NEPA,
including preparation of a biological
evaluation to determine the potential
effect of potential Forest Service actions
on this sensitive subspecies. However,
the Forest Service is not required to
select an alternative having the least
significant environmental impacts and
may select an action that will adversely
affect sensitive species provided that
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
these effects were known and identified
in a NEPA document. The NEPA
process in itself is not likely to be
considered a regulatory mechanism that
is certain to provide significant
protection for the California golden
trout.
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–
1136)
The Wilderness Act of 1964
established a National Wilderness
Preservation System made up of Federal
lands designated by Congress as
‘‘wilderness areas’’ for the purpose of
preserving and protecting designated
areas in their natural condition, ‘‘where
the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man
himself is a visitor who does not
remain.’’ The native range of the
California golden trout within the South
Fork Kern River lies within three
wilderness areas: Golden Trout, South
Sierra, and Domeland. The Domeland
Wilderness was designated in 1964 and
is just south of the South Sierra
Wilderness (the road to Kennedy
Meadows separates these two
wildernesses). The Golden Trout
Wilderness was designated in 1978
specifically to provide protection for
California golden trout; Golden Trout
Creek is wholly within this wilderness
area. The South Sierra Wilderness was
designated in 1984 and is adjacent to
and south of the Golden Trout
Wilderness.
Grazing of livestock is permitted
within wilderness areas if it was
established prior to the passage of this
Act. The Wilderness Act does not
specifically mention fish stocking,
though it does state that the Wilderness
Act shall not affect the jurisdiction or
responsibilities of States with wildlife
and fish responsibilities in the national
forests. Fish stocking in wilderness
areas is a controversial issue (Bahls
1992, pp. 2568–2578, p. 2568; Landres
et al. 2001, pp. 287–294); however,
wilderness designation generally has
not limited fish stocking in the Sierra
Nevada (Knapp 1996, pp. 3–12). The
Wilderness Act has direction for
managing designated wilderness to
protect natural ecological processes and
is a regulatory mechanism that protects
California golden trout habitat from
development or other types of habitat
conversions, such as commercial
enterprise, road construction, use of
motorized vehicles or other equipment,
and structural developments.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1271–1287)
Congress established the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1968
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
63105
to protect certain outstanding rivers
from the harmful effects of new Federal
projects, such as dams, hydroelectric
facilities, bank armoring, and bridges.
Rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or
recreational, and fishing is permitted in
components of the system under
applicable Federal and State laws. The
South Fork Kern River is designated as
Wild and Scenic throughout 66 river km
(41 mi) as the river passes through the
South Sierra, Golden Trout, and
Domeland Wildernesses. This regulatory
mechanism, along with the Wilderness
Act, thus protects approximately 10
percent of the California golden trout’s
range from new Federal projects such as
those listed above.
range rehabilitation, protection, and
improvement, including all forms of
rangeland betterment, including fence
construction, water development, and
fish and wildlife enhancement. Half of
the appropriated amount must be spent
within the national forest where such
monies were derived. FLPMA, as
amended, is a regulatory mechanism
that provides for some rangeland
improvements intended for the longterm betterment of forage conditions
and resulting benefits to wildlife,
watershed protection, and livestock
production, which if implemented can
result in various habitat improvements
and protections for the California golden
trout.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960 (MUSY) (16 U.S.C. 528–531)
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act
of 1960 (MUSY) provides direction that
the national forests be managed using
principles of multiple-use and that the
forests produce a sustained yield of
products and services. Specifically,
MUSY provides policy that the national
forests are established and shall be
administered for outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, and wildlife
and fish purposes. MUSY directs
resource management not to impair the
productivity of the land while giving
consideration to the relative values of
the various resources, though not
necessarily in terms of the greatest
financial return or unit output. MUSY
provides direction to the Forest Service
that fish and wildlife is a value that
must be managed for, though discretion
is given to each forest when considering
the value of fish and wildlife relative to
the other uses for which it is managing.
Because the entire range of the
California golden trout falls within
lands administered by the Forest
Service, this regulatory mechanism aids
in the conservation of the subspecies in
that fish are an important benefit for
which management must occur.
National Forest Management Act of
1976 (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
National Forest Management Act of
1976 (NFMA) provides the primary legal
foundation for Forest Service
management of the public lands under
its jurisdiction. NFMA includes a
provision that planning regulations will
include guidelines for land management
plans that provide for diversity of plant
and animal communities based on the
suitability and capability of the specific
land area in order to meet overall
multiple-use objectives. Current
planning regulations direct that forests
manage fish and wildlife habitat to
maintain viable populations of existing
native and nonnative vertebrate species.
Within each planning area, the provided
habitat must support at least a minimum
number of reproductive individuals (36
CFR 219.20). The Forest Service
published new proposed planning
regulations on February 14, 2011, which
are intended ‘‘to guide the collaborative
and science-based development,
amendment, and revision of land
management plans that promote
healthy, resilient, diverse, and
productive national forests and
grasslands’’ (76 FR 8480, pp. 8480,
8481). The proposed regulations specify
that plans must maintain viable
populations of species of conservation
concern within the plan area to the
extent that it is within the authority of
the Forest Service or the inherent
capability of the plan area to do so (76
FR 8480, p. 8518). Revisions to the Inyo
and Sequoia National Forest LRMPs
would follow the regulations
established by this proposed rule, if
made final.
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)
The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act was enacted in 1976,
and as amended by the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
(43 U.S.C. 1901–1908), provides the
primary legal foundation for how the
Forest Service manages livestock
grazing under its jurisdiction. This Act
requires that a percentage of all monies
received through grazing fees collected
on Federal lands (including the Forest
Service-administered lands within the
range of the California golden trout) be
spent for the purpose of on-the-ground
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Land and Resource Management Plans
(LRMPs) for the Inyo and Sequoia
National Forests
The 1988 Inyo National Forest LRMP,
as amended (USFS 1995), and the 1988
Sequoia National Forest LRMP, were
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63106
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
both amended by the SNFPA (USFS
2004) and provide management
direction for the California golden trout.
The Inyo National Forest is expecting to
revise its LRMP in 2014 (Sims 2011c, p.
1), while the date for revision of the
Sequoia National Forest LRMP is
uncertain (Galloway 2011, p. 1) Specific
direction under the current LRMPs is
described in the following paragraphs.
The Sequoia National Forest LRMP
provides direction for managing general
aquatic and riparian species to increase
the diversity of the animal communities.
Riparian areas are managed to maintain
or restore habitats for riparian species
and those species associated with late
successional stages of vegetation.
The Inyo National Forest LRMP has
direction specific for managing a variety
of resources. Specific standards and
guidelines concerning grazing are
presented in Factor A above, but in
brief, they include trampling standards,
direction for developing range
Allotment Management Plans,
conducting annual utilization checks,
and locating salt outside of riparian
areas. Direction specific for managing
riparian resources includes forest-wide
standards and guidelines aimed at
maintaining or enhancing ripariandependent resources and includes (but
is not limited to): Giving priority to the
rehabilitation of riparian areas when
planning range, wildlife habitat, and
watershed improvements; using
Allotment Management Plans as a
vehicle for ensuring protection of
riparian areas from unacceptable
impacts from grazing; and rehabilitating
or fencing riparian areas that
consistently show resource damage.
On January 12, 2001, a record of
decision (ROD) was signed by the Forest
Service for the SNFPA Final
Environmental Impact Statement (USFS
2001b). The SNFPA addresses five
problem areas: Old-forest ecosystems
and associated species; aquatic,
riparian, and meadow ecosystems and
associated species; fire and fuels;
noxious weeds; and lower west-side
hardwood ecosystems. Subsequent to
the establishment of management
direction by the SNFPA ROD, the
Regional Forester assembled a review
team to evaluate specific plan elements.
The review was completed in March
2003, and as a result the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement was issued in January 2004
(USFS 2004). Forest Plans were
amended to be consistent with the new
(2004) ROD, and all subsequent project
decisions fall under the 2004 direction.
Within the native range of the California
golden trout, management of the Inyo
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
and Sequoia National Forests is affected
by the SNFPA (USFS 2004).
Relevant to the California golden
trout, the SNFPA aims to protect and
restore aquatic, riparian, and meadow
ecosystems and to provide for the
viability of its associated native species
through an Aquatic Management
Strategy (AMS). The AMS is a general
framework with broad goals for
watershed processes and functions,
habitats, attributes, and populations.
There are nine goals associated with the
AMS:
(1) Maintenance and restoration of
water quality to comply with the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
(2) Maintenance and restoration of
habitat to support viable populations of
native and desired nonnative ripariandependent species and to reduce
negative impacts of nonnative species
on native populations.
(3) Maintenance and restoration of
species diversity in riparian areas,
wetlands, and meadows to provide
desired habitats and ecological
functions.
(4) Maintenance and restoration of the
distribution and function of biotic
communities and biological diversity in
special aquatic habitats (such as springs,
seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and
marshes).
(5) Maintenance and restoration of
spatial and temporal connectivity for
aquatic and riparian species within and
between watersheds to provide
physically, chemically, and biologically
unobstructed movement for their
survival, migration, and reproduction.
(6) Maintenance and restoration of
hydrologic connectivity between
floodplains, channels, and water tables
to distribute flood flows and to sustain
diverse habitats.
(7) Maintenance and restoration of
watershed conditions as measured by
favorable infiltration characteristics of
soils and diverse vegetation cover to
absorb and filter precipitation and to
sustain favorable conditions of stream
flows.
(8) Maintenance and restoration of instream flows sufficient to sustain
desired conditions of riparian, aquatic,
wetland, and meadow habitats and to
keep sediment regimes within the
natural range of variability.
(9) Maintenance and restoration of the
physical structure and condition of
stream banks and shorelines to
minimize erosion and sustain desired
habitat diversity.
Riparian conservation objectives were
developed to implement the Aquatic
Management Strategy. These objectives
contain standards and guidelines to
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maintain and restore riparian habitat
and species.
The SNFPA ROD also includes two
designations for aquatic and riparian
areas: Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs)
and Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs)
(CDFG 2004a, p. 23). CARs are subwatersheds that contain either known
locations of threatened, endangered, or
sensitive species, highly vulnerable
populations of native plant or animal
species, or localized populations of rare
aquatic or riparian-dependent plant or
animal species. RCAs are the lands
around aquatic features where special
standards and guidelines exist to
conserve those features. RCA standards
and guidelines apply in CARs except
where an overlapping land allocation
has a greater restriction on management
activities. The width of an RCA is 91 m
(300 ft) on each side of the stream for
perennial streams, and 46 m (150 ft) on
each side of intermittent and ephemeral
streams, both being measured from the
bankfull edge of the stream (the edge of
the channel slope descending from the
floodplain). An RCA width of 91 m (300
ft) is applicable to the California golden
trout because it exists in perennial
streams. Several CARs occur within the
native range of the California golden
trout. Two CARs occur on the Sequoia
National Forest, and one CAR occurs on
the Inyo National Forest.
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the
primary mechanism in the United States
for surface water quality protection. It
establishes the basic structure for
regulating discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States. It employs
a variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory tools to reduce direct
water quality impacts, finance water
treatment facilities, and manage
polluted run-off. The Forest Service is
the designated water quality
management agency under the CWA
Section 208 Management Agency
Agreement. Under this Agreement, the
Forest Service is required to implement
State-approved BMPs and other
measures to achieve full compliance
with all applicable State water quality
standards. Project-level analysis
conducted under NEPA is required to
demonstrate compliance with CWA and
State water quality standards (USFS
2004). Waterbodies that do not meet
water quality standards with
implementation of existing management
measures are listed as impaired under
section 303(d) of the CWA. Waters
within California golden trout habitat
are not listed as impaired by the State
(Strand 2006), indicating that, in
implementing this regulatory
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mechanism, the Forest Service designs
land management activities so that
existing levels of water quality and
beneficial uses are maintained and
protected.
State Regulations
State regulatory mechanisms that
could provide some protection for the
California golden trout and its habitat
include the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.),
and the California Fish and Game Code
(14 C.C.R. § 1 et seq.). Applicable
sections are discussed below. In
addition, the California Fish and Game
Commission (Commission) has
regulatory powers to decide policy such
as season, bag limits, and methods of
take for sport fish.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
California Endangered Species Act
(CESA)
The California golden trout was
designated as the State freshwater fish
of California in 1947 and was listed as
a fish species of special concern by
CDFG in 1995. The status of ‘‘species of
special concern’’ applies to animals that
are not listed under the Act or the
California Endangered Species Act
(CESA) but meet the following criteria:
Populations are low, scattered, or highly
localized and require active
management to prevent them from
becoming threatened or endangered
species (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 3).
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et
seq.)
CEQA is the principal statute
mandating environmental assessment of
projects in California. The purpose of
CEQA is to evaluate whether a proposed
project may have an adverse effect on
the environment (including native fish
and wildlife species), to disclose that
information to the public, and to
determine whether significant adverse
effects can be reduced or eliminated by
pursuing an alternative course of action
or through mitigation. CEQA applies to
projects proposed to be undertaken or
requiring approval by State and local
public agencies. CEQA requires full
disclosure of the potential
environmental impacts of public or
private projects carried out by or
authorized by non-Federal agencies
within the State of California. As such,
CEQA provides some protection for the
California golden trout, should projects
that would be subject to CEQA be
proposed within the native range of the
species. Fish stocking is not subject to
full disclosure of its potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
environmental impacts, as it is exempt
from CEQA under Article 19 section
15301(j). However, as discussed
elsewhere stocking of nonnative trout
has been discontinued within the
species’ range.
