Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules 59241

Author Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office ordered us to complete the 90-day The primary author of this notice is (see ADDRESSES above), or at 916/414– finding by September 19, 2002. The common name golden is Daniel R. Brown (see ADDRESSES 6600. due to its brilliant gold color on the section). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lower sides and red orange coloring on Authority: The authority for this action is Background the belly, cheeks, and central lateral the Act of 1973 (16 band. Behnke (1992) describes the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended golden trout as a subspecies Dated: September 16, 2002. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we of the ( Craig Manson, make a finding on whether a petition to mykiss), though it is more closely Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and list, delist, or reclassify a species, or to related to the interior redband Parks. revise a critical habitat designation, subspecies of O. mykiss than the coastal [FR Doc. 02–23942 Filed 9–19–02; 8:45 am] presents substantial scientific or rainbow subspecies that now dominates BILLING CODE 4310–55–P commercial information to demonstrate most drainages in the southern Sierra. It is believed that the California golden that the petitioned action may be trout and (O.m. warranted. This finding is to be based DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR whitei) evolved from an invasion of sea- on all information available to us at the run rainbow trout 20,000 years ago time the finding is made. To the Fish and Wildlife Service (Stephens 2001). Isolations between maximum extent practicable, this drainages resulted in the independent finding is to be made within 90 days of 50 CFR Part 17 evolution of the subspecies (Behnke the receipt of the petition, and the 1992). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife notice of the finding is to be published California golden trout have and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a promptly in the Federal Register. If the historically been found in the southern Petition To List the California Golden finding is that substantial information Sierra in , its Trout as Endangered was presented, we are required to tributaries, and the upper reach and promptly commence a review of the tributaries of the South Fork of the Kern AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, status of the involved species, if one has Interior. River. The Golden Trout Creek not already been initiated, under our watershed is 155 square kilometers (60 ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition internal candidate assessment process. finding and initiation of status review. square miles). Golden Trout Creek After completing the status review, we drainage begins around elevation 3,292 SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and will issue an additional finding (the 12- meters (m) (10,800 feet (ft)) and extends Wildlife Service (Service), announce a month finding) determining whether to 2,134 m (7,000 ft) elevation at the 90-day finding on a petition to list the listing is, in fact, warranted. confluence of Golden Trout Creek and California golden trout (Oncorhynchus On October 23, 2000, we received a the . Volcano Falls, just mykiss aguabonita) under the petition dated October 13, 2000, to list upstream of the confluence of Golden Endangered Species Act of 1973, as the California golden trout Trout Creek and the Kern River, acts as amended (Act). We find that the petition (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) as a barrier to upstream migrating fish. The presents substantial information endangered. The petition was submitted South Fork of the Kern River begins indicating that the listing of the by Trout Unlimited. The letter clearly around elevation 3,170 m (10,400 ft) at California golden trout may be identified itself as a petition, and Mulkey Meadows and continues until it warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a contained the name, signature, and reaches Isabella Reservoir at elevation status review to determine if the address of the party submitting the 794 m (2,605 ft). The petition states that petitioned action is warranted. To petition. The petition requested that we the historic downstream limit of ensure that the review is list the California golden trout as an California golden trout was probably the comprehensive, we are soliciting endangered species on an emergency gorge section of the river close to the information and data regarding this basis, and that critical habitat be present day Dome Land Wilderness. subspecies. designated concurrent with listing. Currently, California golden trout on the Included in the petition was supporting South Fork of the Kern River are limited DATES: The finding announced in this information relating to the subspecies’ to the reach above the lowest artificial document was made September 12, and ecology, adequacy of fish barrier, the Schaeffer barrier. 