Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52257 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2008–0098; 92220–1113–

0000–C5] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Delist the Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to remove 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) from 

the Federal List of Threatened and 

Endangered Wildlife (List) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

removing Lahontan cutthroat trout from 

the List may be warranted. Therefore, 

we will not initiate a status review in 

response to this petition. However, we 

are currently conducting a 5-year review 

of this species under section 4(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. This review was initiated on 

February 14, 2007, and will consider 

information that has become available 

since the last status review. We ask the 

public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to, 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout or its 

habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 9, 

2008. You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/nevada. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1340 Financial 

Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; 

telephone (775) 861–6300; facsimile 

(775) 861–6301. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

D. Williams, Field Supervisor, or Selena 

Werdon, Assistant Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the determination. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of our 

receipt of the petition, and publish our 

notice of the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

This finding is based on the 

information included in and with the 

petition and information available in 

our files at the time of the petition 

review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act and our regulations in 50 CFR 

424.14(b), our review is limited to a 

determination of whether the 

information in the petition meets the 

’’substantial scientific or commercial 

information’’ threshold. Our standard 

for substantial information with regard 

to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In 

making this finding, we consider 

whether the petition: (1) Clearly 

indicates the administrative action 

recommended; (2) contains a detailed 

narrative justification for the 

recommended measure, describing, 

based on available information, past and 

present numbers and distribution of the 

species and any threats faced by the 

species; (3) provides information 

regarding the status of the species over 

all or a significant portion of its range; 

and (4) is accompanied by appropriate 

supporting documentation in the form 

of bibliographic references, reprints of 

pertinent publications, copies of reports 

or letters from authorities and maps (50 

CFR 424.14(b)(2)). If we find that 

substantial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species and 

publish the results of that status review 

in a 12-month finding. 

The factors for listing, delisting, or 

reclassifying species are described at 50 

CFR 424.11. We may delist a species 

only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available substantiate 

that it is neither endangered nor 

threatened. Delisting may be warranted 

as a result of: (1) Extinction; (2) 

recovery; or (3) a determination that that 

the original data used for classification 

of the species as endangered or 

threatened were in error. 

We received a petition dated 

December 18, 2006, from Dynamic 

Action on Wells Group, Inc. (DAWG) 

requesting that the Lahontan cutthroat 

trout be removed from the List. The 

submission clearly identified itself as a 

petition and included the requisite 

identification information of the 

petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 

424.14(a). This notice constitutes our 

90-day finding on the petition. 

Previous Federal Action 

On October 13, 1970, we listed 

Lahontan cutthroat trout as endangered 

under the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–

135, 83 Stat. 275) (35 FR 16047). The 

species was subsequently listed under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). On July 16, 1975, we reclassified 

Lahontan cutthroat trout from 

endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). 

We also published findings on two 

previous petitions to delist populations 

of the Lahontan cutthroat trout, one to 

delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the 

Truckee River and Pyramid Lake (51 FR 

29671; August 20, 1986) and the other 

to delist Lahontan cutthroat trout in the 

Humboldt River Drainage Basin in 

Nevada (59 FR 28329; June 1, 1994), 

neither of which resulted in a 

determination that delisting was 

warranted. 

Species Information 

Range and Habitat 

Historically, Lahontan cutthroat trout 

were found in a wide variety of coldwater habitats including large, terminal, 

alkaline lakes (e.g., Pyramid and Walker 

Lakes); alpine lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe 

and Independence Lake); slow, 

meandering rivers (e.g., Humboldt 

River); mountain rivers (e.g., Carson, 

Truckee, Walker, and Marys Rivers); 

and small headwater tributary streams 

(e.g., Donner and Prosser Creeks). 

Generally, Lahontan cutthroat trout 

occur in cool flowing water with 

available cover of well-vegetated and 

stable stream banks, in areas where 

there are stream velocity breaks, and in 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
52258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

relatively silt-free, rocky riffle-run areas 

(Service 1995, p. 19). 

