[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11244-11249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4382]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 higher-priority 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 higher-priority 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 self-sustaining 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

[[Page 11246]]

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).

[[Page 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

[[Page 11248]]

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 life-
history 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.

[[Page 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