11244 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ensure adequate seating arrangements.

Inquiries regarding oral presentations

and the submission of written

statements or chemical specific

information should be directed to the

technical person. A written meeting

summary, including an attendance list

and copies of all presentations made at

the meeting, will be included in the

official record of this proceeding

described in Unit I.B.2.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Recordkeeping

and reporting requirements.

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division.

[FR Doc. 01–4404 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: 90-day Finding for a

Petition To List the Yellowstone

Cutthroat Trout as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) announces a 90-day finding for

a petition to list the Yellowstone

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

bouvieri) as threatened, under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

review of the petition and all available

scientific and commercial information,

we find that the petition failed to

present substantial information

indicating that listing this subspecies of

fish may be warranted at this time.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on February 15,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

petition, its accompanying attachments,

or other information pertaining to this

petition finding should be submitted to

Chief, Branch of Native Fishes

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4052 Bridger Canyon Road,

Bozeman, Montana 59715. The petition

and information used in support of the

petition finding are available for

inspection, during normal business

hours and by appointment, at that

address. The petition, as well as the

complete list of references for the

finding announced in the present

document, also may be obtained at our

Internet web site http://www.r6.fws.gov/

cutthroat/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynn R. Kaeding at the above address,

or telephone 406/582–0717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that

within 90 days of receipt of a petition,

to the maximum extent practicable, we

make a finding on whether a petition to

list, delist, or reclassify a species

presents substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that

the requested action may be warranted.

The finding is based upon all

information provided or referenced in

the petition and all other information

available to us at the time the finding is

made. Such 90-day findings are to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register.

On August 18, 1998, we received a

formal petition to list the Yellowstone

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

bouvieri) as threatened where it

presently occurs in its historic range

and to designate critical habitat for this

subspecies of fish pursuant to the Act.

The petitioners are Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, Alliance for the Wild

Rockies, Montana Ecosystems Defense

Council, and Mr. George Wuerthner.

The Yellowstone cutthroat trout

(YCT) is one of 13 subspecies of

cutthroat trout recognized by Behnke

(1992) that are native to interior regions

of western North America. Cutthroat

trout owe their common name to the

distinctive red slash that occurs just

below both sides of the lower jaw. Also

among those 13 cutthroat trout

subspecies is the finespotted Snake

River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus

clarki subsp.), the natural range of

which is principally in the far-west,

central region of Wyoming and almost

entirely surrounded by that of YCT

(Behnke 1992).

In their petition, the petitioners

considered the finespotted Snake River

cutthroat trout a morphological form of

YCT. Such merging of taxons is

supported by biochemical-genetic

studies (cited by Behnke 1992) that

revealed almost no differences between

the YCT and finespotted cutthroat trout

at the several gene loci examined.

Nonetheless, the YCT and finespotted

cutthroat trout are readily separated on

the basis of the sizes and patterns of

spots on the sides of the fish’s body. The

YCT has pronounced, medium to large

spots that are round in outline and

moderate in number, whereas the spots

of the finespotted cutthroat trout are the

smallest of any native trout in western

North America and so profuse they

resemble ‘‘a heavy sprinkling of ground

pepper’’ (Behnke 1992).

Although Behnke (1992) considers the

YCT and finespotted Snake River

cutthroat trout distinct taxonomic

entities, for the purposes of the finding

described in this notice we will follow

the position taken in the petition and

consider the YCT and finespotted Snake

River cutthroat trout to be a single

taxonomic entity, the YCT. However,

that position should not be considered

the opinion of the Federal government

with regard to the taxonomic validity of

the finespotted Snake River cutthroat

trout. Validation of such taxonomic

classifications remains altogether within

the domain of taxonomists, geneticists,

and other qualified scientists.

Furthermore, that position should not

be interpreted as our criticism of, or lack

of support for, ongoing management

actions that treat the finespotted Snake

River cutthroat trout as a unique

taxonomic entity (e.g., Wichers 2000a).