California Fish and Game Code (14
C.C.R. § 1 et seq.)
The California Fish and Game
Commission, a separate entity from
CDFG, is a five-member group
appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Senate. The
Commission has set up several policies
regarding the California golden trout.
Pursuant to section 703 of the Fish and
Game Code, the Commission has
designated certain State waters to be
managed exclusively for wild trout.
Those waters include the entire Golden
Trout Creek watershed and the majority
of the South Fork Kern watershed from
the headwaters to the southern end of
the South Sierra Wilderness.
In 1952, the Commission developed
the Golden Trout Policy that covers the
three subspecies of golden trout in the
Sierra Nevada. In summary, the policy
states the following:
(1) Certain waters within the high
mountainous areas of Madera, Fresno,
Inyo, Mono, and Tulare Counties may
be designated by CDFG as ‘‘Golden
Trout Waters of California’’ and shall be
maintained in as genetically pure state
as possible, and rainbow trout and other
species of trout shall not be planted in
these designated golden trout waters.
(2) A brood stock shall be maintained
in lakes set aside for the sole purpose of
egg production to provide fingerlings for
planting waters.
(3) Hatchery-reared or wild fingerlings
may be used for initial stocking in
streams and lakes designated by CDFG,
and whenever practicable, the range of
golden trout will be extended through
wild fish or fingerling plantings in
native waters, or in other waters
possessing adequate spawning grounds.
(4) The Golden Trout Policy prevails
over the general Trout Policy if the two
are in conflict.
Contrary to the Golden Trout Policy
that ‘‘rainbow trout and other species of
trout shall not be planted in designated
golden trout waters,’’ rainbow trout
have been stocked in the South Fork
Kern River at Kennedy Meadows since
about 1947. To prevent additional
hybridization, CDFG began planting
triploid rainbow trout in 2004, of which
99 to 100 percent are sterile (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 52; McGuire 2011, p. 3).
Although the trout planting has been
popular with some members of the
angling public, CDFG discontinued the
stocking program entirely in 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63107
(McGuire 2009, p. 9; McGuire 2011, p.
3).
Section 200 of the Fish and Game
Code delegates to the Commission the
power to regulate the taking or
possession of fish. California Sport
Fishing Regulations include the
California golden trout and require a
sport fishing license and the use of
barbless hooks to take a maximum of
five California golden trout in the
Golden Trout Wilderness (CDFG 2011a,
p. 13). Outside the Golden Trout
Wilderness, a fisherman may possess up
to 10 California golden trout, but may
only take 5 per day (CDFG 2011b, p. 2).
These limits, coupled with the remote
backcountry condition of much of the
subspecies’ range, appear sufficient to
prevent angling pressure from posing a
threat (see Factor B—Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes section above).
Section 1603(a) of the California Fish
and Game Code necessitates a permit
from CDFG for any activity that may
alter the bed, channel, or bank of any
river, stream, or lake. The permit may
incorporate measures to minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife;
therefore, this regulation may offer
protection to California golden trout
habitat. The extent to which this
regulation has provided the California
golden trout with protection is
unknown, as much of the range of this
subspecies is protected under
management of federally protected areas
where few habitat modifications subject
to this permit have been proposed.
Section 6400 of the California Fish and
Game Code declares it unlawful to
place, plant, or cause to be placed or
planted in any waters of California any
live fish without permission from
CDFG. Violation could result in a fine
of up to $50,000 and 1 year
imprisonment, with revocation of
fishing privileges. In addition, violators
would be held liable for damages.
Rewards of up to $50,000 may be
offered for information leading to the
conviction of persons violating Section
6400, pursuant to Section 2586.
Thus, State regulations provide
protections primarily through State Fish
and Game Codes, and enforcement of
these regulations by both CDFG wildlife
protection personnel and by Forest
Service law enforcement personnel
(CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 57–58; McGuire
and Sims 2006, p. 18; Sims and
McGuire 2006b, p. 13).
Summary of Factor D
Some Federal and State regulations
afford protections for the California
golden trout and their habitat.
Implementation of LRMPs, as amended
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
63108
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
by the SNFPA, provides protections
through management direction for the
subspecies and the aquatic, riparian,
and meadow ecosystems that it relies
on. State regulations provide some
protections through the Golden Trout
Policy and the Fish and Game Code.
Therefore, based on the best scientific
and commercial information available,
we find that the California golden trout
is not currently threatened by the
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
throughout its range, nor do we
anticipate inadequate regulatory
mechanisms posing a threat in the
future.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Potential Factor E threats include
hybridization, fire suppression
activities, invasion of California golden
trout waters by the New Zealand
mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum),
and climate change. With regard to
hybridization, this potential threat
involves introduced nonnative rainbow
trout breeding with the California
golden trout. For purposes of this
review, ‘‘hybridization’’ refers to the
creation of hybrid individuals due to
matings between California golden trout
and nonnative rainbow trout (in this
case introduced hatchery trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss spp.) or due to
matings between California golden trout
and hybrid trout. Genetic introgression
refers to the movement of genes
originally indicative of nonnative trout
into the gene pool of California golden
trout populations. Because native
California golden trout, introduced
rainbow trout, and hybrid offspring
interbreed, hybridization leads to
genetic introgression, and the threats
(discussed below) of both hybridization
and introgression are treated the same.
Hybridization
The petition states that hybridization,
due to the substantial stocking of
rainbow trout and hybridized golden
trout during the past 100 years, is the
most immediate and destructive threat
that California golden trout faces (Trout
Unlimited 2000, pp. 17–18).
Hybridization and consequent
introgression is thought to dilute the
fundamental genetic characteristics of
California golden trout populations
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 24). If the
hybridization and introgression
continue at large enough rates, those
fundamental genetic characteristics
could be lost entirely, leading to
‘‘genetic extinction’’ (Rhymer and
Simberloff 1996, p. 100). In the Golden
Trout Creek watershed, Trout Unlimited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
(2000, pp. 20–24) cites the past stocking
of hybridized California golden trout in
the fishless headwater lakes, Johnson
Lake, Rocky Basin Lakes 1, 2, 3, and 4,
and Chicken Spring Lake, as potential
sources of hybridization. In the South
Fork Kern River watershed, the petition
(Trout Unlimited 2000, p. 18) states that
hybridization has resulted from the
extensive official and unofficial stocking
of rainbow trout that has occurred at
various places throughout the
watershed.
Hybridization in Relation to
Implementing the Endangered Species
Act
The Act does not directly address
questions related to species that have
some degree of hybridization. The
purpose of the Act is to conserve
threatened and endangered species and
the ecosystems on which those species
depend. The definition of species under
the Act includes any taxonomic species
or subspecies, and distinct population
segments of vertebrate species. Key
issues for this status review are the
scientific criteria used by professional
zoologists and field biologists to
taxonomically classify individuals, and
populations of interbreeding
individuals, as members of the
California golden trout subspecies
(Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita).
Previous Service positions regarding
hybridization, based upon
interpretations in a series of opinions by
the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Solicitor, generally
precluded conservation efforts under
the authorities of the Act for progeny, or
their descendants, produced by matings
between taxonomic species or
subspecies (O’Brien and Mayr 1991, pp.
1–3). However, advances in biological
understanding of natural hybridization
(such as Arnold 1997, pp. 182–183)
prompted withdrawal of those opinions.
The reasons for that action were
summarized in two sentences in the
withdrawal memorandum
(Memorandum from Assistant Solicitor
for Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Department
of the Interior, to Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, dated December 14,
1990): ‘‘New scientific information
concerning genetic introgression has
convinced us that the rigid standards set
out in those previous opinions should
be revisited. In our view, the issue of
‘‘hybrids’’ is more properly a biological
issue than a legal one.’’
Our increasing understanding of the
wide range of possible outcomes
resulting from exchanges of genetic
material between taxonomically distinct
species and between entities within
taxonomic species that also can be listed
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under the Act (i.e., subspecies, DPSs)
requires the Service to address these
situations on a case-by-case basis. In
some cases, introgressive hybridization
(infiltration of genes from one species
into the gene pool of another species
through repeated backcrossing of a
hybrid with one of its parents) may be
considered a natural evolutionary
process reflecting active speciation or
simple gene exchange between naturally
sympatric species (or those species that
occupy the same or overlapping
geographic areas without interbreeding).
Introgressed populations may contain
unique or appreciable portions of the
genetic resources of an imperiled or
listed species. For example, populations
with genes from another taxon at very
low frequencies may still express
important behavioral, life-history, or
ecological adaptations of the indigenous
population or species within a
particular geographic area. In other
cases, human-caused or facilitated
hybridization may threaten the
existence of a taxon, either because
native genes are lost due to sheer
numbers of introgressing genes, or
because hybridized individuals have
lowered fitness (Rhymer and Simberloff
1996, pp. 85–86, 92). Consequently, the
Service carefully evaluates the longterm conservation implications for each
taxon separately on a case-by-case basis
where introgressive hybridization may
have occurred. The Service performs
these evaluations objectively based on
the best scientific and commercial
information available consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Act.
A potential dichotomy thus exists
under the Act between: (a) The need to
protect the genetic resources of a species
in which introgression has occurred,
and (b) the need to minimize or
eliminate the threat of hybridization
posed by another taxon. Implementing
actions under the Act that distinguish
between these two alternatives is
difficult when imperiled species are
involved because a large number of
populations may have experienced
varying amounts of genetic introgression
from another taxon. With regard to the
California golden trout, an acceptable
level of hybridization has not yet been
defined.
Hybridization as a Potential Threat to
California Golden Trout
In Golden Trout Creek, which
contains approximately 82 km (51 mi) of
native range, movement and
reproduction of introgressed California
golden trout from headwater lakes into
downstream reaches has resulted in
introgression at low levels, estimated at
0 to 8 percent on average (Cordes et al.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2006, pp. 110, 117; Stephens 2006, p. 2).
Higher introgression rates (10 to 12
percent on average) were found in the
headwater lakes (Cordes et al. 2006, p.
117), which had been stocked with
hybridized California golden trout.
Since 1995, managers have concentrated
efforts to remove the hybridized trout
from these lakes (Johnson Lake, Rocky
Basin Lakes, and Chicken Spring Lake)
(Cordes et al. 2001, p. 15). Survey
results indicate that the six lakes are
now fishless (Sims and McGuire 2006,
p. 4; McGuire et al. 2009, p. 3). Thus,
the source for future introgression has
been removed. The removal of these
source populations of introgressed fish
will allow rainbow trout alleles to
become less common in the watershed
(Cordes et al. 2001, p. 15). Eventually,
many of the rainbow trout alleles may
drop out of the population altogether
due to genetic drift (Cordes et al. 2001,
p. 15). Within the Golden Trout Creek
watershed, the Volcano Creek
population, representing the only
known pure population to date,
contains approximately 8 km (5 mi) of
stream habitat. This population is
isolated from introgressed trout by a
natural bedrock barrier near its mouth.
Cordes et al. (2001, p. 15) found that
this population had reduced genetic
variability and are genetically distinct
from other populations in Golden Trout
Creek; however, these samples only
came from one reach of stream,
necessitating the need for additional
analysis.
In the South Fork Kern River, which
comprises approximately 644 km (400
mi) of native range, genetic tests
indicate that all California golden trout
have detectable levels of introgression
with rainbow trout, with the
downstream populations exhibiting the
highest known levels, congruent with
the known historical management of
these populations (Cordes et al. 2003,
pp. 16, 40; Stephens 2007, p. 72). Prior
to construction and improvement of the
manmade barriers, there were no
upstream impediments to fish
movement in the mainstem South Fork
Kern. Currently, there are relatively low
levels of introgression in the headwater
reaches, and percentages of rainbow
trout alleles are fairly uniform in
samples collected above Templeton
Barrier, likely reflecting the
homogenizing effect of previous
chemical treatments and restocking
efforts (Cordes et al. 2003, p. 12). With
no pure populations known to exist
within this watershed, Cordes et al.
(2003, p. 22) recommend that
management focus should be to isolate
the California golden trout with high
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
levels of hybridization in the lower
reaches from those less hybridized in
the upper reaches, and to maintain and
expand remaining pure populations if
these are identified. If no pure
populations are found, then Cordes et
al. (2003, p. 22) recommend
preservation of the existing South Fork
Kern River populations with the lowest
levels of introgression. Currently,
introgression levels measured at barrier
sites (41 percent at Schaeffer Barrier, 17
percent at Templeton Barrier, which is
upstream) indicate that separation of
lower levels of introgression above
Schaeffer Barrier has been successful.
As both the petition and the
Conservation Strategy note, illegal
transport of nonnative or introgressed
trout into areas that currently have low
introgression levels, is a serious concern
(Trout Unlimited 2000, pp. 26, 27;
CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 57, 58). However,
as discussed above under under Factor
C—Predation and Competition with
Brown Trout,’’ we consider the
management actions that have been and
are being undertaken to address this
threat to be effective. Additionally,
although the petition indicated that the
Schaeffer barrier (the farthest
downstream of the three) has
historically been ineffective at
preventing upstream movement (Trout
Unlimited 2000, p. 6), the barrier was
repaired in 2003, and is now considered
impassable (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37;
Lentz 2011, p. 1). See Factor A—
Artificial Fish Barriers above. In
addition, all fish stocking has been
discontinued within the native range of
the California golden trout; at Kennedy
Meadows Reservoir, stocking of fertile
rainbow trout ended in 2003 and
stocking of sterile rainbow trout ended
in 2008 (McGuire 2011, p. 3).