2002. To be considered in the 12-month existing regulatory mechanisms for the However, this barrier has proven to be finding for this petition, comments and subspecies, historic and current ineffective, and hybrid and non-native information should be submitted to us distribution, present status, and (Salmo trutta) have been by November 19, 2002. potential causes of decline. found upstream of this barrier. ADDRESSES: Data, information, On February 8, 2001, Trout Unlimited California golden trout have been comments, or questions concerning this sent a Notice of Intent to sue the Service widely transplanted outside of their petition should be submitted to the for violating the Act by failing to make historic range. However, the petition Field Supervisor (Attn: California a 90-day finding as to whether the states that the only area where non- golden trout), Sacramento Fish and petition to list the California golden hybridized California golden trout occur Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, trout presents substantial information is within the Golden Trout Creek and Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. indicating that listing may be warranted. the South Fork of the Kern River. The petition finding, supporting data, On November 29, 2001, Trout Unlimited The petitioners cited four threats to and comments will be available for filed a complaint in Federal District the California golden trout. The three public inspection, by appointment, Court alleging we had violated the Act major threats include: (1) Hybridization during normal business hours at the by failing to make a 90-day finding for with stocked rainbow trout above address. their petition to list the California (Oncorhynchus mykiss); (2) competition FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: golden trout. On June 21, 2002, the with non-native brown trout; and (3) Susan Moore or Jennifer Bain at the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and habitat degradation from cattle (Bos

VerDate Sep<04>2002 20:19 Sep 19, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1 59242 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules

taurus) grazing. The fourth threat California golden trout is not yet fully comm., 2002). Portions of the other identified by the petitioners was understood. However, recent data allotments, Monache and Mulkey, are inadequacy of existing regulatory suggest it is more widespread than still being actively grazed. These mechanisms. Although the petitioners stated in the petition. allotments also will be monitored under acknowledge that Federal and State The petition suggests that competition the monitoring strategy being developed agencies have made some attempts to for resources with non-native brown by the USFS and compared to the address the problem of California trout and rainbow trout, and predation Templeton and Whitney allotments. golden trout declines, such measures by brown trout, is a threat to the The petition states there are and strategies have yet to improve California golden trout. Brown trout inadequate regulatory mechanisms to overall subspecies survival. prey on all life stages of the California protect the California golden trout. It The petition states that hybridization golden trout and can be found in about also notes that there is an interagency with rainbow trout is the most 230 kilometers (143 miles) of historic Conservation Strategy for the Volcano immediate and destructive threat that California golden trout habitat including Creek Golden Trout signed by CDFG, the California golden trout faces today. the area between Templeton Barrier and the Service, and USFS (USFS 1999). In Golden Trout Creek watershed, fish Schaeffer Barrier (Stephens 2001). The However, the Conservation Strategy stocking has occurred in the historically CDFG and have does not meet the requirements set forth fishless headwater lakes. These lakes made repeated efforts to eradicate in our Draft Policy for Evaluation of were stocked with what has recently brown trout from the California golden Conservation Efforts When Making trout range by using piscicides Listing Decisions (PECE Policy) (65 FR been determined as hybrid California (pesticide that is specific for fish) and 37102). Since we received the petition, golden trout broodstock from then restocking the areas with California a draft Implementation Plan for the Cottonwood Lakes. Historically, the golden trout. They are continuing to California Golden Trout Conservation , or general investigate the current distribution of Strategy (Implementation Plan) dated vicinity, has been stocked with rainbow brown trout in the watershed (United May 15, 2002, has been prepared by trout, hybridized golden trout, brown States Forest Service (USFS) 2002a). USFS, CDFG, Trout Unlimited, and trout, and (Salvelinus The petition lists habitat degradation California Trout. The Implementation fontinalis). The petition cites that in the due to livestock grazing as a threat to Plan has addressed many of the Golden Trout Creek watershed, the California golden trout. Grazing concerns with the Conservation Strategy hybridized fish were present in some of along stream channels affects aquatic identified in the petition, but still does the headwater lakes and had moved into habitat by reducing vegetation, changing not address all of the criteria identified Stokes Stringer, a tributary of Golden the width/depth ratio, adding sediment in our PECE Policy. It is unclear from Trout Creek. The petition assumed that to the channel, and lowering the water the Implementation Plan how many of hybridized California golden trout also table (Armour et al. 1991). Over time, the tasks have a high level of certainty had moved into some of the other the USFS has limited the number of that necessary funding is provided. tributaries of Golden Trout Creek. A cattle and duration of time on Also, while monitoring is a part of all report by Cordes et al. (2001) examined allotments in the current range of the tasks, the Implementation Plan does not the genetics of California golden trout California golden trout, but even with have quantifiable, scientifically valid populations in the headwaters of fewer cattle, degradation to the riparian parameters to demonstrate achievement Golden Trout Creek. Trout with what zone continues (Knapp and Matthews of objectives and effectiveness of the are presumed to be rainbow trout alleles 1996). In a study done by Knapp and conservation tasks. (genes) were found at low frequencies in Matthews (1996), livestock grazing was We have reviewed the petition, the two tributaries and five different found to have negative effects on literature cited in the petition, and other locations of Golden Trout Creek. Prior to California golden trout populations. literature and information available in this study, hybridized California golden Livestock grazing can change and our files. On the basis of best scientific trout had not been found in Golden reduce vegetation, and widen and and commercial information, we find Trout Creek. In the South Fork Kern collapse banks (Armour et al. 1991). the petition presents substantial River watershed, the petition states that California golden trout prefer undercut information that listing this subspecies hybrid California golden trout were banks and aquatic vegetation (Knapp may be warranted. The main threat to present between Schaeffer Barrier and and Dudley 1990; Mathews 1996a) and the California golden trout is Templeton Barrier and in Movie tend to avoid bare and collapsed banks hybridization. Competition with non- Stringer. The reach of the South Fork (Matthews 1996b). native brown trout and habitat Kern River above Ramshaw Barrier was Four allotments are present in the degradation due to cattle grazing, in believed to contain pure California range of the California golden trout. combination with the threat of golden trout. However, the Cordes et al. Beginning in the summer of 2001, the hybridization, place the California (2001) report found that low frequencies USFS decided to rest the Templeton and golden trout at risk. The current draft of what are assumed to be rainbow trout Whitney allotments from grazing for a Implementation Plan is lacking the alleles occurred in fish collected from period of 10 years. At the end of the 10- criteria necessary to improve the the South Fork Kern River above the year period, an analysis will be subspecies’s status enough to make Ramshaw Barrier. Currently, the only completed to determine if grazing listing unnecessary. known pure California golden trout should be resumed, eliminated from the We have reviewed the available inhabit a tributary to Golden Trout allotments, or if resting the allotments information to determine if the existing Creek, headwater streams of the South should continue (USFS 2001). A and foreseeable threats pose an Fork Kern River (S. Stephens, California monitoring strategy is being developed emergency. We determined that an Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), by the Inyo National Forest to determine emergency listing is not warranted at pers. comm., 2002). Given this genetic the rate of recovery of the watershed this time. However, if at any time we data, it appears that only a small (USFS 2002b). The area will be allowed determine that emergency listing of the amount of California golden trout are to naturally restore itself with some California golden trout is warranted, we genetically pure. The degree of small amount of active restoration by will seek to initiate an emergency hybridization in the current range of the the USFS (D. Hubbs, USFS, pers. listing. The petitioners also requested

VerDate Sep<04>2002 20:19 Sep 19, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules 59243

that critical habitat be designated for Society Monograph 6. Pages 162–174, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE this subspecies. We always consider the 187–192. need for critical habitat designation Cordes, J.F., M.A. Blumberg, G.A.E. Gall, B. National Oceanic and Atmospheric when listing species. If the 12-month May. 2001. Genetic status of California Administration golden trout populations in the finding determines that listing the headwaters of Golden Trout Creek. California golden trout is warranted, Report to the Threatened Trout 50 CFR Part 223 then the designation of critical habitat Committee, California Department of [Docket 020626160–2160–01; I.D. 061902C] will be addressed in the subsequent Fish and Game. 40 pp. proposed rule. Knapp, R.A. and T.L. Dudley. 1990. Growth RIN 0648–AQ13 and longevity of golden trout, Public Information Solicited Oncorhynchus aguabonita, in their Taking of Threatened or Endangered When we make a finding that native streams. California Fish and Game Species Incidental to Commercial substantial information exists to 76(3):161–173. Fishing Operations Knapp, R.A. and K. Matthews. 1996. indicate that listing a species may be Livestock grazing, golden trout, and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries warranted, we are required to promptly streams in the , Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and commence a review of the status of the California: Impacts and management Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), species. To ensure that the status review implications. North American Journal of Commerce. is complete and based on the best Fisheries Management 16:805–820. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Mathews, K.R. 1996a. Diel movement and available scientific and commercial comments. information, we are soliciting habitat use of California golden trout in information on the California golden the Golden Trout Wilderness, California. SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a proposed Transactions of the American Fisheries trout. We request any additional Society 125:78–86. rule to prohibit fishing with drift information, comments, and suggestions Mathews, K.R. 1996b. Habitat selection gillnets in the California/ (CA/ from the public, other concerned movement patterns of California golden OR) thresher shark/swordfish drift governmental agencies, the scientific trout in degraded and recovering stream gillnet fishery in U.S. waters off community, industry, or any other sections in the Golden Trout Wilderness, southern California, south of Point interested parties concerning the status California. North American Journal of Conception (34°27′N.)and west to the of the California golden trout. We are Fisheries Management 16:579–590. 120°W. long., from August 15 through seeking information regarding historic Stephens, S.J. 2001. Draft-Biology, August 31, and January 1 through management and threats to the California January 31, when the Assistant and current distribution, the subspecies’ golden trout. California Department of biology and ecology, ongoing Fish and Game. 71 pp. Administrator for Fisheries publishes a conservation measures for the United States Forest Service (USFS). 1999. notice that El Nino conditions are subspecies and its habitat, and threats to Conservation strategy for the Volcano present. NMFS has determined that the the subspecies and its habitat. Creek golden trout. Inyo National Forest, incidental take of loggerhead sea turtles If you wish to comment, you may California Department of Fish and Game, by this fishery is dependent on the area submit your comments and materials and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 18 and season being fished during these concerning this finding to the Field pp. oceanographic conditions. Time and United States Forest Service (USFS). 2001. Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section). Our area closures will result in a reduction Decision notice and finding of no practice is to make comments, including significant impact, Templeton and in the amount of take of loggerheads by names and home addresses of Whitney grazing allotments. Inyo the fishery and are necessary to avoid respondents, available for public review National Forest, Bishop, California. 10 the likelihood of the CA/OR drift gillnet during regular business hours. pp. + appendices. fishery jeopardizing the continued Respondents may request that we United States Forest Service (USFS). 2002a. existence of the loggerhead population. withhold a respondent’s identity, as Draft implementation plan for the DATES: Comments on this proposed rule allowable by law. If you wish us to California golden trout conservation must be postmarked or transmitted by withhold your name or address, you strategy. Inyo National Forest, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. facsimile by 5 p.m., Pacific Daylight must state this request prominently at Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 pp. + Time, on October 21, 2002. Comments the beginning of your comment. appendices. transmitted via e-mail or the Internet However, we will not consider United States Forest Service (USFS). 2002b. will not be accepted. anonymous comments. To the extent Draft monitoring strategy Whitney and ADDRESSES: Send comments on this consistent with applicable law, we will Templeton grazing allotments. Inyo proposed rule to Tim Price, National make all submissions from National Forest, Bishop, California. 10 Marine Fisheries Service, Protected pp. organizations or businesses, and from Resources Division, 501 West Ocean individuals identifying themselves as Author Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA representatives or officials of 90802–4213, or by fax (562) 980–4027. organizations or businesses, available The primary author of this document Copies of the Environmental for public inspection in their entirety. is Jennifer Bain, Sacramento Fish and Assessment (EA) or biological opinion Comments and materials received will Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). (BO) may be obtained from Tim Price, be available for public inspection, by Authority Protected Resources Division, National appointment, during normal business Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest The authority for this action is the hours at the above address. Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213, or References Cited amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). are available on the internet at http:// Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, W. Elmore. 1991. Dated: September 12, 2002. swr.ucsd.edu/. The effects of livestock grazing on Steve Williams, riparian and stream ecosystems. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Fisheries 16(1):7–11. Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Price, NMFS, Southwest Region, Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of the western [FR Doc. 02–23941 Filed 9–19–02; 8:45 am] Protected Resources Division, (562) North America. American Fisheries BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 980–4029.

VerDate Sep<04>2002 20:19 Sep 19, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20SEP1.SGM 20SEP1