The historic range of YCT generally

consists of the waters of the Snake River

drainage (Columbia River basin)

upstream from Shoshone Falls, Idaho,

and those of the Yellowstone River

drainage (Missouri River basin)

upstream from and including the

Tongue River, in eastern Montana

(Behnke 1992). Historic range in the

Yellowstone River drainage thus

includes large regions of Wyoming and

Montana, whereas that of the Snake

River drainage includes large regions of

Wyoming and Idaho and small parts of

Utah and Nevada (Behnke 1992). During

their evolutionary history, YCT diverged

genetically and morphologically from

the other subspecies of cutthroat trout

while YCT inhabited only the waters of

the Columbia River basin. Soon after the

ice of the last glacial period (i.e., the

Pleistocene Epoch) receded, about 8,000

years ago, YCT from the Snake River

drainage gained entry into the

Yellowstone River drainage via

connected headwater streams in Two

Ocean Pass, south of present-day

Yellowstone National Park (Behnke

1992; Trotter 1987). Subsequently, YCT

spread downstream in the Yellowstone

River drainage. Today, various YCT

stocks remain in each of those major

river drainages in Montana, Wyoming,

Idaho, Utah, and Nevada.

On September 18, 1998, we notified

the petitioners that our Listing Priority

Guidance, published in the Federal

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules 11245

Register (63 FR 25502) on May 8, 1998,

designated the processing of new listing

petitions as a Tier 2 activity (i.e., of

lower priority than the processing of

emergency listings and pending final

listing actions). We further informed the

petitioners that we needed to complete

a number of pending final rules, 12-

month findings (e.g., westslope

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

lewisi) (65 FR 20120)), and other higherpriority activities before we could begin

work on a 90-day finding for the YCT

petition.

On January 12, 1999, we received

Notice of Intent from Earthlaw, legal

representatives for the petitioners,

alleging that we had violated the Act by

failing to make a finding as to whether

or not the petition to list the YCT

presented substantial information

indicating that listing may be warranted.

We responded to Earthlaw on February

8, 1999, reiterating that we would not be

able to begin an evaluation of the YCT

petition until the work on the higherpriority activities was completed. On

November 12, 1999, plaintiffs filed a

formal complaint in Federal District

Court alleging that we had violated the

Act by failing to publish a 90-day

finding for their petition to list the YCT.

On August 29, 2000, we reached a

settlement agreement with plaintiffs

stating that, among other things, we

shall submit to the Federal Register a

90-day finding for the YCT on or before

February 16, 2001.

Soon after we received the YCT

petition, we provided it to natural

resources agencies and Indian tribes

whose responsibilities included

management of YCT and their habitats.

We informed those agencies and tribes

of our inability to work on the petition

at that time but also requested from

them information on the present status

of YCT, measures then underway to

protect the subspecies, and comments

and technical critiques pertaining to the

petition. The comments that we

received in response to that and

subsequent requests, along with other

information that was available to us,

were used in arriving at the conclusions

that we describe in the present

document.

Petitioners’ Assertions

In their petition, the petitioners assert

that the range of YCT has been reduced

substantially from historic levels and

the subspecies faces serious, ongoing

threats to its continued survival. The

petitioners further assert that seven

types of threats jeopardize the

continued persistence of YCT. They

highlighted four major threats: (1) The

continuing negative effects of legal and

illegal introductions and stocking of

nonnative fishes that subsequently

hybridize or compete with YCT,

eliminate YCT through competition, or

prey upon YCT; (2) excessive harvest by

anglers; (3) habitat degradation and

fragmentation; and (4) whirling disease

(caused by a nonnative parasite).

The three additional threats to YCT

identified by the petitioners are: (5)

invasion of some YCT habitats by the

nonnative New Zealand mud snail; (6)

that contemporary management of YCT

is fraught with severe deficiencies,

including a general lack of emphasis on

protecting and restoring habitat

necessary for viable, self-sustaining YCT

stocks and management programs

biased toward protecting only those

YCT stocks that are genetically pure;

and (7) that effective, coordinated

management actions directed toward

protection and restoration of YCT and

their habitats across the subspecies’

range, as well as the mandate needed to

apply more of the budgets and

personnel of natural resource agencies

to those activities, can only be achieved

by listing the YCT as threatened under

the Act. Although the petitioners

acknowledge that several current

management programs attempt to

reduce some of the alleged threats, they

assert that the majority of those threats

remain inadequately addressed or

entirely unaddressed.