Once more genetic information
becomes available, the Conservation
Strategy describes management actions
that can be undertaken, starting with the
development and implementation of a
peer-reviewed genetics management
plan (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 47). The
genetics management plan is currently
in development, with an expected
completion date of December 31, 2011.
In summary, the best available
scientific and commercial data, as
described above, indicates that
California golden trout in Volcano Creek
and Golden Trout Creek are not
threatened by hybridization to the point
where listing is warranted. Stocking of
nonsterile fish has ceased; all fish have
been removed from the headwater lakes
of Golden Trout Creek; barriers in the
South Fork Kern River to prevent
migration of hybridized fish have been
repaired and tested; and measures are in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63109
place to address risks of illegal fish
stocking (Sims and McGuire 2006,
pp. 6, 7). We expect that due to the
management actions taken to isolate
California golden trout from nonnative
trout within their native range, that, for
the species as a whole, the level of
introgression should not increase and
may decrease over time. Therefore, we
determine that existing levels of
introgression within the subspecies do
not constitute a significant threat, and
that management actions have lowered
the extent and likelihood of further
hybridization, such that introgression is
unlikely to become a significant threat
in the future.
Fire Suppression Activities
Potential adverse effects to the
California golden trout resulting from
fire suppression activities include
changed forest structure; direct
mortality due to water drafting (taking
of water) from occupied drainages;
hybridization and competition with
nonnative trout that may arise from
dropping water from a helicopter within
the Golden Trout Creek and South Fork
Kern River watersheds using water that
may contain trout not native to the
watersheds; and contamination due to
use of fire retardants for fire
suppression.
In some areas within the range of the
California golden trout, long-term fire
suppression has changed forest
structure and conditions, resulting in
the potential for increased fire severity
and intensity (McKelvey et al. 1996, p.
1038). Fire can cause direct mortality of
fish and aquatic invertebrates within
aquatic ecosystems. However, even in
the case of high-severity fires, local
extirpations of fish have been patchy,
allowing for relatively rapid
recolonization (Gresswell 1999, p. 193).
Lasting adverse effects of fire on fish
populations have consequently been
limited to areas where native
populations had declined for reasons
other than fire, and were already small
and isolated prior to the fire (Gresswell
1999, pp. 193, 212). In contrast,
California golden trout typically show
relatively high population densities
where they occur (Knapp and Dudley
1990, p. 169), and known populations
are not typically isolated from each
other (Stephens 2007, p. 72). In 2000,
the Manter Fire burned on the Sequoia
National Forest, and surveys found dead
California golden trout on Fish Creek
and the South Fork Kern River. Since
live fish were seen in these areas after
the fire, it is likely that the fire did not
result in total mortality of the local
population (Strand 2006).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63110
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The Federal Wildland Fire Policy and
Program Review, which is a
comprehensive Federal fire policy for
the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture, was created in 1995 and
recognizes the essential role of fire in
maintaining natural systems. Wildland
fire use is a management option on
Federal lands and is available to Federal
agencies with an approved land use
plan and a fire management plan (USDA
and USDOI 2005, p. 2; USDA and
USDOI 2009, pp. 8, 9). The Sequoia
National Forest has begun using
wildland fire on a case-by-case basis as
a tool to reduce fuel loading in
wilderness areas, most recently in 2010
on the Big Sheep Fire (Lang 2011, p. 1).
In 2004, the Forest Service completed
the Fisheries and Aquatic Input for
Wildland Fire Suppression Planning
Specific to Golden Trout Management
(McGuire and Sims 2006, pp. 22–25).
Criteria include avoiding moderate to
extreme fire intensities within the
Golden Trout watershed, avoiding water
transfers in key areas, and using small
intake screens when drafting from water
sources.
Fire retardants and suppressant
chemicals are used extensively in the
United States for suppression and
control of range and forest fires, and are
often applied in environmentally
sensitive areas (Hamilton et al. 1996,
introduction). Laboratory tests of these
chemicals have shown that they cause
mortality in fishes and aquatic
invertebrates by releasing surfactants
and ammonia when added to water
(Hamilton et al. 1996, pp. 1–5). Fire
retardant chemicals dropped in or near
California golden trout habitat could
have negative effects on individuals or
isolated populations. On April 20, 2000,
direction was given to all national
forests in regard to fire retardant use
during wildland fire suppression
activities. Guidance includes avoiding
aerial application of retardant or foam
within 91 m (300 ft) of waterways.
Further details concerning delivery from
different types of aircraft, interactions
with threatened and endangered
species, and exceptions are given in the
document. These guidelines are updated
annually and published in the
Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire
Aviation Operations (National
Interagency Fire Center 2006, Chapter
12, pp. 1–6) for the Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service, National
Park Service, and the Service.
The Forest Service, through the
direction of the Conservation Strategy,
created written plans for integration of
California golden trout populations and
habitat protection in Forest Service fire
suppression planning. Both the Inyo
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
and the Sequoia National Forests’
fishery biologists have been
coordinating with fire personnel to
ensure that measures contained in the
plans are implemented (McGuire and
Sims 2006, p. 8; Sims and McGuire
2006, p. 5). One such avoidance
measure identifies the need to prevent
water transfers from nonnative water
bodies into California golden trout
waters during fire suppression
activities, or any other management
activity that would use large quantities
of water.
While fire suppression activities have
the potential to affect the California
golden trout, evidence indicates that
lasting adverse effects on fish
populations are rare. Although
inadvertent application of fire
suppression chemicals could negatively
affect some isolated populations, the
potential for this is lessened by
implementation of the national
direction on aerial applications of these
fire retardants. Furthermore, the Forest
Service has incorporated measures into
fire suppression planning documents,
and implementation of these measures
reduces the effects that fire management
activities would otherwise have on
California golden trout. Therefore, we
conclude that fire suppression activities
are not a threat to the California golden
trout.
New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum)
The New Zealand mudsnail (NZMS)
is an invasive nonnative mollusk that
can impact the food chain of native
trout by competing with native
invertebrates (including native
mollusks) for food and space, and
through altering the physical
characteristics of the streams (Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force 2006, p.
1). NZMS are able to withstand a variety
of temperature regimes and can stay
alive out of water under moist
conditions for 5 or more days, and are
small enough that anglers can
inadvertently transfer this species
between different waterbodies (Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force 2006, pp.
1, 2; Sims 2006b, p. 1). Since they
reproduce clonally, one introduced
NZMS can begin a new population.
NZMS has the ability to reproduce
quickly and mass in high densities
(Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
2006, p. 1).
The closest location of NZMS to the
California golden trout is in the Owens
River drainage, which is approximately
a 2-hour drive to Horseshoe Meadow
trailhead and an hour hike into
California golden trout habitat, or about
a 4-hour drive to Monache Meadows
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Sims 2006b, p. 1; Lentz 2011, p. 2).
These NZMS were located in 2000 at the
lower Owens River near Bishop; since
2000, NZMS has moved throughout the
Owens drainage including Hot Creek,
Rush Creek, and Lone Pine Creek.
Because NZMS can survive on waders
for several days, human transport of the
organism to the California golden trout’s
habitat would be likely if precautions
are not taken by anglers. The Inyo
National Forest requires all permitted
fishing guides to follow appropriate
disinfection methods for their gear
(Sims 2006b, p. 1).
Several conservation measures reduce
the likelihood that this invasive species
will enter the native waters, including
the cooperative effort between the Inyo
and Sequoia National Forests and CDFG
to ensure that the transfer of water from
nonnative waterbodies does not occur
during fire suppression activities. Also,
a brochure has been distributed that
informs the public about how to prevent
the spread of nuisance species, with an
Internet link provided to a NZMS Web
site.
In summary, NZMSs have not been
found within the native range of the
California golden trout. While it is
possible that this invasive species will
continue to spread, ongoing efforts are
occurring to address the risk of spread
of NZMS to habitat of the California
golden trout. Consequently, we
conclude NZMS is not a threat to the
subspecies.
Climate Change
‘‘Climate’’ refers to an area’s long-term
average weather statistics (typically for
at least 20- or 30-year periods),
including the mean and variation of
surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation, and wind, whereas
‘‘climate change’’ refers to a change in
the mean and/or variability of climate
properties that persists for an extended
period (typically decades or longer),
whether due to natural processes or
human activity (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007a,
p. 78). Although changes in climate
occur continuously over geological time,
changes are now occurring at an
accelerated rate. For example, at
continental, regional, and ocean-basin
scales, recent observed changes in longterm trends include: A substantial
increase in precipitation in eastern parts
of North America and South America,
northern Europe, and northern and
central Asia, and an increase in intense
tropical cyclone activity in the North
Atlantic since about 1970 (IPCC 2007a,
p. 30); and an increase in annual
average temperature of more than 2 °F
(1.1 °C) across the United States since
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States (GCCIUS) 2009, p. 27).
Examples of observed changes in the
physical environment include: An
increase in global average sea level, and
declines in mountain glaciers and
average snow cover in both the northern
and southern hemispheres (IPCC 2007a,
p. 30), substantial and accelerating
reductions in Arctic sea-ice (such as
Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1), and a variety
of changes in ecosystem processes, the
distribution of species, and the timing of
seasonal events (such as GCCIUS 2009,
pp. 79–88).
The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean
General Circulation Models and various
greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to
make projections of climate change
globally and for broad regions through
the 21st century (Meehl et al. 2007, p.
753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596–599),
and reported these projections using a
framework for characterizing certainty
(Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22–23).
Examples include: (1) It is virtually
certain there will be warmer and more
frequent hot days and nights over most
of the earth’s land areas; (2) it is very
likely there will be increased frequency
of warm spells and heat waves over
most land areas, and the frequency of
heavy precipitation events will increase
over most areas; and (3) it is likely that
increases will occur in the incidence of
extreme high sea level (excludes
tsunamis), intense tropical cyclone
activity, and the area affected by
droughts (IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table
SPM.2). More recent analyses using a
different global model and comparing
other emissions scenarios resulted in
similar projections of global temperature
change across the different approaches
(Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All models (not just those involving
climate change) have some uncertainty
associated with projections due to
assumptions used, data available, and
features of the models; with regard to
climate change this includes factors
such as assumptions related to
emissions scenarios, internal climate
variability, and differences among
models. Despite this, however, under all
global models and emissions scenarios,
the overall projected trajectory of
surface air temperature is one of
increased warming compared to current
conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 762;
Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate
models, emissions scenarios, and
associated assumptions, data, and
analytical techniques will continue to
be refined, as will interpretations of
projections, as more information
becomes available. For instance, some
changes in conditions are occurring
more rapidly than initially projected,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
such as melting of Arctic sea ice
(Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al.
2010, p. 1797), and since 2000 the
observed emissions of greenhouse gases,
which are a key influence on climate
change, have been occurring at the midto higher levels of the various emissions
scenarios developed in the late 1990’s
and used by the IPPC for making
projections (such as Raupach et al.
2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Manning et al.
2010, Figure 1, p. 377; Pielke et al. 2008,
entire). Also, the best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that
average global surface air temperature is
increasing and several climate-related
changes are occurring and will continue
for many decades even if emissions are
stabilized soon (such as Meehl et al.
2007, pp. 822–829; Church et al. 2010,
pp. 411–412; Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
Changes in climate can have a variety
of direct and indirect impacts on
species, and can exacerbate the effects
of other threats. Rather than assessing
‘‘climate change’’ as a single threat in
and of itself, we examine the potential
consequences to species and their
habitats that arise from changes in
environmental conditions associated
with various aspects of climate change.
For example, climate-related changes to
habitats, predator-prey relationships,
disease and disease vectors, or
conditions that exceed the physiological
tolerances of a species, occurring
individually or in combination, may
affect the status of a species.
Vulnerability to climate change impacts
is a function of sensitivity to those
changes, exposure to those changes, and
adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 89;
Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). As
described above, in evaluating the status
of a species, the Service uses the best
scientific and commercial data
available, and this includes
consideration of direct and indirect
effects of climate change. As is the case
with all potential threats, if a species is
currently affected or is expected to be
affected by one or more climate-related
impacts, this does not necessarily mean
the species is a threatened or
endangered species as defined under the
Act. If a species is listed as threatened
or endangered, this knowledge
regarding its vulnerability to, and
impacts from, climate-associated
changes in environmental conditions
can be used to help devise appropriate
strategies for its recovery.
While projections from global climate
model simulations are informative and
in some cases are the only or the best
scientific information available, various
downscaling methods are being used to
provide higher resolution projections
that are more relevant to the spatial
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63111
scales used to assess impacts to a given
species (see Glick et al., 2011, pp. 58–
61). With regard to the area of analysis
for the California golden trout,
downscaled projections are not
available.
Climate change may potentially
impact California golden trout
populations by affecting water
temperature, water availability, or the
timing of flows. California golden trout
prefer temperatures below 60 °F (15 °C),
but can endure daytime temperatures
ranging into the 70’s °F (21 °C) so long
as temperatures cool again at night
(CDFG 2004a, pp. 11–12). Stretches of
the South Fork Kern can currently reach
up to 77 °F (25.2 °C) (CDFG 2004a, p.
55). Stream temperatures are being
monitored, as required by the
Conservation Strategy, but a detailed
report has not yet been produced
(McGuire et al. 2009, p. 11).
Both the Golden Trout Creek and
South Fork Kern watersheds are highelevation watersheds strongly
influenced by snowmelt. The extent of
water contained in the spring snowpack
(typically measured as the snow water
equivalent on April 1st) is thus an
important predictor of summer
streamflow and temperatures (Mote et
al. 2005, p. 40). Most areas in the
western United States have shown
decreases since 1950 in the amount of
water contained in their spring
snowpacks (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41).
However, the water content of spring
snowpacks in the southern Sierras
(including the areas surrounding the
Golden Trout Creek and South Fork
Kern watersheds) have actually
increased over that same time (Mote et
al. 2005, pp. 41, 42; Ray et al. 2010, p.
16). Mote et al. (2005, pp. 46, 47)
attributed this effect to an increase in
precipitation, combined with relatively
mild temperature increases at the high
elevations involved. Mote et al. (2005,
p. 40) compared the water content of
spring snowpacks across the American
West, both as measured from 1950 to
1997 and as predicted by a hydrologic
model called the Variable Infiltration
Capacity (VIC). The VIC accounts for
vegetation, soil layers, and the
interaction of water and heat energy at
the land surface. They found general
agreement between the model and
observations, except that the model,
while correctly predicting an increase in
snowpack water content for the
southern Sierras (Mote et al. 2005, pp.
41, 42), still under-predicted the amount
of snowpack water content due to a lack
of meteorological information for the
highest elevations (Mote et al. 2005, pp.
41, 43).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
63112
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Changes in timing of flows may be
possible despite predicted trends in
springtime snowpack. For instance the
snowpack may be maintained by
increased snowfall, despite earlier
melting of some portion of that
snowpack (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1144).
This may advance the timing of
relatively warm water entering the
Golden Trout Creek and South Fork
Kern watersheds. California golden trout
spawn when water temperatures
consistently exceed 59 °F (15 °C)
(Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, p. 1).
They also tend to spawn more actively
during times of day when the water is
warmest. Earlier meltwater runoff from
the snowpack might reasonably cause
the minimum spawning temperatures to
be reached earlier in the year. As the
Conservation Strategy notes, California
golden trout tend to grow slowly, in part
because of cold water temperatures and
a short growing season (CDFG 2004a,
p. 12). Earlier meltwater runoff may,
therefore, have a positive effect on
California golden trout populations.
In summary, modeled and observed
data indicate that the water content of
snowpacks in the southern Sierras is
likely to increase or at least remain the
same in the future. Streams supporting
California golden trout are, therefore,
likely to remain supplied year round
with water in the temperature ranges
required by the subspecies. We
conclude that global climate change
does not pose a threat to the subspecies,
either now or in the future.
Summary of Factor E
Although California golden trout have
historically been adversely affected by
several manmade or human exacerbated
factors, those potential threats have
been well-addressed by conservation
efforts. Threats of increased
hybridization resulting from natural fish
movement and interbreeding in areas
that are currently less-hybridized have
been ameliorated by conservation efforts
that include repair and maintainance of
the three fish barriers on the South Fork
Kern River, removal of all fish from the
headwater lakes of Golden Trout Creek,
and various genetic monitoring efforts.
While these efforts do not eliminate
introgression that has already occurred,
they prevent areas of low introgression,
such as the upper reaches of the South
Fork Kern River, from being further
introgressed by hybridized fish coming
upstream from lower reaches. This
stabilization of the threat has allowed
management efforts, including
elimination of introgressed populations,
to proceed in a well-considered manner.
Fire suppression planning and
guidance documents, including the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Conservation Strategy (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 87), Interagency Standards for
Fire and Fire Aviation Operations
(National Interagency Fire Center 2006,
chapter 12, pp. 1–6), and the Wildland
Fire Use Implementation Procedures
Reference Guide (USDA and USDOI
2005, entire) adequately address both
the direct potential impacts of fire
suppression activities and the indirect
habitat impacts that may result from
fuels buildup in the lack of fire. The
threat that the New Zealand mudsnail
may be introduced into California
golden trout waters is relatively low due
to distance to source areas, and is
addressed by public education efforts.
Available data also indicate that water
temperature and availability issues
related to climate change will not
threaten the subspecies. Based on the
above, we conclude that the California
golden trout is not currently threatened
by other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence
throughout its range, nor do we
anticipate other natural or manmade
factors posing a threat in the future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
California golden trout is threatened or
endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We
examined the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the California golden
trout. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, other
available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized California golden trout
experts and other Federal and State
agencies.
The primary potential threats to the
subspecies include livestock grazing at
levels that are environmentally harmful,
competition and predation from
introduced brown trout, and
hybridization with nonnative trout.
These potential threats are all addressed
by a Conservation Strategy and
Memorandum of Agreement that we, the
USFS, and CDFG are currently
implementing (CDFG et al. 2004a,
entire; CDFG et al. 2004b, entire).
Impacts from environmentally
detrimental grazing practices have been
greatly reduced through the resting of
grazing allotments and establishment of
cattle exclosures, by the implementation
of standards for maintaining desired
vegetative and habitat conditions, and
by significant reductions in the number
of cattle using the area.
Predation and competition with
brown trout have been addressed by the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discontinuation of brown trout stocking,
construction and improvement of fish
barriers, chemical treatments, and
annual surveys to keep brown trout out
of cleared areas. Hybridization concerns
have been addressed under the
Conservation Strategy through the
discontinuation of fish stocking in the
California golden trout’s home range,
the removal of hybridized fish from
Golden Trout Creek headwater lakes,
and the restoration of fish barriers on
the South Fork Kern River. In the South
Fork Kern River, introgression levels
appear to be generally uniform in stream
sections that are separated by barriers,
indicating that in general, particular
populations are insulated from
increased introgression. In Golden Trout
Creek, the source of introgression has
been removed. California golden trout
densities have generally been among the
highest ever recorded for a streamdwelling trout in the western United
States (Knapp and Matthews 1996, p.
805). Population surveys conducted at
Templeton Meadow on the South Fork
Kern River have indicated that
population numbers increased between
1985 and 1999 (Stephens 2001b, p. 2),
indicating that in general golden trout
population numbers are at a high
density and do not appear to be at risk.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that the threats are not
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the California
golden trout is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout its range
at this time.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Under the Service’s Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996), three elements are
considered in the decision concerning
the establishment and classification of a
possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to or removal
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. These elements
include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
If the population meets the first two
criteria under the DPS policy, we then
proceed to the third element in the
process, which is to evaluate the
population segment’s conservation
status in relation to the Act’s standards
for listing as an endangered or
threatened species. The DPS evaluation
in this finding concerns the California
golden trout that we were petitioned to
list as endangered.
In the threats assessment performed
above, we concluded that in relation to
the entire range of the California golden
trout, none of the activities identified as
potential threats, either singly or in
combination, constitute a level of risk
serious enough to bring a local
population to the point where it would
be in danger of extinction, either now or
in the foreseeable future.
Under the DPS Policy, California
golden trout in both Golden Trout Creek
and the South Fork Kern River each
could meet the criterion for discreteness
as a markedly separate population
because while the two drainages were
connected in the geologic past, they
became separated by volcanic activity in
the region approximately 10,000 years
ago (Cordes et al. 2003, p. 20). This led
to Golden Trout Creek and the South
Fork Kern River as known today
(Evermann 1906, pp. 11–14) in two
adjacent watersheds draining the Kern
Plateau of the southern Sierra Nevada.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Significance
If a population segment is considered
discrete under one or more of the
conditions described in the Service’s
DPS policy, its biological and ecological
significance will be considered in light
of Congressional guidance that the
authority to list DPSs be used
‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity. In
making this determination, we consider
available scientific evidence of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
discrete population segment’s
importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. Since precise circumstances are
likely to vary considerably from case to
case, the DPS policy does not describe
all the classes of information that might
be used in determining the biological
and ecological importance of a discrete
population. However, the DPS policy
describes four possible classes of
information that provide evidence of a
population segment’s biological and
ecological importance to the taxon to
which it belongs. As specified in the
DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this
consideration of the population
segment’s significance may include, but
is not limited to, the following:
(1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of a taxon;
(3) Evidence that the discrete
population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historic range; or
(4) Evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics.
A population segment needs to satisfy
only one of these conditions to be
considered significant. Furthermore,
other information may be used as
appropriate to provide evidence for
significance.
California golden trout in Golden
Trout Creek and the South Fork Kern
River could each be considered to meet
the significance criterion of the DPS
policy because the evidence indicates
that the loss of either population
segment could result in a significant gap
in the range of the subspecies.
However, since it is our conclusion
that, based on the best information
available, recent management actions
and restoration activities have
ameliorated the risks presented by these
potential threats to the extent that they
do not present a concentrated level of
risk to California golden trout anywhere
in its range, including in Golden Trout
Creek and the South Fork Kern
watershed, we conclude that there is no
geographic concentration of threats and
thus no need to proceed further with an
evaluation of potential DPSs within the
range of the subspecies. Even if
populations of California golden trout
were found to meet the distinctness and
significance criteria of the DPS Policy,
we have already found that the
conservation status of these entities
would not meet the Act’s standards for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63113
listing as endangered or threatened. As
a result, no further analysis under the
DPS policy is necessary.
Significant Portion of the Range and
Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments
After assessing whether the California
golden trout is threatened or endangered
throughout its range, we next consider
whether either a significant portion of
the California golden trout’s range or a
distinct population segment (DPS) of the
species meets the definition of
endangered or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
Significant Portion of the Range
The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’
as any species which is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant
to this discussion. The Act defines the
term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term
‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment [DPS] of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
(SPR) is not defined by the statute, and
we have never addressed in our
regulations: (1) The consequences of a
determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so
throughout a significant portion of its
range, but not throughout all of its
range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of
a range as ‘‘significant.’’
Two recent district court decisions
have addressed whether the SPR
language allows the Service to list or
protect less than all members of a
defined ‘‘species:’’ Defenders of Wildlife
v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s
delisting of the Northern Rocky
Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April
2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253
(D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the
Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to
list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR
6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had
asserted in both of these determinations
that it had authority, in effect, to protect
only some members of a ‘‘species,’’ as
defined by the Act (i.e., species,
subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both
courts ruled that the determinations
were arbitrary and capricious on the
grounds that this approach violated the
plain and unambiguous language of the
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
63114
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Act. The courts concluded that reading
the SPR language to allow protecting
only a portion of a species’ range is
inconsistent with the Act’s definition of
‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that
once a determination is made that a
species (i.e., species, subspecies, or
DPS) meets the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species,’’ it must be placed on the list
in its entirety and the Act’s protections
applied consistently to all members of
that species (subject to modification of
protections through special rules under
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
Consistent with that interpretation,
and for the purposes of this finding, we
interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ to provide an independent
basis for listing; thus there are two
situations (or factual bases) under which
a species would qualify for listing: a
species may be endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range; or
a species may be endangered or
threatened in only a significant portion
of its range. If a species is in danger of
extinction throughout an SPR, it, the
species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’
The same analysis applies to
‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the
consequence of finding that a species is
endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range is that the
entire species shall be listed as
endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the Act’s protections shall be
applied across the species’ entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this
finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase
as providing an independent basis for
listing is the best interpretation of the
Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the
key definitions of the Act; it does not
conflict with established past agency
practice (i.e., prior to the 2007
Solicitor’s Opinion), as no consistent,
long-term agency practice has been
established; and it is consistent with the
judicial opinions that have most closely
examined this issue. Having concluded
that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of
its range’’ provides an independent
basis for listing and protecting the entire
species, we next turn to the meaning of
‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold
for when such an independent basis for
listing exists.
Although there are potentially many
ways to determine whether a portion of
a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we
conclude, for the purposes of this
finding, that the significance of the
portion of the range should be
determined based on its biological
contribution to the conservation of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
species. For this reason, we describe the
threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of
an increase in the risk of extinction for
the species. We conclude that a
biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the
purposes of the Act, is consistent with
judicial interpretations, and best
ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for
the purposes of this finding, a portion
of the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’
if its contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without
that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance
based on the principles of conservation
biology using the concepts of
redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the
characteristics of a species that allow it
to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple
populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a
margin of safety for the species to
withstand catastrophic events.
Representation (the range of variation
found in a species) ensures that the
species’ adaptive capabilities are
conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and
representation are not independent of
each other, and some characteristic of a
species or area may contribute to all
three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitats is an indicator
of representation, but it may also
indicate a broad geographic distribution
contributing to redundancy (decreasing
the chance that any one event affects the
entire species), and the likelihood that
some habitat types are less susceptible
to certain threats, contributing to
resiliency (the ability of the species to
recover from disturbance). None of these
concepts is intended to be mutually
exclusive, and a portion of a species’
range may be determined to be
‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions
under any one of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we
determine if a portion’s biological
contribution is so important that the
portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by
asking whether, without that portion,
the representation, redundancy, or
resiliency of the species would be so
impaired that the species would have an
increased vulnerability to threats to the
point that the overall species would be
in danger of extinction (i.e., would be
‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would
not consider the portion of the range at
issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is
sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation elsewhere in the species’
range that the species would not be in
danger of extinction throughout its
range if the population in that portion
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the range in question became
extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of
‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold
that is relatively high. On the one hand,
given that the consequences of finding
a species to be endangered or threatened
in an SPR would be listing the species
throughout its entire range, it is
important to use a threshold for
‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not
be meaningful or appropriate to
establish a very low threshold whereby
a portion of the range can be considered
‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible
increase in extinction risk would result
from its loss. Because nearly any portion
of a species’ range can be said to
contribute some increment to a species’
viability, use of such a low threshold
would require us to impose restrictions
and expend conservation resources
disproportionately to conservation
benefit: listing would be rangewide,
even if only a portion of the range of
minor conservation importance to the
species is imperiled. On the other hand,
it would be inappropriate to establish a
threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too
high. This would be the case if the
standard were, for example, that a
portion of the range can be considered
‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that
portion result in the entire species’
being currently endangered or
threatened. Such a high bar would not
give the SPR phrase independent
meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258
F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in
this finding carefully balances these
concerns. By setting a relatively high
threshold, we minimize the degree to
which restrictions will be imposed or
resources expended that do not
contribute substantially to species
conservation. But we have not set the
threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a
significant portion of its range’’ loses
independent meaning. Specifically, we
have not set the threshold as high as it
was under the interpretation presented
by the Service in the Defenders
litigation. Under that interpretation, the
portion of the range would have to be
so important that current imperilment
there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled
everywhere. Under the definition of
‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the
portion of the range need not rise to
such an exceptionally high level of
biological significance. (We recognize
that if the species is imperiled in a
portion that rises to that level of
biological significance, then we should
conclude that the species is in fact
imperiled throughout all of its range,
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and that we would not need to rely on
the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask
whether the species would be in danger
of extinction everywhere without that
portion, i.e., if that portion were
completely extirpated.
The range of a species can
theoretically be divided into portions in
an infinite number of ways. However,
there is no purpose to analyzing
portions of the range that have no
reasonable potential to be significant
and threatened or endangered. To
identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine
whether there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
Depending on the biology of the species,
its range, and the threats it faces, it
might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the
status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is
endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not
endangered or threatened in a portion of
its range, we do not need to determine
if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In
practice, a key part of the portion status
analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats applies only to
portions of the species’ range that
clearly would not meet the biologically
based definition of ‘‘significant’’, such
portions will not warrant further
consideration.
The most serious of the potential
threats to California golden trout
discussed above in the Summary of
Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section are livestock grazing,
predation and competition from brown
trout, and hybridization issues with
rainbow trout. These potential threats
generally occur across the species range
and are not concentrated in any areas.
Even areas that may currently lack one
or more of these potential threats remain
at some risk from them. The level of risk
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:55 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
presented by each of these potential
threats has, in the past, been highest in
the South Fork Kern watershed.
However, recent management actions
and restoration activities have
ameliorated the risks presented by these
potential threats to the extent that they
do not present a concentrated level of
risk to California golden trout anywhere
in its range, including the South Fork
Kern watershed. Efforts in place to
address these potential threats include
the development and implementation of
the Conservation Strategy, with its
associated management and monitoring
requirements (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 1–
4; McGuire et al. 2009, entire; Lentz
2011, pp. 1, 2); the ongoing
development of a genetics management
plan scheduled for completion in June
2012 (Lentz 2011, p. 2); the construction
and renovation of the three fish passage
barriers restricting movement of brown
trout and hybridized fish (Lentz 2011,
pp. 1, 2); the eradication of brown trout
above the Templeton barrier (Lentz
2011, p. 2); the curtailment of stocking
of brown and rainbow trout (with the
exception of sterile triploid rainbow
trout at Kennedy Meadows) (CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 52; Lentz 2011, p.1); and
extensive grazing restrictions and
effects-monitoring across the range
(USFS 1988a, pp. 78–79, 236; USFS
1995, pp. 2, 27; Knapp and Mathews
1996, pp. 816, 817; CDFG et al. 2004a,
p. 34; McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 17;
Ettema and Sims 2010, pp. 58–64).
Of the additional potential threats to
California golden trout discussed above
under the Summary of Information
Pertaining to the Five Factors section,
some are more applicable to the South
Fork Kern watershed (recreation, fish
barriers, beavers, angling, illegal trout
transplants, fish stocking, and the New
Zealand mud snail), while others are
equally applicable to both watersheds
(pack stock use, collection of fin tissue
samples, whirling disease, fire
suppression activities, and climate
change). However, for the reasons
discussed above in relation to the entire
range of the subspecies, none of these
activities (either singly or in
combination) constitute a level of risk
serious enough to bring a local
population to the point where it would
be in danger of extinction, either now or
in the foreseeable future. Accordingly,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
63115
based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we
conclude that the California golden
trout is not threatened or endangered in
a significant portion of its range.
Moreover, the subspecies currently
exists throughout its historical range
(see Distribution section above), so there
is no need to address the question of
whether lost historical range is a
significant portion of the species’ range.
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
We do not find the California golden
trout (or any DPS) to be in danger of
extinction now, nor is this species likely
to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, listing this species as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the California golden trout to
our Sacramento Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section)
whenever it becomes available. New
information will help us monitor the
California golden trout and encourage
its conservation. If an emergency
situation develops for the California
golden trout or any other species, we
will act to provide immediate
protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 22, 2011.
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25652 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\11OCP4.SGM
11OCP4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63094-63115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25652]
[[Page 63093]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 196
October 11, 2011
Part VI
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a
Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63094]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0089 MO 92210-0-008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the California Golden Trout as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the California golden trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss aguabonita) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing the California golden
trout is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
threats to the California golden trout or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 11,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0089. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, CA 95825. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Leyse, Field Office Listing/
Critical Habitat Coordinator, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES);
by telephone at 916-414-6600; or by facsimile at 916-414-6712. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, to the maximum extent practicable,
within 90 days after receiving the petition, we make a finding as to
whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In
addition, within 12 months of the date of the receipt of the petition,
we must make a finding on whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded by other
pending proposals. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat
a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. Such 12-
month findings are to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the October 23, 2000,
petition to list the California golden trout as endangered.
Previous Federal Actions
On October 23, 2000, we received a petition dated October 13, 2000,
from Trout Unlimited, requesting that the California golden trout be
listed on an emergency basis as endangered under the Act, and that
critical habitat be designated. Included in the petition was supporting
information on the subspecies' taxonomy, distribution, and ecology, as
well as information regarding factors considered by the petitioners to
threaten the subspecies. We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a
letter to Trout Unlimited, dated November 7, 2000. In that letter, we
also stated that we would be unable to address the petition until
fiscal year 2002 or later due to court orders and judicially approved
settlement agreements for listing and critical habitat determinations
under the Act, which required nearly all of our listing and critical
habitat funding for fiscal year 2001. The petitioner filed a complaint
in Federal District Court on November 29, 2001, resulting in a ruling
on June 21, 2002, ordering us to complete the 90-day finding by
September 19, 2002. We completed the finding by the requisite date, and
published it in the Federal Register on September 20, 2002 (67 FR
59241). In the finding we determined that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
listing the California golden trout may be warranted. We also
determined that an emergency rule to list was not warranted at the time
of the 90-day finding. We concurrently initiated a status review on
which to base our eventual 12-month finding regarding whether listing
of the California golden trout is warranted. On September 22, 2003,
Trout Unlimited sent a Notice of Intent to sue the Service for
violating the Act by failing to make a 12-month finding within the
statutory timeframe. This 12-month finding resolves that issue.
Subspecies Information
Taxonomy and Subspecies Description
The California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita)
(formerly known as Volcano Creek golden trout) is one of three
subspecies of rainbow trout (O. mykiss) native to the Kern River basin
in Tulare and Kern Counties, California (Behnke 1992, p. 191; Behnke
2002, p. 105; Moyle 2002, p. 283). The two other subspecies native to
this basin are the Little Kern golden trout (O. mykiss whitei), which
is found in the Little Kern River and its tributaries, and the Kern
River rainbow trout (O. mykiss gilberti), which is found in the Kern
River. All three subspecies most likely originated from successive
invasions of primitive redband trout (ancestral rainbow trout) of the
Kern River approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years ago (Behnke 1992, p.
189; Behnke 2002, p. 107; Moyle 2002, p. 283). These fish gained access
to the Kern River drainage during glacial cycles and short-term
interglacial wet cycles that allowed Lake Tulare to overflow and
connect the Kern River drainage to the San Joaquin River and Pacific
Ocean (Behnke 2002, p. 109). These primitive forms of rainbow trout
that became isolated in the Kern River watershed gave rise to the
California golden trout, Little Kern River golden trout, and the Kern
River rainbow trout due to local selective factors in their environment
(Behnke 2002, p. 111; Moyle 2002, p. 283).
The taxonomy of golden trout in the Kern River basin has been
revised several times. Originally, four species of trout were
described: Salmo aguabonita from the South Fork Kern River, S.
roosevelti from Golden Trout Creek, S. whitei (Little Kern golden
trout) from the Little Kern River, and S. gairdeneri gilberti (Kern
River rainbow trout) from the lower Kern River (Moyle 2002, p. 284).
Trout from the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek were later
recognized as color variants of S. aguabonita (Schreck and Behnke 1971,
p. 994). More recently, rainbow trout were reclassified as Oncorhynchus
mykiss to reflect their relationship to Pacific salmon, and California
golden trout in both the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek
became recognized as the same subspecies of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus
mykiss
[[Page 63095]]
aguabonita (Behnke 1992, pp. 163, 172). Similarly, Little Kern golden
trout became O. mykiss whitei, and Kern River rainbow trout became O.
mykiss gilberti.
California golden trout are well known for their bright coloration,
red to red-orange belly and cheeks, bright gold lower sides, a central
lateral band that is red-orange, and a deep olive-green back (Moyle
2002, p. 283). Typically, 10 parr marks (oval colorations) are present
along the lateral line on both young fish and adults, but may be lost
in older fish under some conditions (Behnke 2002, p. 106). The
pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins are orange with a white to yellow tip
preceded by a black band; dorsal fins may also have a white to yellow
tip (Moyle 2002, p. 283). Body spotting is highly variable, but spots
are usually scattered across the dorsal surface with a few below the
lateral line (Moyle 2002, p. 283). California golden trout from Golden
Trout Creek have few spots on the body, primarily concentrated on and
near the caudal peduncle (the muscle before the tail fin), whereas
California golden trout in the South Fork Kern River typically have
small dark spots present over most of the length of the body above the
lateral line, although a few spots can be found below the lateral line
(Fisk 1983, p.1; Stephens 2001a, p. 4). Golden trout are rainbow trout,
so the basic rainbow trout characteristics apply to the subspecies
(Moyle 2002, p. 283); however, golden trout have the lowest number of
vertebrae (59 to 60) and pyloric caeca (finger-like projections of the
intestine (30 to 32)), and the highest number of scales along the
lateral line (170 to 200) of any rainbow trout (Behnke 2002, p. 106).
California golden trout in streams can obtain lengths of 19 to 20
centimeters (cm) (7.5 to 7.9 inches (in)) (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p.
168). California golden trout remain geographically isolated from
Little Kern golden trout and Kern River rainbow trout, but historical
planting of nonnative hatchery trout (O. mykiss irideus) has resulted
in hybridization in most of the range (see the Hybridization section
under Factor E below).
California golden trout also present behavioral and life-history
characters that help distinguish them from other subspecies of rainbow
trout (see also discussion under the Habitat and Life History section
below). These include smaller home ranges (Matthews 1996a, p. 84;
Matthews 1996b, p. 587), remaining active during both day and night
(Matthews 1996a, pp. 82, 84-85), a relatively long lifespan (Knapp and
Dudley 1990, p. 169), and the construction of redds (depressions in the
substrate for eggs) using relatively small-grained substrate (Knapp and
Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529).
For purposes of this finding, we have considered California golden
trout to be those trout within the native range of the subspecies (see
Distribution section below) that present the morphological and
behavioral characters listed above. We do not rely on genetic tests
indicating levels of genetic introgression (infiltration of genes from
one species into the gene pool of another species through repeated
backcrossing of a hybrid with one of its parent species) with nonnative
trout (see Factor E--Hybridization section below) to determine what
constitutes a member of the subspecies because the most recent genetic
analysis of introgression in California golden trout populations
specifically cautioned against the use of strict cutoffs of
introgression levels in determining management categories based on any
single genetic test (Stephens 2007, p. 55). According to this study,
the algorithm used by one genetic test may result in an estimation of
low levels of introgression where none actually exist, essentially not
allowing for an unambiguous determination between low levels of
introgression and genetically ``pure'' populations (Stephens 2007, p.
56). This caution against using single methods for determining cutoffs
was due in part to considerable differences in introgression estimates
for certain populations of California golden trout, which were
generated by the different methodologies and assumptions of the various
genetic tests that have been used to test those populations (Stephens
2007, p. 72), as well as to the general need for an adequate
understanding of the variance surrounding introgression estimates
(Stephens 2007, p. 57). However, while we do not rely on genetic tests
of introgression levels to distinguish California golden trout
populations from nonnative trout, we do consider such genetic
information useful for evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken
to prevent further introgression.
Hybridization between California golden trout and nonnative rainbow
trout is sometimes displayed by an increased number and location of
body spots, especially below the lateral line, and a more rainbow
trout-like body coloration; however, not all hybrid trout display
rainbow trout characteristics (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 24). We have
anecdotal information that suggests there are trout that exhibit
changed coloration and spotting patterns from those ascribed to the
California golden trout (Trout Unlimited 2000, pp. 18, 19) and that
these intergrades may predominate in the lower reaches of the South
Fork Kern River (Sims 2011a). Such reports have not been substantiated
with systematic measures of, or comparison with, introgression levels
or with other morphological or behavioral attributes described above,
and there are no studies that have measured the morphological or
behavioral changes in introgressed California golden trout as compared
to ``pure'' golden trout. Furthermore, there is no documentation that
we are aware of that indicates that additional meristic measures used
to describe California golden trout (such as number of vertebrae, scale
counts, and pyloric caeca) have changed with introgression levels.
Distribution
The historical range of the California golden trout included only
the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek in the upper Kern
River basin. Golden Trout Creek and upper portions of the South Fork
Kern River were once part of the same stream, which became separated by
volcanic activity in the region approximately 10,000 years ago (Cordes
et al. 2003, p. 20). This led to Golden Trout Creek and the South Fork
Kern River as known today (Evermann 1906, pp. 11-14) in two adjacent
watersheds draining the Kern Plateau of the southern Sierra Nevada.
The Golden Trout Creek watershed is 155 square kilometers (km\2\)
(60 square miles (mi\2\)). Golden Trout Creek drainage begins around
3,292 meters (m) (10,800 feet (ft)) elevation near Cirque Peak and
extends to 2,135 m (7,000 ft) elevation at the confluence of Golden
Trout Creek and the Kern River. The headwaters are in the northern
section of the Kern Plateau, and several lakes (Chicken Spring,
Johnson, and Rocky Basins lakes) drain into the watershed. With the
exception of headwater lakes, and the probable exception of upper
reaches of some tributary streams, Golden Trout Creek was historically
occupied by the California golden trout from the headwaters to a series
of waterfalls near the confluence of the creek with the Kern River
(Evermann 1906, pp. 12-14; 28, 30). The waterfalls are impassable and
thus isolate California golden trout in Golden Trout Creek from fish
found in the Kern River. Within Golden Trout Creek, California golden
trout currently maintain the same distribution as they did
historically.
The South Fork Kern River watershed covers 1,380 km\2\ (533 mi\2\).
The South Fork Kern River begins southeast of Cirque Peak at
approximately 3,170 m
[[Page 63096]]
(10,400 ft) in elevation and continues until it reaches Isabella
Reservoir at 794 m (2,605 ft) in elevation. The headwaters are in the
eastern section of the Kern Plateau, starting at South Fork and Mulkey
Meadows. California golden trout were historically known in the South
Fork Kern River from the headwaters to the southern boundary of the
Domeland Wilderness (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 8). The subspecies currently
maintains the same distribution as it did historically within the South
Fork Kern River; however, the degree of genetic introgression from
nonnative rainbow trout increases as one proceeds downstream from
Templeton Barrier (Stephens 2007, pp. 42, 72). There is no evidence to
suggest that the degree of introgression has been sufficient to remove
morphologically and behaviorally distinct California golden trout from
the southern portion of its historical range. Therefore, we are
considering the subspecies to be present in its entire historical range
for purposes of this finding. The range is completely within the Inyo
and Sequoia National Forests, which are administered by the U.S. Forest
Service.
Range Expansion
California golden trout have been widely transplanted outside of
their historical range, but the history of these transplants is poorly
documented. Most of these transplanted fish came from hybridized
Cottonwood Lakes stock that was derived from Golden Trout Creek
(Stephens 2007, pp. 54, 55). Fish were transplanted into fishless lakes
and streams within the Golden Trout Creek watershed, the South Fork
Kern River watershed, and other areas throughout the Sierra Nevada
(such as adjacent to the Kern Plateau, including Ninemile Creek, Cold
Creek, Salmon Creek, many of the lakes and streams to the north in
Sequoia National Park, and all tributaries to the Kern River). In
California, planting records and historical documents indicate that
California golden trout have been stocked in Alpine, El Dorado, Nevada,
Placer, Sierra, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mono, Siskiyou, Trinity, Tulare,
and Tuolumne Counties (Fisk 1983, p. 11). Outside of California, golden
trout were sent to England, Colorado, Utah, Montana, New York, and
Wyoming between 1928 and 1937 (McCloud 1943, p. 194).
For the purposes of this finding, we are analyzing a petitioned
entity that includes populations of California golden trout considered
native to the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek in the upper
Kern River basin. We do not consider introduced populations present
elsewhere as part of the listable entity because we do not consider
them to be native populations. Neither the Act nor our implementing
regulations expressly address whether introduced populations should be
considered part of an entity being evaluated for listing, and no
Service policy addresses the issue. Consequently, in our evaluation of
whether or not to include introduced populations in the potential
listable entity we considered the following:
(1) Our interpretation of the intent of the Act with respect to the
disposition of native populations;
(2) A policy used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to evaluate whether hatchery-origin populations warrant inclusion in
the listable entity; and
(3) A set of guidelines from another organization (International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) with specific criteria for
evaluating the conservation contribution of introduced populations.
Our interpretation is that the Act is intended to preserve native
populations in their ecosystems. While hatchery or introduced
populations of fishes may have some conservation value, this does not
appear to be the case with introduced populations of California golden
trout in California and elsewhere in the United States. These
introduced populations were apparently established to support
recreational fisheries without any formal genetic consideration to
selecting and mating broodstock (group of mature fish kept for breeding
purposes), and are not part of any conservation program to benefit the
native populations. Consequently, we do not consider the introduced
populations of California golden trout in California, England,
Colorado, Utah, Montana, New York, and Wyoming to be part of the
listable entity.
Habitat and Life History
California golden trout reach sexual maturity when they are 3 to 4
years old and begin spawning during the spring or early summer when
maximum water temperatures consistently exceed 15 to 18 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (59 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) and average stream
water temperatures exceed 7 to 10 [deg]C (45 to 50 [deg]F) (Stefferud
1993, pp. 139-140; Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, p. 528). Spawning begins
with female California golden trout moving fine gravel substrate to
construct a shallow depression, known as a redd, to lay their eggs.
Although California golden trout can construct redds using gravel of
smaller average diameter than other trout species or subspecies, they
still select the largest substrates available (Knapp and Vredenburg
1996, pp. 528, 529).
Growth of California golden trout shows a negative correlation with
fish density and a positive correlation with several factors, including
the stability of the stream bed and banks, and the presence of aquatic
and streamside vegetation (Knapp and Dudley 1990, pp. 165, 170, 171).
Aquatic vegetation provides habitat for small invertebrates preyed on
by the trout, while overhanging streamside vegetation provides habitat
for terrestrial invertebrates that can serve as a food source when they
fall in the water (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 170; Moyle 2002, p. 285).
Streamside vegetation also tends to stabilize banks and to provide
cover for young trout from potential predators such as birds (Moyle
2002, p. 277). Overhanging vegetation, steep or undercut banks, and
deeper streambeds are all needed by trout (Moyle 2002, p. 286), in part
because they provide shade and cooler water during the day. Average
daily water temperatures can fluctuate from 2 to 22 [deg]C (Knapp and
Dudley 1990, p. 163), while optimal temperatures for trout range from
15 to 18 [deg]C (59 to 64 [deg]F) (Moyle 2002, p. 276). Deeper
streambeds and steeper banks are associated with greater stream
stablity, thus helping to explain the positive correlation between
stream stability and trout growth found by Knapp and Dudley (1990, pp.
165, 171). Stream stability is also likely important because erosion of
unstable streams produces higher sediment loads that can cover redds
and interfere with feeding by clouding the water (Moyle 2002, p. 278).
California golden trout have been known to live as long as 9 years,
and commonly reach 6 to 7 years old (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169).
This long lifespan is likely due to a short growing season, high fish
densities, and a low food abundance, all of which promote slow growth
rates and old ages of trout (Knapp and Dudley 1990, p. 169).
California golden trout adapted to the South Fork Kern River and
Golden Trout Creek in the absence of competitors, although they
probably did coexist with Sacramento suckers (Catostomus occidentalis)
in the South Fork Kern River (Moyle 2002, p. 284). Long isolation of
California golden trout from other species has likely resulted in a
lack of competitive ability, making them vulnerable to replacement by
other trout species (Behnke 1992, p. 191). Likewise, the subspecies is
thought to have evolved without substantial interspecific predation
risk; the birds and mammals that might have been
[[Page 63097]]
likely predators of the California golden trout occur infrequently in
high alpine areas where California golden trout are found (Moyle 2002,
p. 285). One possible indication that California golden trout adapted
without predators is the trout's active behavior during both day and
night (Matthews 1996a, pp. 82, 84-85).
California golden trout home ranges were calculated as the linear
distance that encompasses 90 percent of trout locations, based on
movements recorded using radio-telemetry during the months of July and
September (Matthews 1996a, p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587). California
golden trout were found to have small home ranges that average 5 m (16
ft) (Matthews 1996a, p. 84; Matthews 1996b, p. 587). Movements of 26 to
100 m (86 to 328 ft) were observed, but these constituted less than 1
percent of all observations (Matthews 1996b, p. 587).
The Conservation Strategy
Since publication of the 90-day finding in 2002 (67 FR 59241;
September 20, 2002), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),
the Forest Service, and the Service (hereafter referred to collectively
as the Agencies) completed a revised Conservation Assessment and
Strategy for the California Golden Trout (Conservation Strategy) dated
September 17, 2004 (CDFG et al. 2004a). The Conservation Strategy
replaced a previous guidance document known as the Conservation
Strategy for the Volcano Creek (California) Golden Trout (1999
Conservation Strategy), which had been in effect since April 22, 1999.
The Agencies also signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on September
17, 2004, to implement the Conservation Strategy (CDFG et al. 2004b);
both the Conservation Strategy and MOA are currently in effect. The
purposes of the Conservation Strategy are to:
(1) Protect and restore California golden trout genetic integrity
and distribution within its native range;
(2) Improve riparian and instream habitat for the restoration of
California golden trout populations; and
(3) Expand educational efforts regarding California golden trout
restoration and protection.
The Agencies' intent has been to encourage ongoing nongovernmental
stakeholder coordination and consultation throughout the implementation
phase of the Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy is based
on adaptive management, with tasks being removed, added, or adjusted
annually as new information becomes available. The Agencies, through
the MOA, agreed to formally implement and collaborate on the
Conservation Strategy and make any necessary adaptive management
changes as the primary mechanism for the conservation of the California
golden trout. Implementation of many tasks described in the
Conservation Strategy began while it was under development, and have
continued since its finalization. Those tasks and other conservation
efforts implemented in prior years are summarized below throughout the
five-factor analysis.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act treats
subspecies such as the California golden trout as species for these
purposes (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any
of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the California
golden trout in relation to the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month finding on the petition,
we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial information. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition and our subsequent investigations have identified
several habitat-related activities relevant to the conservation status
of California golden trout, including: Livestock grazing management,
pack stock use, recreation, artificial fish barriers, and beavers. We
address each activity below.
Livestock Grazing Management
The combined effect of current livestock grazing activities in the
Golden Trout Wilderness and legacy conditions from historically
excessive grazing use have the potential to impact habitat and the
range of the California golden trout. The following subsections discuss
the effects of excessive historical grazing, current grazing management
practices, and habitat restoration and monitoring efforts within the
basins in which the native stream habitat of the California golden
trout occurs.
Historical Effects of Excessive Grazing
Grazing of livestock in Sierra Nevada meadows and riparian areas
began in the mid-1700s with the European settlement of California
(Menke et al. 1996, p. 909). Following the gold rush of the mid-1800s,
grazing rose to a level that exceeded the carrying capacity of the
available range and caused significant impacts to the grazed ecosystems
(Meehan and Platts 1978, p. 275; Menke et al. 1996, p. 909).
Approximately 95 percent of the California golden trout's native stream
habitat has been subjected to varying intensities of grazing for more
than 130 years (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 31). Livestock grazing within the
national forests in the southern and high Sierras has continued with
gradual reductions since the 1920s, except for an increase during World
War II (Menke et al. 1996, pp. 909-910, 916-919).
Livestock can contribute to the destabilization of stream banks by
[[Page 63098]]
accelerating erosion and increasing bank disturbance (Kauffman et al.
1983, pp. 684-685; Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, p. 279). Livestock grazing
in meadows and on stream banks can compact soils, which reduces water
infiltration rates and the soil's ability to hold water, thereby
increasing surface runoff rates into adjacent streams, downcutting
streambeds, and lowering the watertable (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp.
275-276; Kauffman et al. 1983, pp. 684-685; Kauffman and Krueger 1984,
pp. 433-434; Bohn and Buckhouse 1985, p. 378; Armour et al. 1994, pp.
7-10). In some cases, excessive livestock grazing has resulted in the
conversion of wet meadows into dry flats and in diminished perennial
stream flows (Armour et al. 1994, p. 7). Erosion from trampling causes
stream bank collapse and an accelerated rate of soil movement from land
into streams (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-276). Accelerated rates
of erosion lead to elevated instream sediment loads and depositions,
and changes in channel morphology, which alter the structure of the
aquatic environment used by fish for spawning (Meehan and Platts 1978,
pp. 275-276; Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 433-434; Bohn and Buckhouse
1985, p. 378). These effects to the aquatic ecosystem increase with
increases in the intensity of grazing (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275-
276).
Livestock grazing can cause a nutrient loading problem due to
urination and defecation in or near the water, and elevate bacteria
levels in areas where cattle are concentrated near water (Meehan and
Platts 1978, p. 276; Stephenson and Street 1978, p. 152; Kauffman and
Krueger 1984, p. 432). The nutrient status of streams can create a
cause and effect relationship between nutrient levels, bacterial
growth, and insect mortality (Lemly 1998, p. 234). Growth of
filamentous bacteria on the bodies and gills of aquatic insects was
demonstrated to be an effect of nutrient loading in livestock-use
pastures, significantly lowering the density of insect occurrences at
downstream sites (Lemly 1998, pp. 234-235). Aquatic insects suffered
extensive mortality because of this bacterial growth in laboratory and
field studies, indicating that elevated bacteria levels can negatively
influence stream insect populations (Lemly 1998, pp. 234-235, 237),
which can result in detrimental effects to prey species important to
fish.
Several studies have documented the environmentally detrimental
impacts of historical grazing practices in areas within the range of
the California golden trout. Albert (1982, pp. 29-47) studied factors
influencing the riparian condition of streams in the Golden Trout
Wilderness and adjoining watersheds in Sequoia National Park. Her
results showed that stream zones in the South Fork Kern River and
Golden Trout Creek were less stable, had more livestock damage, and
were generally in poorer condition than those in Sequoia National Park,
which had not been grazed for the preceding 50 years. Stream reaches
with light cattle use had channel bottoms that were more stable (less
subject to erosional and depositional changes) than heavily used
reaches (Albert 1982, pp. 48-51).
Odion et al. (1988, pp. 277-289) examined the effects of cattle
grazing and recovery potential in Templeton and Ramshaw Meadows along
the South Fork Kern River. Vegetation change was monitored inside and
outside of exclosures that were established along riparian areas within
the range of California golden trout. Odion et al. (1988, pp. 277-289)
concluded that livestock trampling and defoliation caused a breakdown
of the protective sod layer in the meadows, allowing streams to incise
(where the streambed channel downcuts in elevation, reducing habitat
quality and quantity), produce gullies, and lower the water table.
Subsequently, plants adapted for a dry habitat, such as sagebrush,
invaded the altered meadows. Results of density monitoring indicated
that cattle trampling impaired colonization of plant species important
in stabilizing substrate on stream banks, thus reducing the natural
revegetation potential of bare stream bank habitat (Odion et al. 1988,
p. 283).
Matthews (1996b, pp. 579-589) used radio transmitters to determine
habitat selection and movement patterns of California golden trout in
two stream reaches with different levels of habitat recovery on Mulkey
Creek. The study areas were differentiated by high and low coverage of
Carex rostrata (beaked sedge) along the stream banks. Low coverage
areas were typically associated with signs of cattle degradation, such
as widened stream channels, collapsed banks, and a reduction in areas
with undercut banks. In both low and high sedge reaches, California
golden trout more often selected undercut banks, aquatic vegetation,
and sedge while avoiding bare and collapsed banks caused by livestock
grazing. They were most commonly found in pools and runs (slow moving
areas in a stream), where they used habitat features such as undercut
banks, aquatic vegetation, and sedges, all of which typically can be
damaged by excessive cattle grazing along stream banks.
Knapp and Matthews (1996, pp. 816-817) examined the effects of
excessive livestock grazing on California golden trout and their
habitat inside and outside of grazing exclosures in the South Fork Kern
River watershed. In the 2-year study, most physical parameters of the
stream channels showed large differences between grazed and ungrazed
sites, with ungrazed sites displaying greater canopy shading, stream
depth, bank-full height, and narrower stream width. Densities and
biomass of California golden trout per unit area were significantly
higher in ungrazed versus grazed areas in three out of four
comparisons, but differences were less consistent when density and
biomass were calculated using stream length. Other findings of this
study indicate a significant decrease in stream width in the upper
Ramshaw Meadows exclosure between 1984 and 1993, and a greater number
of willow plants inside exclosures than outside.
Not all studies found differences in grazed and ungrazed areas.
Sarr (1995, pp. 97, 104) did not find significant differences in stream
morphology in his study between grazed and ungrazed reaches on the
South Fork Kern River. In a movement and habitat use study, California
golden trout were monitored with radio transmitters inside and outside
of grazing exclosures on the South Fork Kern River (Matthews 1996a, pp.
78-85). No differences in distance moved or home range were found
between California golden trout inside and outside exclosures, and most
fish were found within 5 m (16.4 ft) of their previously recorded
location.
Current Levels of Grazing Use
Many grazing impacts to the Kern Plateau were originally caused by
unmanaged grazing practices dating back to the late 1800s, during which
tens of thousands of cattle were grazed over long periods of time (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 31). Grazing use has been greatly reduced since then
in order to restore natural habitat conditions (CDFG et al. 2004a, p.
34). Additionally, during the past decade the Inyo National Forest has
completely restricted grazing on two of its four grazing allotments. In
February of 2001, a Decision Notice was signed that implemented a 10-
year period of rest on the Templeton and Whitney grazing allotments to
facilitate recovery of watershed and channel conditions. The notice
indicated that grazing on the two allotments would be reconsidered at
the end of the 10-year period (USFS 2001a, p. 5). The USFS expects to
reach a decision on this issue in June of 2012 (USFS 2011, p. 10).
[[Page 63099]]
Within the Sequoia National Forest from 2001 to 2004, two of the
three available grazing allotments had little or no grazing, while the
third utilized up to 65 percent of the total livestock permitted (CDFG
et al. 2004a, p. 19). Grazing use levels in the Sequoia National Forest
are lower than permitted largely because of remoteness and
inaccessibility (Anderson 2006), whereas in the Inyo National Forest, a
1995 amendment (typically referred to as Amendment 6, discussed below)
to the Forest-wide grazing utilization standards of the Forest's Land
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has apparently resulted in reduced
cattle use (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Current Grazing Management Practices
In 1995, Amendment 6 to the Inyo National Forest LRMP was developed
to establish forest-wide grazing utilization standards, which are
requirements in addition to existing utilization standards contained in
grazing permits (USFS 1995, pp. 13, 14). The forest-wide standards were
designed, in part, to improve the existing condition of streams
supporting California golden trout in grazed watersheds (USFS 1995, pp.
27, 28). The Amendment allows Forest Service personnel to tailor
grazing utilization standards to maintain or improve hydrologic and
meadow conditions. Grazing utilization standards establish an upper
limit of forage that grazing cattle may consume before being moved to a
new area (Sims 2011b, p. 1). Inyo National Forest personnel conduct
annual monitoring of representative meadows to determine whether
utilization standards have been exceeded. If they do find that
standards have been exceeded they adjust the standards downwards in
following years to allow recovery. The utilization standards themselves
are reassessed every 5 to 10 years to ensure that they avoid habitat
degradation (including the degradation of stream habitat) (Sims 2011b,
p. 1).
The Inyo National Forest LRMP also restricts trampling of
streambanks to 10 percent of the streambank length along State trout
waters (which include most of the streams supporting California golden
trout), and to 20 percent along other waters (USFS 1988a, pp. 78-79).
As with utilization standards, annual monitoring of representative
streambanks helps assure these standards are not exceeded, and allows
grazing prescriptions to be adjusted to promote recovery of the
streambanks if the standards are exceeded (Sims 2011b, p. 1).
Additionally, salt provided for cattle must be located at least 0.25 mi
(0.4 km) away from riparian areas, and additional requirements may
apply to specific management areas with unique characteristics. For
example, range management direction for the Golden Trout Management
Area (19) amends grazing allotment plans to include necessary
mitigation measures and corrective actions if grazing is significantly
impacting fish habitat (USFS 1988a, p. 236).
On the Sequoia National Forest, LRMP grazing standards and
guidelines applicable to all streams within the habitat of the
California golden trout were amended in 2004 (subsequent to the October
13, 2000, petition to list the California golden trout) by the adoption
of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (CDFG et al. 2004a,
p. 23). The new standards and guidelines, established for the
protection of rare aquatic populations such as the California golden
trout, require habitat managers to implement the following conservation
measures:
(1) Prevent disturbance to meadow-associated streambanks and
natural lake and pond shorelines caused by resource activities from
exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of natural lake and
pond shorelines.
(2) Limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a
maximum consumption of 30 percent of each plant by volume (or minimum 6
in (15 cm) stubble height) for meadows in early seral status; limit
livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum
consumption of 40 percent of each plant by volume (or minimum of 4 in
(10 cm) stubble height for meadows in late seral status).
(3) Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for
grazing utilization prior to establishing utilization levels.
(4) Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader
growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of
individual seedlings (CDFG et al. 2004a, pp. 23, 84, 87).
Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Efforts
The Inyo National Forest has installed several exclosures in
riparian areas within the range of the California golden trout to
protect and restore portions of the South Fork Kern River, Mulkey
Creek, Ninemile Creek, and Golden Trout Creek from grazing impacts (see
also Historical Effects of Excessive Grazing section above). Livestock
exclosures totaling several miles exist on numerous stream reaches in
all four grazing allotments within Inyo National Forest. Exclosures in
the Monache and Mulkey allotments, where grazing is currently allowed,
are currently excluding cattle from areas where they would otherwise be
grazing. Exclosures in the Whitney and Templeton allotments, which are
currently being rested from grazing, will only begin to actively
exclude cattle if and when grazing is resumed on those allotments.
Research by Knapp and Matthews (1996, pp. 816-817) in Mulkey and
Ramshaw Meadows showed that areas within exclosures display greater
canopy shading, stream depth, bankful height, and narrower stream
width. Studies by Odion et al. (1988, p. 277) in Ramshaw and Templeton
Meadows indicated that exclosures allowed significantly more pioneer
species to colonize areas that were bare from disturbance. Photo-points
recorded between 1989 and 2005 within a number of these exclosures
indicate recovery in many areas that were once degraded by grazing
(Sims 2006a). For these reasons, livestock exclosures have contributed
to restoring habitat, reducing the effects of grazing, and preventing
future damage to these habitats for the subspecies. Because exclosures
require maintenance, activities conducted pursuant to annual work plans
within the Conservation Strategy have included annual maintenance of
cattle exclosure fencing (McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 17; Sims and
McGuire 2006, p. 12).
In addition to monitoring and cattle exclusion efforts, Inyo
National Forest has completed numerous projects to stabilize soil and
prevent erosion (USFS 2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 35). In
addition to preventing further degradation, such treatments can direct
stream flows to reestablish stream characteristics beneficial to
California golden trout, such as overhanging banks and vegetation.
These restoration and stabilization projects generally involve placing
materials such as rocks or logs at key points of eroding streams in a
given area to catch sediments and prevent further erosion. Since 1996,
such projects have been completed at 19 sites (USFS 2005 in McGuire and
Sims 2006, pp. 35, 37). Between 1933 and the mid-1980s, approximately
800 erosion control structures were installed in the Golden Trout
Wilderness (USFS 1988a, p. 236; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 34).
Conservation activities that have been conducted for the benefit of
the California golden trout are described in the report titled,
``Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Accomplishments on the Kern
Plateau'' (Kern Plateau Report) (USFS 2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006,
pp. 32-42), which summarizes watershed improvement and monitoring
projects within the grazing allotments on the
[[Page 63100]]
Kern Plateau since the 1930s. For example, from 2002 to 2003, the
Forest Service implemented intensive monitoring and data collection
over a wide area of the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek
watersheds to assist in determining watershed condition trends (USFS
2005 in McGuire and Sims 2006, p. 32). A wide-scale headcut monitoring
effort was initiated in 2003 at various parts of the Kern Plateau on
both active and rested grazing allotments. Photo-points have been
established at various locations on the Kern Plateau to monitor trends
in stream bank stability, headcut migration, and vegetation patterns,
with data collected indicating recovery in many areas that were
affected by grazing (Sims 2006a, p. 1). The Kern Plateau Report also
identifies opportunities for monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of management practices. Recent results from these
monitoring efforts showed significant improvement in meadow condition
and streambank stability for the two allotments rested from grazing
(Templeton and Whitney), and a positive trend in meadow and streambank
conditions for the Mulkey allotment (Weixelman 2011, p. 12). No sites
were shown to decline in condition (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63).
Overall, 64 percent of sites in grazed allotments and 74 percent in
ungrazed allotments are now meeting desired conditions (good to
excellent) (Weixelman 2011, pp. 3, 12).
The Conservation Strategy also includes monitoring of the
effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) to determine their
effectiveness in protecting California golden trout habitat, with an
annual report completed for inclusion in the annual accomplishment
reports (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 54). BMPs are a practice or combination
of practices that are the most effective and practical means of
preventing or reducing water pollution from non-point sources. We also
note that the MOA commits the signatories of the Conservation Strategy
to meet annually to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy,
determine whether the goals and objectives are being adequately
achieved, and discuss whether the strategy requires any adaptive
changes to better conserve the California golden trout (CDFG et al.
2004b, p. 3). This means that changes in management can occur if
conditions or results of monitoring indicate there is a negative change
to the California golden trout's habitat or range. The MOA also
contains a provision that if any element of the Conservation Strategy
is determined infeasible, or if any new threat is identified, then the
Agencies will be notified within 30 days and a meeting will be held to
determine the course of action (CDFG et al. 2004b, p. 4). Thus, in the
event of a change in future conditions that result in an unacceptable
level of impacts due to excessive grazing, appropriate changes in
management can occur.