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is 

endemic, or native, to the Lahontan 

Basin of northern Nevada, eastern 

California, and southern Oregon 

(Service 1995, pp. 3–4). In 1844, there 

were 11 lake-dwelling populations of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout and 400 to 600 

stream-dwelling populations in over 

5,794 kilometers (km) (3,600 miles) of 

streams within the major basins of 

Pleistocene Lake Lahontan (Service 

1995, p. 6). Lahontan cutthroat trout 

currently occupy between 123 and 129 

streams within the Lahontan Basin 

(Service 1995, p. 7). The species is 

currently found in five historic lakes 

including Pyramid Lake (Service 2003a, 

pp. 41–43), Walker Lake (Service 2003b, 

pp. 18–21), Fallen Leaf Lake (Service 

2003a, pp. 41, 58), Independence Lake 

(Rissler et al. 2006, pp. 25–27, 34), and 

Summit Lake (Service 1995, pp. 14–15). 

Lahontan cutthroat trout are also found 

in numerous lakes and streams within 

the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere 

outside their historic range (Service 

1995, pp. 7, 9, 11–13, 18–19, E–9, E–10). 

Reproduction 

Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit lakes 

and streams but are obligatory stream 

spawners. Small, intermittent, tributary 

streams and headwater reaches are 

sometimes used as spawning sites 

(Coffin 1981, p. 41; Trotter 1987, pp. 

129–132). Spawning generally occurs 

from April through July, depending 

upon stream flow, elevation, and water 

temperature (La Rivers 1962, p. 287; 

McAfee 1966, p. 227; Lea 1968, pp. 68–

69; Moyle 2002, p. 291). Fecundity of 

600–8,000 eggs per female has been 

reported for lacustrine (lake-dwelling) 

populations (Lea 1968, pp. 80–83; 

Cowan 1983, p. 16; Sigler et al. 1983, p. 

17; Moyle 2002, p. 291), while only 

100–300 eggs were found in females 

collected from small Nevada streams 

(Coffin 1981, p. 40). Eggs are deposited 

in small gravels within riffles or pool 

crests (Service 1995, p. 21). Eggs 

generally hatch within 4–6 weeks, 

depending on water temperature, and 

fry emerge 13–23 days later (Lea 1968, 

p. 69; Moyle 2002, p. 291). 

Genetics 

The petitioners provided some 

information about the genetic structure 

of Lahontan cutthroat trout. They state 

that Lahontan cutthroat trout 

populations in the Lahontan Basin are 

not genetically distinct and that recent 

studies to identify Lahontan cutthroat 

trout differentiation among Lahontan 

sub-basins failed to find statistically 

significant variation or asserted subbasin distinctions without adequate 

evidence (DAWG 2006, p. 5). However, 

the petition does not clearly articulate 

how this information supports their 

claim that Lahontan cutthroat trout 

should be delisted (i.e., the genetics 

information does not contribute to a 

‘‘detailed narrative justification for the 

recommended measure’’ (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2))). 

Threats Analysis 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. In making this finding, we 

evaluated information presented in the 

petition and its supporting information 

in the context of the above listed five 

factors to determine whether the 

petition presented substantial 

information indicating that delisting the 

species under the Act may be 

warranted. Based on information in the 

petition and other information available 

in our files, our evaluation is presented 

below. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The petitioners claim that two 

conditions necessary to delist Lahontan 

cutthroat trout have been met, one being 

habitat conditions in the Pyramid LakeTruckee River Basin (the other 

condition necessary to delist asserted by 

the petitioners is discussed under other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence (Factor E)). The 

petitioners state that most diversions 

from the lower Truckee River have 

ended, obstructions to Lahontan 

cutthroat trout spawning in the Truckee 

River have been removed, and Pyramid 

Lake has increased in volume and 

elevation. The petitioners also state that 

the Truckee River has generated 

sufficient flows to maintain a viable 

Lahontan cutthroat trout population in 

Pyramid Lake, and that the TruckeePyramid Basin could form a potential, 

naturally reproducing, self-sustaining 

Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery. 