Assessment of the Petition and Other

Available Information

In response to our requests, we

received information pertaining to YCT

from State game and fish departments,

the U.S. Forest Service, National Park

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

and tribal governments (see ‘‘References

Cited’’). State game and fish

departments in Montana, Wyoming, and

Idaho provided detailed information on

the status of YCT in their respective

states, as did Yellowstone National

Park. We also reviewed information on

YCT obtained from scientific journal

articles, agency reports, and file

documents.

We evaluated whether the

information provided or cited in the

petition to list YCT as a threatened

species met the Act’s standard for

‘‘substantial information.’’ Substantial

information is defined (50 CFR

424.14(b)) as ‘‘that amount of

information that would lead a

reasonable person to believe that the

measure proposed in the petition may

be warranted.’’ Consequently, we will

respond to each of the major assertions

made in the petition and designated by

parenthetical numerals in ‘‘Petitioners’

Assertions’’.

(1) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that continuing

negative effects of legal and illegal

introductions and stocking of nonnative

fishes pose a significant threat to the

continued existence of YCT. Present-day

stocking of fish by management agencies

does not pose a threat to extant YCT

stocks. In Montana and in Yellowstone

National Park, stocking of fishes in

waters inhabited by YCT no longer

occurs (Graham 1999; Varley 1999). In

Idaho, only Henry’s Lake, Palisades

Reservoir, and Tin Cup Creek are

stocked with hatchery cutthroat trout

(Moore 2000a), in contrast with the

petitioner’s allegations. Moreover,

during 2000, those few Idaho streams in

which the stocking of rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) continued

received mostly sterile rainbow trout; it

is anticipated that virtually all hatchery

rainbow trout stocked in the range of

YCT in Idaho in 2001 will be sterile fish

(Moore 2000a). No hatchery rainbow

trout of any type are presently stocked

into any Idaho streams known to

contain genetically pure YCT stocks

(Moore 2000a). In Wyoming,

maintenance of all subspecies of native

cutthroat trout has been a management

priority for more than 40 years (Stone

1995); State Game and Fish Commission

policy precludes the stocking of fish

into waters that are capable of

sustaining satisfactory, self-sustaining

fisheries (Stone 2000), and no hatchery

rainbow trout are stocked into any

streams known to contain genetically

pure YCT stocks. A biologically based

protocol for hatchery rearing and

subsequent stocking of fish, with

emphasis on management for native fish

and wild fish wherever possible, has

been followed in Wyoming for many

years (Wiley 1995). Only 3 percent of

the streams listed in the Wyoming Game

and Fish Department’s database

inventory are stocked annually (Stone

1995).

Nonetheless, many nonnative fishes

formerly stocked by management

agencies have established selfsustaining stocks within the historic

range of YCT. In some instances those

nonnative fishes are now a concern to

fisheries managers (e.g., Moore 2000a;

Varley 1999) because the fish may prey

upon or compete with YCT, particularly

if the nonnative species move into and

colonize new areas. But evidence from

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming indicates

the presence of introduced, nonnative

fishes does not necessarily portend the

imminent decline or elimination of YCT

stocks in streams (McDonald 2000;

Moore 2000a; Wichers 2000a). Illegal

11246 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

introductions of nonnative fishes

remain a problem, as evidenced by the

recent discovery of a reproducing

population of nonnative lake trout

(Salvelinus namaycush) in Yellowstone

Lake, in Yellowstone National Park. The

petitioners consider those lake trout a

major threat to YCT in Yellowstone

Lake and its connected streams.

Although the National Park Service also

considers the lake trout a serious threat

to the lake’s YCT stocks, the magnitude

of that threat cannot be determined at

the present time; park personnel are

aggressively reducing the lake trout

population in the lake, and some

important indicators of YCT abundance

in the lake actually show evidence of

increasing trends (Varley 1999). For

example, size of the YCT spawning run

in Clear Creek in 1998 was triple the

record-low size recorded in 1994 and

cited by the petitioners, and numbers of

YCT spawning in many smaller

tributaries of Yellowstone Lake in 1998

were similar to those recorded in the

mid-1980s. The YCT that spawn in

those streams live most of the year in

Yellowstone Lake. Furthermore, because

the lake trout is almost exclusively a

lake-dwelling species, its presence in

the lake does not pose a threat to YCT

stocks outside the immediate

Yellowstone Lake area (Varley 1999).