Summary of Livestock Grazing Management
In summary, historical excessive grazing practices have affected
the stream habitat in nearly the entire native range of the California
golden trout. Habitat degradation has been addressed in recent decades
with numerous conservation efforts, such as reducing the season of use
and number of cattle allowed to graze on an allotment, implementing
grazing standards and guidelines in the LRMPs, resting of grazing
allotments, implementing watershed monitoring, and completing
restoration projects. Monitoring of Golden Trout Creek and upper South
Fork Kern watersheds has found that implementing these conservation
efforts has improved meadow and streambank conditions for three of four
grazing allotments, and has stabilized conditions in the fourth grazing
allotment (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p. 12). Based
on our evaluation of current practices and of recent and ongoing
restoration activities, we do not consider livestock grazing to present
a significant threat to the California golden trout now or into the
future.
Pack Stock Use
Similar to cattle, horses and mules may significantly overgraze,
trample, or pollute streamside habitat if too many are concentrated in
riparian areas too often or for too long. Commercial pack stock trips
are permitted in national forests within the Sierra Nevada, providing
transport services into wilderness areas with the use of horses or
mules. Use of pack stock in the Sierra Nevada increased after World War
II as road access, leisure time, and disposable income increased (Menke
et al. 1996, p. 919). The Inyo National Forest has permitted commercial
pack operators since the 1920s (USFS 2006a, p. 1). Current commercial
pack stock use is approximately 27 percent of the level of use in the
1980s reflecting a decline in the public's need and demand for pack
stock trips. From 2001 to 2005, commercial pack stock outfitters within
the Golden Trout and South Sierra Wilderness Areas averaged 28 percent
of their current authorized use (USFS 2006b, p. 3-18).
Currently, pack stock use within Golden Trout and South Sierra
Wilderness Areas overlaps with historical and current livestock grazing
locations, thus making it difficult to identify impacts to vegetation
that are due specifically to pack stock use (USFS 2006b, p. 3-13).
Monitoring of pack stock grazing impacts on meadows within the
California golden trout's range shows a general trend of decreasing
impacts to stream bank stability. This trend is believed to be due to
restoration efforts and the cancellation of cattle grazing permits
(USFS 2006b, p. 3-12).
Allowable pack stock uses are limited in the Inyo National Forest
by the same restrictions discussed above for cattle, such as the
Amendment 6 forest-wide grazing utilization standards and the 10
percent limit to bank trampling along State trout waters (USFS 200b, p.
3-353). Pack stock grazing is also prohibited in specific meadows,
including Volcano Meadow, South Fork Meadow (at the headwaters of the
South Fork of the Kern River), and parts of Ramshaw Meadow. As
discussed above, these restrictions have resulted in improved
conditions for the majority of monitored habitat for which we have
monitoring results, and stabilized conditions for the remainder of that
habitat (Ettema and Sims 2010, p. 63; Weixelman 2011, p. 12).
Accordingly, we consider current habitat management practices
sufficient to prevent pack stock use from posing a significant threat
to the California golden trout.
Recreation
Recreational activities that include hiking, camping, and off-road
vehicle (ORV) use take place throughout the Sierra Nevada and can have
impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats (impacts from fishing
are discussed below under Factor B--Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section). Impacts to
wilderness areas can vary in their extent, longevity, and intensity
(Cole and Landres 1996, pp. 169-170). In easily accessible areas, heavy
foot traffic in riparian areas can trample vegetation, compact soils,
and physically damage stream banks (Kondolf et al. 1996, pp. 1014,
1019). Human foot, horse, bicycle, or ORV trails can replace riparian
habitat with compacted soil (Kondolph et al. 1996, pp. 1014, 1017,
1019), lower the water table, and cause increased erosion.
Recreation is the fastest growing use of national forests (USFS
2001b, p. 453). Because of an increasing demand for wilderness
recreational experiences,
[[Page 63101]]
wilderness land management now includes standards for wilderness
conditions, implementing permit systems, and other visitor management
techniques to reduce impacts to habitat, including riparian habitat
(Cole 2001, pp. 4-5). These wilderness land management techniques are
currently being used on the Inyo and Sequoia National Forests where
they are expected to benefit California golden trout by reducing
impacts on its habitat.
All of the current range of the California golden trout, with the
exception of the Monache Meadow and Kennedy Meadow areas, is
encompassed within the federally designated Golden Trout, South Sierra,
and Domeland Wilderness areas, where access is difficult and impacts
from recreation are lower than in easily accessible areas. Recreational
use currently is low and well-dispersed in these areas. The Forest
Service monitors wilderness use levels and limits wilderness use if
recreation levels are determined to be high (Sims 2006a, p. 1).
Recreational impacts are ameliorated by the implementation of various
management actions, such as camping restrictions, wilderness ranger
presence, and permit requirements. Camping within the Golden Trout
Wilderness is not allowed within 100 ft (30 m) of lakes or streams, and
a permit is required by the Sequoia National Forest for overnight use.
These measures minimize impacts to the fish's habitat. Additionally,
Federal designation of an area as Wilderness prohibits the use of
motorized or mechanized equipment by the public, with limited
exceptions, and therefore provides protection from ORV impacts within
these areas.
On National Forest lands outside of federally designated wilderness
areas, California golden trout stream habitat occurs in high-use areas,
such as Monache and Kennedy Meadows. In these areas, recreational
impacts are occurring and are expected to continue. Recreational use
occurs primarily on the South Fork Kern River through Monache Meadows
on the Inyo National Forest and Kennedy Meadows on the Sequoia National
Forest. Motorized access in Monache Meadows is restricted to use of a
single 4-wheel-drive road that enters to the south of the meadow.
Camping, fishing, and hunting are the primary uses, as well as access
for pack stock (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 21). Kennedy Meadows is easily
accessed by road and receives heavy use during the trout season for
fishing and camping activities. Easily accessible and popular fishing
areas, such as Monache and Kennedy Meadows, are being impacted by
anglers, whose use of the stream banks can lead to collapsed undercut
banks, compacted soils, and disturbed riparian vegetation (Stephens
2001a, p. 64).
Although recreational impacts are expected to continue, they are
localized to a few areas within the native range of the California
golden trout. In addition, the Forest Service and CDFG have implemented
measures identified in the Conservation Strategy to offset recreational
impacts to the subspecies. Restoration and stabilization projects were
implemented adjacent to and within the Monache Allotment in 2004 to
address ORV impacts to the meadow habitat in the South Fork Kern River
drainage. A brochure for recreational users was produced in 2005 and
2006 that informed the public about fishing and requested help with
restoration projects aimed at protecting the California golden trout;
it is available for recreational users at area ranger stations, visitor
centers, and local flyfishing shops. Information regarding volunteer
field activities, opportunities for public involvement, subspecies
information, and agency contacts is also posted on the California Trout
and Trout Unlimited web pages. Through these volunteer field
activities, Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the Federation of
Flyfishers have assisted CDFG and the Forest Service to protect and
restore California golden trout and their habitat.
In summary, recreational activities have the potential to
negatively impact the habitat and range of the California golden trout
through trampling and vegetation loss due to use by pack stock, humans,
and ORVs. We believe that some adverse effects to the California golden
trout from recreation at high-use areas outside of federally designated
Wilderness Areas will continue; however, these effects are expected to
remain localized and not rise to a level that would significantly
affect the subspecies as a whole. We conclude that current wilderness
land management standards afford considerable protection from a variety
of potential recreational impacts to habitat of the California golden
trout in wilderness. Implementation of management activities by the
Forest Service and CDFG have offset recreational impacts to California
golden trout habitat in several high-use recreational areas outside of
designated wilderness. Activities such as public outreach and
stakeholder involvement have been, and continue to be, conducted to
help limit potential recreational impacts over the native range of the
California golden trout. Consequently, we conclude that habitat loss
due to recreational activity does not currently present a significant
threat to the California golden trout, and we do not expect it to
become a significant threat in the future.
Artificial Fish Barriers
Three barriers have been constructed on the South Fork Kern River
to prevent upstream migration of nonnative trout species, and thereby
to reduce their introgression and competition with California golden
trout. Between 1970 and 1973, the Ramshaw Barrier was constructed in a
gorge at the upper end of Ramshaw Meadows; it is located farthest
upstream from the other barriers on the South Fork Kern River. In 1973,
the Templeton Barrier was constructed of rock, chain-link fencing, and
filter fabric at the head of Templeton Gorge, located approximately
11.3 km (7 mi) downstream of the Ramshaw Barrier at the eastern end of
Templeton Meadows. In 1980, Templeton Barrier was replaced with a rock-
filled gabion structure across the river that resembled a small dam. In
1981, the Schaeffer Barrier was constructed 11.3 km (7 mi) downstream
from the Templeton Barrier at the upper end of Monache Meadows.
Although the Ramshaw Barrier has been impassable to fish since
1973, both the Templeton and Schaeffer barriers were determined in 1994
to be on the verge of collapse (Stephens 2001a, p. 33; CDFG et al.
2004a, p. 36). In 1996, the gabion dam at Templeton was replaced with a
rock and concrete dam immediately downstream and in contact with the
existing structure (CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37). In 2003, Schaeffer
Barrier was replaced with a reinforced concrete dam that is 2 ft (0.6
m) higher than the old barrier and includes a concrete apron below the
spillway to prevent the formation of a jump pool below the barrier
(CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 37). As a result of these modifications, all
three barriers now effectively prevent upstream fish passage (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 37; Lentz 2011, p. 1).
The construction of these fish barriers and subsequent
modifications likely have had some negative effect on California golden
trout by altering their stream habitat. Dams, water diversions, and
their associated structures can alter the natural flow regime both
upstream and downstream of dams. However, because the barriers have
been constructed to prevent passage of nonnative fish and to protect
the California golden trout rather than to impound water, we expect
that their effect on stream conditions and hydrology are limited to
localized areas where the barriers are placed. The barriers have the
potential to fragment
[[Page 63102]]
the California golden trout's stream habitat because they generally
prevent the upstream movement of fish, including California golden
trout. However, California golden trout may be somewhat insulated from
these effects because they generally do not move far from where they
were hatched, except under unusually high flood flows (Stephens 2003,
p. 5). The barriers also facilitate the restoration of natural prey and
competitor conditions in the California golden trout's stream habitat
by preventing population of the streams by nonnative brown trout (Salmo
trutta). The effects of artificial fish barriers on movement of brown
trout are discussed below under Factor C--Disease or Predation. Effects
on movement of hybridized trout are discussed under Factor E--Other
Natural or Human Factors.
In summary, the three artificial fish barriers that have been
placed on the South Fork Kern River are expected to have localized
effects to the stream habitat of the California golden trout, and are
also expected to benefit the subspecies in the future by allowing
restoration of natural predator and prey relationships within the
habitat. We conclude that the barriers do not constitute a significant
threat to California golden trout at this time or in the future.
Beavers
Beavers (Castor canadensis) currently exist within the native range
of the California golden trout. Although beavers were native to
California's Central Valley in the early 19th century, they were not
generally known from the Sierra Nevada except where introduced by
humans (Tappe 1942, pp. 7, 8, 13, 14, 20). Native beaver populations
experienced great declines during the early exploration of California
by traders and trappers (Tappe 1942, p. 6). Subsequent reestablishment
and introductions have extended their original range (CDFG 2006, p. 1).
In the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountain ranges, beavers inhabit
streams, ponds, and lake margins from Modoc County south to Inyo County
(CDFG 2006, pp. 1, 2). Beavers commonly inhabit riparian areas of mixed
coniferous-deciduous forests and deciduous forests containing abundant
beaver forage and lodge-building material, including Salix spp.
(willows), Alnus spp. (alders), and Populus spp. (cottonwoods) (Allen
1983, p. 1; CDFG 2006).
There is debate over whether beavers are native to the Kern River
basin (Townsend 1979, pp.16-20; CDFG et al. 2004a, p. 33). Beavers were
introduced by CDFG in the 1940s and 1950s as a tool to restore meadow
habitat degraded by livestock grazing. Beavers can have positive and
negative effects on trout habitat. Beaver ponds can provide pool
habitat for fish, reduce severe ice conditions, and increase
populations of bottom-dwelling invertebrates suitable for trout to eat
(Gard 1961, p. 240). However, siltation resulting from beaver dams can
also degrade spawning habitat for California golden trout, which
require gravel for spawning (Knapp and Vredenburg 1996, pp. 528, 529).
In a study conducted on Sagehen Creek on the eastern slope of the
Sierra Nevada, Gard (1961, pp. 240-241) concluded that beavers were a
benefit to trout in this high-elevation creek because they improved
fish habitat, forage, spawning activities, and population numbers.
Currently, large beaver populations occur in upper and lower
Ramshaw Meadows. Additional populations of unknown size also exist at
other locations within the Kern River Plateau (CDFG et al. 2004a, p.
33). As of 2004, negative effects of beaver activity within the native
range of the California golden trout have not been documented (CDFG et
al. 2004a, p. 33). Additionally, we are currently unaware of any
additional information that document negative effects of beaver within
the range of the California golden trout. The Conservation Strategy
discusses the beaver as a potential issue for the California golden
trout; therefore, CDFG and the In