However, the petition provides no 

discussion, citations, or other sources of 

more detailed information to support 

their claim that the threat has been 

eliminated. 

In addition to the lack of supporting 

information in the petition, the 

petitioners misstate information in the 

final rule reclassifying the species from 

endangered to threatened (40 FR 29863). 

The petitioners assert that in the final 

rule we determined that Lahontan 

cutthroat trout is a threatened species 

because ‘‘water diversions from the 

Truckee River had lowered the water 

level of Pyramid Lake, silted up the 

mouth of the Truckee River at its entry 

into the lake, and eliminated much of 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout annual 

spawn up the River from Pyramid Lake’’

(DAWG 2006, pp. 3–4). The petitioners 

also state that Walker Lake ‘‘was not 

mentioned as evidence ‘pertinent to the 

determination’ ’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4). 

However, the petition misinterprets the 

final rule. The final rule stated that 

‘‘water diversions within its native 

range continue to be a threat’’ and noted 

that this was ‘‘especially evident’’ in 

Pyramid Lake (40 FR 29864). While the 

final rule did not specifically mention 

Walker Lake, our reference to water 

diversions within the native range of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout encompassed 

the Walker River drainage and Walker 

Lake, as well as the other streams and 

lakes discussed above in the Habitat and 

Range section. While improved habitat 

conditions in the Truckee River and 

Pyramid Lake would contribute to 

recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout, 

amelioration of the threat from water 

diversion also would involve areas 

within the native range of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout in addition to the 

Truckee River and Pyramid Lake. Thus, 

the petitioners’ second assertion that 

conditions necessary to delist Lahontan 

cutthroat trout have been met is also 

based on a misinterpretation of the final 

rule. 

To summarize, the petition lacks 

information to support its assertion that 

threats from diversions in the Truckee 

River have been eliminated, and is 

incorrect in its assumptions and 

interpretations of the final downlisting 

rule. Therefore, we find the petition 

does not present substantial information 

demonstrating that delisting Lahontan 

cutthroat trout across all or a significant 

portion of its range may be warranted at 

this time due to a lack of threats from 

any present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52259 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition did not provide 

information regarding the effects of 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes on Lahontan cutthroat trout. A 

review of information in our files does 

not suggest that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific or 

educational purposes currently 

threatens Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

However, we will analyze all available 

information with respect to this factor in 

our 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) 

of the Act, which was initiated on 

February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064). 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petition did not provide 

information regarding the effects of 

disease or predation on Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. However, information in 

our files suggests that there may be 

threats to Lahontan cutthroat trout from 

disease or predation. We will analyze all 

available information with respect to 

this factor in our 5-year review under 

section 4(c)(2) of the Act, which was 

initiated on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 

7064). Therefore, we conclude that there 

is no substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

delisting Lahontan cutthroat trout may 

be warranted due to lack of threats from 

disease or predation. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition does not present any 

information pertaining to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. However, a review of 

information in our files suggests that 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms may be a concern as it 

relates to maintenance of habitat 

conditions for Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

We will analyze all available 

information with respect to this factor in 

our 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) 

of the Act, which was initiated on 

February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7064). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The petitioners referred to the final 

rule downlisting the Lahontan cutthroat 

trout from endangered to threatened, 

stating that the final rule indicated 

‘‘introduced Brook trout were strong 

competitors for food and space, and 

Rainbow trout were hybridizing with 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout 

the Lahontan Basin’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4). 

This is an accurate representation of the 

information presented in the final rule 

(40 FR 29864). 