Interbreeding of YCT and introduced,

nonnative fishes is a concern to resource

management agencies because it can

lead to genetic introgression and the

loss of genetically pure YCT. There are

many examples of such interbreeding

throughout the range of YCT (McDonald

2000; Moore 2000a; Wichers 2000a).

However, the presence of nonnative

fishes in a drainage inhabited by YCT

does not always lead to such

interbreeding. For example, YCT in the

upper region of the Lamar River in

Yellowstone National Park have

remained genetically pure even though

that region is accessible to nonnative,

potentially interbreeding rainbow trout

that have inhabited lower river areas for

60 years (Varley 1999). Even in the

Yellowstone River, Montana, where

nonnative rainbow trout are common,

large numbers of genetically pure YCT

have recently been found (Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

2000). Similarly, analyses now

underway have revealed numerous,

genetically pure YCT stocks in Idaho,

and several stocks formerly assumed to

be genetically introgressed with rainbow

trout have proven to be genetically pure

(Moore 2000a).

(2) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that angler harvest

poses a significant threat to the

continued existence of YCT. Restrictive

angling regulations preclude significant

negative effects of angler harvest on

YCT stocks throughout the subspecies’

historic range (Graham 1999; Moore

1998, 2000a; Varley 1999; Wichers

2000a). For example, in Yellowstone

National Park, virtually no YCT may be

legally harvested by anglers (Varley

1999); the same is true for YCT in their

natural habitats in Montana (Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

2000).

(3) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that habitat

degradation and fragmentation pose

significant threats to the continued

existence of YCT. The petitioners

generally fail to recognize any of the

efforts that are ongoing to address the

impacts on YCT habitat of various

management activities (Graham 1999).

For example, the U.S. Forest Service,

Targhee National Forest, treats YCT as

a Sensitive Species. The Revised Forest

Plan incorporates the standards and

guidelines from the interagency Inland

Native Fish (INFISH) Strategy in

managing YCT stocks and their habitats.

Biological evaluations are prepared for

proposed activities that may affect YCT

habitat; those activities must not result

in loss of species viability or increase

the likelihood of Federal listing of the

species under the Act (Reese 1998a).

Similarly, the Caribou National Forest

applies INFISH or more stringent

standards on all forest waters containing

native fish, including YCT (Reese

1998b). The YCT is designated a

Sensitive Species by the Northern,

Intermountain, and Rocky Mountain

Regions of the U.S. Forest Service; with

that designation comes specific

direction applicable to YCT

management and conservation on

National Forest System lands (Bosworth

2000). That direction includes assisting

States in achieving their conservation

goals for the subspecies; National

Environmental Policy Act compliance is

required for all proposed management

actions; and management decisions

must not result in loss of species

viability or create significant trends

toward listing under the Act. It is

important to recognize that, outside of

Yellowstone National Park, most extant

YCT stocks inhabit waters on National

Forest System lands (Bosworth 2000).

During Fiscal Year 1999, 22 projects or

activities that benefitted YCT were

initiated or completed on those National

Forest System lands (Bosworth 2000).

Each of the seven National Forests that

contains historic YCT habitat is

expected to have specific direction

associated with conservation of YCT in

their forthcoming, revised Land

Resource Management Plans (Bosworth

2000). In Montana, there are numerous,

ongoing projects to protect and restore

habitats for YCT or in other ways benefit

the subspecies (McDonald 2000;

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife

and Parks 2000). In Idaho, at least 125

actions have been or are being directed

at improving YCT stocks and their

habitats (Moore 2000a), and many

similar actions are being or have been

undertaken in Wyoming (Wichers

2000a). Degradation of YCT habitat as

the result of land-management activities

is rare in Yellowstone National Park,

where there has been no livestock

grazing or timber harvest, water-quality

in the Soda Butte Creek drainage, which

includes important habitats for YCT, has

been and is being improved as a result

of efforts to clean up historic mine

wastes (Varley 1999). Habitat

fragmentation is a consequence of

habitat degradation. Thus management

actions directed toward the prevention

of habitat degradation, such as those just

described, also will reduce the

likelihood of habitat fragmentation.

(4) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that whirling

disease poses a significant threat to the

continued existence of YCT. The

presence of the whirling disease

parasite, Myxobolus cerebralis, is a

concern to all managers of YCT (e.g.,

Varley 1999; Wichers 2000a), but the

petitioners provide no evidence that the

threat posed by whirling disease is not

being effectively countered by ongoing

management actions or that the threat is

equally applicable to extant YCT stocks

across the range of the subspecies. The

petitioners generally fail to mention any

of the restrictive measures now being

taken to limit the spread of the disease.

Furthermore, the petitioners wrongly

imply that the stocking of hatchery fish

is an important factor in the spread of

whirling disease. Montana does not

stock whirling disease-positive fish

(Graham 1999), nor does Wyoming

(Wichers 2000a). In addition, although

the whirling disease parasite may be

present in a stream, the disease may

have little effect on the stream’s YCT

stock. For example, although whirling

disease has been documented in some

streams in Idaho, there is no evidence

of YCT population declines in those

streams (Moore 2000a). Similarly, in

Wyoming, although whirling disease

has been found in one stream, there is

no evidence of subsequent declines in

that stream’s fish stocks (Wichers

2000a).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules 11247

Factors that affect the intensity of

infection by Myxobolus cerebralis in

various salmonid fishes include host

(fish) species and variety, parasite

dosage, host age and size when exposed

to the parasite, and water temperature

(Vincent 2001). Thus there is

considerable variation in infection

intensity among the species of salmonid

fishes and among Montana streams, as

well as seasonally within streams. Water

temperature can have a particularly

important effect on infection intensity,

perhaps by affecting parasite-host

attachment success or the production of

parasites themselves by the alternate

host, an aquatic earthworm, Tubifex

tubifex (Vincent 2001). Studies

conducted in Montana show infection

rates in salmonid fishes are highest at

mean water temperatures between 12

and 15 C (53 to 59 F), and decline

rapidly at temperatures below 12 C or

above 17 C. The available evidence thus

suggests that YCT stocks that inhabit

typical cold streams in high-elevation

regions are unlikely to be adversely

affected by whirling disease. Montana

has an extensive research and

monitoring program directed toward

whirling disease (Montana Department

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2000), and

similar work is underway in

Yellowstone National Park and

Wyoming (Varley 1999; Wichers 2000a).

(5) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that the nonnative

New Zealand mud snail poses a

significant threat to the continued

existence of YCT. Within the historic

range of YCT, the New Zealand mud

snail has been found in the Yellowstone

River in and near Yellowstone National

Park and in the Snake River drainage in

the park, Wyoming, and Idaho (Gangloff

1998; Richards et al. In press). However,

the petitioners provide no evidence that

YCT stocks in those or other areas face

important threats from New Zealand

mud snail, nor that those threats are

equally applicable to other YCT stocks

across the range of the subspecies.

Whether the form of New Zealand mud

snail that occurs in those waters has the

potential to spread widely throughout

the region, and the types of aquatic

habitats that may be most vulnerable to

such invasion, are presently unknown

(Gangloff et al. 1998). Gangloff et al.

(1998) cite evidence suggesting New

Zealand mud snail may not be a

nutritious food for YCT. Although the

effects that New Zealand mud snail may

have on YCT in Yellowstone National

Park also are presently unknown, the

National Park Service is actively

monitoring the snail in the park and

imposing measures to prevent its spread

(Varley 1999). Similarly, elsewhere in

Wyoming, monitoring for the presence

of New Zealand mud snail is ongoing

(Wichers 2000a).

(6) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that contemporary

management of YCT does not emphasize

protecting and restoring habitat and is

biased toward protecting only those

YCT stocks that are genetically pure.

This assertion is addressed under items

1 and 3 above and elsewhere in this

document. According to Graham (2000),

the petitioners falsely state that the U.S.

Forest Service is facilitating hatchery

and stocking programs in lieu of habitat

management in Montana. Similarly,

Wyoming’s management program for

YCT is not solely or chiefly based on

fish hatcheries; moreover, Wyoming

protects all YCT stocks regardless of

their genetic characteristics, including

those stocks for which no detailed

genetics information is available (Stone

1998; Wichers 2000a).

(7) The scientific and commercial

information available to us does not

support the assertion that only by listing

the YCT as threatened under the Act

will effective, coordinated management

actions directed toward protection and

restoration of YCT and their habitats be

achieved across the subspecies’ range.

Each of the items addressed above

describes management actions directed

toward protection of YCT and their

habitats that are being accomplished

without the YCT being listed under the

Act. Moreover, the petition fails to

mention additional, important, and

ongoing management and conservation

actions directed toward YCT. In

Montana, for example, an important

conservation agreement involves YCT

and their habitats on National Forest

System lands (Bosworth 2000; Graham

1999; Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks 2000), and the State

legislature has appropriated substantial

funding directed specifically toward

management of native trout such as YCT

(Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife

and Parks 2000). A Memorandum of

Agreement for conservation and

management of YCT across the historic

range of the subspecies was recently

signed by the States of Montana, Idaho,

Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah, the U.S.

Forest Service, and Yellowstone and

Grand Teton National Parks (Bosworth

2000; Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks 2000; Wichers

2000a). The principal goal of that

agreement is to ensure the persistence of

YCT within the subspecies’ historic

range. In Yellowstone National Park,

National Park Service management

policies state that native species like

YCT are to be protected and given

priority status over nonnative species;

the park continues to dedicate the

majority of its aquatic resources

program to preserving YCT (Varley

1999). Numerous, additional examples

of ongoing, progressive management of

YCT and their habitats are found in the

major documents in ‘‘References Cited’’.

Petition Finding

There is agreement among the

principal resource-management

agencies that the distribution of YCT

has declined from historic levels

(Graham 1999; Moore 1998, 2000a;

Moser 1998; Varley 1999; Wichers

2000a), although the extent of YCT

historic range is largely assumed and

the subspecies may not have formerly

occurred in all areas (Moore 1998;

Wichers 2000a). Nevertheless, those

agencies also reported that viable YCT

stocks remain in each of the major

watersheds occupied historically in the

Snake and Yellowstone River drainages.

In Montana, 40 genetically pure YCT

stocks are known to inhabit at least 433

linear miles of stream (estimated as at

least 10 percent of the total stream miles

that may have been historically

occupied by the fish); YCT in an

additional 71 miles of stream are

between 90.0 and 99.9 percent pure, and

56 stream miles are inhabited by YCT

less than 90.0 percent pure (Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

2000). In Idaho, YCT presently inhabit

209 streams or stream segments (totaling

1,629 linear miles) distributed among 13

watersheds in the historic range of the

subspecies (Moore 2000a). Moreover,

data collected over the past two decades

demonstrate YCT stocks in Idaho are

stable or increasing in individual size

(Moore 2000a, b). In Yellowstone

National Park, genetically pure YCT are

known to occupy 586 miles of stream;

YCT in 212 miles of stream are

genetically introgressed with other

fishes, primarily rainbow trout; and

YCT may also occur in many additional,

small streams that have not yet been

surveyed (Lutch 2001). Nonetheless, all

of those YCT stocks are highly protected

by National Park Service policies. In

Wyoming exclusive of the park,

genetically pure YCT occur in 2,507

miles of stream; an additional 631 miles

of stream sustain YCT and nonnative

rainbow trout, with which YCT may

interbreed (Wiley 2000). In addition,

stocking of YCT has resulted in

establishment of numerous YCT stocks

outside the probable historic range of

the subspecies in Wyoming (Wichers

2000a). In the small portion of historic

YCT range that lies in Nevada, survey

11248 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

records indicate YCT occur in 53 miles

of stream in the Goose Creek drainage;

some of those fish are genetically pure

(Haskins II 1999). We found no current

information on the occurrence of YCT in

Utah.

Our review of the available

information also revealed that most of

the habitat for extant YCT stocks lies on

lands administered by Federal agencies,

particularly the U.S. Forest Service and

National Park Service. Many of those

YCT stocks occur within roadless or

wilderness areas or national parks, all of

which afford considerable protection to

YCT. In addition, there are numerous

Federal and State regulatory

mechanisms and agency policies and

guidelines that, if properly administered

and implemented, protect YCT and their

habitats throughout the range of the

subspecies. The petitioners provide no

important evidence that YCT stocks are

generally threatened due to an

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms or

that such threats, where they may exist,

are equally applicable to other YCT

stocks across the range of the

subspecies. Finally, each of the

principal State and Federal agencies

responsible for YCT management has a

long history of working to conserve the

subspecies (Graham 1999; Moore 2000a;

Stone 1998; Wichers 2000a; Varley

1999).

In the context of the Act, the term

‘‘threatened species’’ means any species

(or subspecies for vertebrate organisms)

which is likely to become an

endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. The term

‘‘endangered species’’ means any

species which is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range. The Act does not indicate

threshold levels of historic population

size at which (as the population of a

species declines) listing as either

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ becomes

warranted. Instead, the principal

considerations in the determination of

whether or not a species warrants listing

as a threatened or endangered species

under the Act are the threats that

currently confront the species and the

likelihood that the species will persist

in ‘‘the foreseeable future.’’ Thus the

Act clearly implies that the rate of

decline in the population, at the time

listing is being considered, is

particularly important.

In their petition, the petitioners

provide no evidence that the YCT

population as a whole is declining

toward extinction in the foreseeable

future, nor do they present data or

models that suggest the extinction

probability for the YCT population is

high. Although the petitioners provide

evidence that YCT stocks in some areas

of the subspecies’ current range are

confronted by important threats, as

described in the preceding section of the

present notice, they provide no

evidence that those threats are not being

effectively countered by ongoing

management actions or that the threats

are equally applicable to other YCT

stocks across the range of the

subspecies.

Although the petitioners assert that

there is widespread genetic variation

among YCT stocks, studies have in fact

revealed such variation is small

(Allendorf and Leary 1988; Leary et al.

1988). The petitioners further assert,

either directly or indirectly, that each

YCT stock should be evaluated as if it

constituted a Distinct Population

Segment (DPS), but they provide no

evidence that indicates any individual

stock or aggregate of stocks is distinct

according to established DPS guidelines

(61 FR 4722). Although several YCT lifehistory forms are recognized and occur

in many stocks across the subspecies’

range, it is not known whether those

forms represent genetic differences

among forms or simply opportunistic

behaviors.

In conclusion, based on the scientific

and commercial information available to

us, we find that the petition failed to

present substantial information

indicating that listing the YCT as

threatened under the Act may be

warranted at this time. Although the

petition includes a long list of

references, its justification for listing

YCT is based on only a few references

that often no longer provide current

information on YCT (Bosworth 2000;

Brassfield 1998; Graham 1999; Stone

1998; Wichers 2000a). Much

information on YCT has been gathered

during the past decade, and more is

being gathered presently (Bosworth

2000; Graham 1999; Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

2000; Moore 1998, 2000a,b; Stone 1998;

Wichers 2000a). In addition we found

the petition to list YCT as a threatened

subspecies under the Act contains

numerous erroneous or contradictory

statements (Bosworth 2000; Brassfield

1998; Moore 1998, 2000a; Reese 1998b;

Stone 1998; Varley 1999; Wichers

2000a). At least two of the key State

game and fish departments were not

even consulted by the petitioners

regarding the current distribution or

status of YCT in their States (Graham

1999; Moore 2000a). Finally, the

petitioners generally discount

important, ongoing management actions

directed toward the protection of YCT

and their habitats.

References Cited

Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary.

1988. Conservation and distribution of

genetic variation in a polytypic species,

the cutthroat trout. Conservation

Biology. 2:170–184.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of

western North America. American

Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

Bosworth, D. N. 2000. Letter dated

September 26, 2000, from Dale N.

Bosworth, Regional Forester, Region 1,

U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana.

3 pages plus 5 attachments.

Brassfield, R. 1998. Memorandum

dated September 24, 1998, from Rob

Brassfield, Fish and Wildlife Biologist,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Pocatello, Idaho. 9 pages.

Gangloff, M. M., M. F. Dybdahl, and

B. L. Kerans. 1998. The invasion of the

New Zealand mud snail (Potomopyrgus

antipodarum) in North America:

distribution, ecology and potential

impacts. Unpublished report to the

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

Graham, P. J. 1999. Letter dated April

26, 1999, from Patrick J. Graham,

Director, Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 4 pages plus

4 attachments.

Haskins II, R. L. 1999. Letter dated

September 15, 1999, from Richard L.

Haskins II, Supervising Biologist,

Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko. 2

pages.

Leary, R. F., F. W. Allendorf and S. R.

Phelps. 1988. Population genetic

structure of westslope cutthroat trout:

genetic variation within and among

populations. Proceedings of the

Montana Academy of Sciences 48:57–

70.

Lutch, J. 2001. E-mail dated February

1, 2001, from Jeff Lutch, Fisheries

Technician, National Park Service,

Yellowstone National Park. 3 pages.

May, B. 1996. Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri. In

D. A. Duff, technical editor.

Conservation assessment for inland

cutthroat trout: distribution, status and

habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Region,

Ogden, Utah.

McDonald, K. 2000. Letter dated

September 21, 2000, from Ken

McDonald, Native Species Coordinator,

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife

and Parks, Helena. 2 pages plus 16

attachments.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife

and Parks. 2000. Yellowstone cutthroat

trout in Montana: distribution, status,

conservation, and research efforts. A

compendium dated August 2, 2000 that

includes 19 attachments. Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,

Helena.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules 11249

Moore, V. K. 1998. Letter dated

October 2, 1998, from Virgil K. Moore,

Chief of Fisheries, Idaho Fish and Game

Department, Boise. 9 pages (includes 1

attachment).

Moore, V. K. 2000a. Letter dated

October 16, 2000, from Virgil K. Moore,

Chief of Fisheries, Idaho Fish and Game

Department, Boise. 1 page plus 3

attachments (2 are maps).

Moore, V. K. 2000b. Letter dated

November 14, 2000, from Virgil K.

Moore, Chief of Fisheries, Idaho Fish

and Game Department, Boise. 2 pages

plus 3 attachments.

Moser, D. C. 1998. Letter dated

October 2, 1998, from David C. Moser,

Tribal Fisheries Biologist, The

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall,

Idaho. 2 pages.

Reese, J. B. 1998a. Letter dated

September 30, 1998, from Jerry B. Reese,

Forest Supervisor, Targhee National

Forest, St. Anthony, Idaho. 3 pages.

Reese, J. B. 1998b. Letter dated

October 2, 1998, from Jerry B. Reese,

Forest Supervisor, Caribou National

Forest, Pocatello, Idaho. 4 pages.

Richards, D. C., L. D. Cazier, and G.

T. Lester. In press. Spatial distribution

of three snail species, including the

biological invader Potamopyrgus

antipodarum, in a freshwater spring.

Western North American Naturalist.

Stone, M. D. 1995. Fish stocking

programs in Wyoming: a balanced

perspective. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 15:47–51.

Stone, M. D. 1998. Letter dated

October 7, 1998, from Michael D. Stone,

Chief of Fisheries, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Cheyenne. 3 pages.

Stone, M. D. 2000. E-mail dated

October 31, 2000, from Michael D.

Stone, Chief of Fisheries, Wyoming

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne.

1 page plus 1 attachment.

Trotter, P. C. 1987. Cutthroat: native

trout of the West. Colorado University

Associated Press, Boulder, Colorado.

219 pages.

Varley, J. D. 1999. Undated letter

received February 1, 1999, from John D.

Varley, Director, Center for Resources,

Yellowstone National Park. 9 pages.

Vincent, E. R. 2001. The relationship

between water temperature and

whirling disease intensities. Poster

display presented at the Whirling

Disease Symposium, February 2001,

Salt Lake City.

Wichers, B. 2000a. Letter dated

October 3, 2000, from Bill Wichers,

Deputy Director, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Cheyenne. 5 pages

plus 4 attachments.

Wichers, B. 2000b. Letter dated

October 20, 2000, from Bill Wichers,

Deputy Director, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Cheyenne. 1 page plus

2 attachments.

Wiley, R.W. 1995. A common sense

protocol for the use of hatchery-reared

trout. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 15:465–471.

Wiley, R. W. 2000. E-mail dated

November 29, 2000, from Robert W.

Wiley, Chief of Fisheries Research,

Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

Cheyenne. 1 page.

Author

The primary author of this document

is Lynn R. Kaeding (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.).

Dated: February 15, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–4382 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P