The petitioners also stated that the 

final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat 

trout as threatened indicated that ‘‘the 

explicit resolution of the competition/ 

hybridization problem was ‘regulated 

taking by sport-fishing’ and that ‘sportfishing was explicitly mentioned as the 

method for reducing competition, 

hybridization, and overcrowding in 

streams’ ’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 4). With 

respect to the idea that sport-fishing will 

reduce competition from and 

hybridization with nonnative trout, the 

petitioners misinterpret the information 

presented in the final rule. The final 

rule indicates that (1) Lahontan 

cutthroat trout would benefit from 

regulated taking by sport-fishing 

because stocking had led to most 

suitable streams reaching carrying 

capacity, and (2) sport-fishing ‘‘is an 

acceptable method of preventing 

overpopulation which could injure a 

species by taxing the species’ habitat’’

(40 FR 29864). Therefore, the final rule 

acknowledges the role of sport-fishing 

in reducing overpopulation in stocked 

areas, but it does not indicate that sportfishing for Lahontan cutthroat trout 

ameliorates the threat of competition 

from and hybridization with nonnative 

trout. The petitioners do not present any 

information to indicate that threats 

posed by the presence of these 

nonnative species have been 

ameliorated. In addition, the petitioners 

provide no data or other information 

indicating that sport-fishing will have 

the effect of ameliorating those threats. 

They state that ‘‘the competition and 

hybridization experienced by the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout throughout the 

Lahontan Basin has been attenuated by 

the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

through regulated taking by sportfishing’’ (DAWG 2006, p. 6), without 

providing substantive support for the 

statement. Therefore, without any 

additional information to evaluate the 

validity of this statement, we find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that delisting of 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout across all 

or a significant portion of its range may 

be warranted due to a lack of threats 

from other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and 

supporting information provided with 

the petition under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) 

and the Act, including information in 

the final rule listing Lahontan cutthroat 

trout as threatened. First, our review 

indicates that the fundamental argument 

for delisting presented in the petition 

was largely based on misinterpretation 

of information in the final rule 

downlisting Lahontan cutthroat trout 

from endangered to threatened (40 FR 

29863), specifically with respect to the 

extent of the threat from water 

diversions, and with respect to any role 

sport-fishing for Lahontan cutthroat 

trout may play in ameliorating the threat 

of competition and hybridization with 

nonnative trout. This resulted in 

incorrect information being presented 

by the petitioners to support their 

claims. Second, the petitioners did not 

provide substantive discussion, data, 

citations, or other information 

supporting their statements suggesting 

that the threats identified in the final 

listing rule have been ameliorated. 

Specifically, the petition did not discuss 

or cite substantive data or other 

information supporting the notion that 

water diversions are no longer a threat 

to Lahontan cutthroat trout in the 

Truckee River and Pyramid Lake and 

that competition and hybridization with 

nonnative trout have been controlled by 

sport-fishing. The petition also 

discussed genetic differentiation of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout within the 

Lahontan Basin, but it did not clearly 

articulate the relevance of the 

information to delisting of the 

subspecies. 

Considering the information in the 

petition under the Act and our 

regulations as stated above, we find that 

the petition (1) did not contain a 

detailed narrative justification for the 

recommended measure, describing, 

based on available information, past and 

present numbers and distribution of the 

species and any threats faced by the 

species; (2) did not provide information 

regarding the status of the species over 

all or a significant portion of its range; 

and (3) was not accompanied by 

appropriate supporting documentation 

in the form of bibliographic references, 

reprints of pertinent publications, 

copies of reports or letters from 

authorities, and maps (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2)). Specifically, the 

supporting documentation that was 

provided was not appropriate to support 

the fundamental rationale for the 

petitioned action. Therefore, we find 

that the petition does not present 

substantial information demonstrating 

that delisting Lahontan cutthroat trout 

across all or a significant portion of its 

range may be warranted at this time. We 

encourage interested parties to continue 

to gather and provide data that will 

assist with the conservation of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
52260 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available, upon 

request, from the Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

staff of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 19, 2008. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20673 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS