Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Part II

Department of the Interior and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Status Review for Cutthroat Trout; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27900 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal stipulated that the Service would Information Relay Service (FIRS) at initiate a status review for the Rio Fish and Wildlife Service 800–877–8339. Grande cutthroat trout, make a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: determination on or before June 4, 2002, 50 CFR Part 17 and shortly thereafter, publish our Background [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0056; 1111 FY07 MO– determination in the Federal Register. B2] Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 On June 11, 2002, we published our U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for determination that listing of Rio Grande Endangered and Threatened Wildlife any petition containing substantial cutthroat trout was not warranted (67 and Plants; Status Review for Rio scientific and commercial information FR 39936). Grande Cutthroat Trout that listing may be warranted, we make Subsequently, on February 25, 2003, a finding within 12 months of the date the Center for Biological Diversity, along AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, of receipt of the petition on whether the with several other organizations, sued Interior. petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, the Service for failing to list Rio Grande ACTION: Notice of candidate status (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but that cutthroat trout. On June 7, 2005, the review. immediate proposal of a regulation New Mexico Federal District Court implementing the petitioned action is (Court) ruled that our finding was not SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and precluded by other pending proposals to arbitrary and capricious, but also Wildlife Service (Service), announce the determine whether species are required that we explain in more detail results of the status review for the Rio threatened or endangered, and our analysis of ‘‘significant portion of Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus expeditious progress is being made to the range’’. The Court ordered the clarki virginalis) under the Endangered add or remove qualified species from Service to provide a supplemental Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. the Lists of Endangered and Threatened briefing discussing in more detail our After a thorough review of all available Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of analysis of significant portion of the scientific and commercial information, the Act requires that we treat a petition range. We submitted this briefing on we find that listing the Rio Grande for which the requested action is found July 20, 2005. On December 19, 2005, cutthroat trout is warranted but to be warranted but precluded as though the Court ruled in favor of the Service precluded by higher priority actions. resubmitted on the date of such finding, and upheld our interpretation of Upon publication of this status review, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to significant portion of the range and we will add the Rio Grande cutthroat be made within 12 months. We must determined that our evaluation of Rio trout to our list of candidate species publish these 12-month findings in the Grande cutthroat trout’s status under the with a listing priority number of 9, Federal Register. listing criteria was not arbitrary and because the threats affecting it have a capricious. Plaintiffs appealed this Previous Federal Actions moderate magnitude and are imminent. decision. We will develop a proposed rule to list On February 25, 1998, we received a The appeal was pending with the the subspecies as our priorities allow. petition from Kieran Suckling, of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, when We ask the public to continue to submit Southwest Center for Biological other courts issued opinions for other to us any new information that becomes Diversity requesting that the Service add species that required the Service to available concerning the status of or the Rio Grande cutthroat trout reexamine our position on significant threats to the subspecies. This (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) to the portion of the range. On March 16, 2007, information will help us to monitor and list of threatened and endangered a formal opinion was issued by the encourage the ongoing conservation of species. The petition addressed the Solicitor of the Department of the this subspecies. range-wide distribution of the Rio Interior, ‘‘The Meaning of In Danger of DATES: The finding announced in this Grande cutthroat trout that includes Extinction Throughout All or a document was made on May 14, 2008. populations in Colorado and New Significant Portion of Its Range’’ (U.S. Mexico. We subsequently published a DOI 2007). Because of this new formal ADDRESSES: This finding is available on notice of a 90-day finding in the Federal the Internet at http:// opinion and because of our knowledge Register (63 FR 49062) on September www.regulations.gov. Supporting of changes in status of some populations 14, 1998. In the 90-day finding we documentation we used in preparing that we had defined as ‘‘secure’’ in our concluded that the petition did not 2002 review, in consultation with the this finding is available for public present substantial information court and the plaintiffs, the Service inspection, by appointment, during indicating that listing of the Rio Grande agreed to initiate a new status review. normal business hours at the U.S. Fish cutthroat trout may be warranted. We subsequently published a notice and Wildlife Service, New Mexico On June 9, 1999, a complaint was seeking new information concerning the Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 filed by the Southwest Center for status of Rio Grande cutthroat trout on Osuna Road, NE., Albuquerque, New Biological Diversity alleging that the May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28664). Mexico 87113; telephone (505) 346– September 14, 1998, 90-day petition In response to our 2007 requests for 2525; facsimile (505) 248–6788. Please finding violated the Administrative information regarding Rio Grande submit any new information, materials, Procedure Act. While the litigation was cutthroat trout (72 FR 28664, 72 FR comments, or questions concerning this pending, we received information 46030 (August 16, 2007)), we received finding to the above address or via (particularly related to the presence of comments and information from electronic mail (e-mail) at _ whirling disease in hatchery fish in the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), r2fwe [email protected]. wild) that led us to believe that further New Mexico Department of Game and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: review of the status of the subspecies Fish (NMDGF), U.S. Bureau of Land Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, was warranted. On November 8, 2001, a Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2105 settlement agreement executed by both (USFS), private citizens and Osuna Road, NE., Albuquerque, New parties (the Service and the Southwest organizations, and the Rio Grande Mexico 87113. (505) 346–2525 ext 106. Center for Biological Diversity) was filed Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team. The If you use a telecommunications device with the court. The settlement Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27901

Conservation Team is composed of capture (a tributary from one watershed (0.2 percent) in Caballo (Alves et al. biologists from CDOW, NMDGF, BLM, joins with a tributary from another) 2007, p. 9). USFS, National Park Service, the there may have been natural migration In our prior status review (67 FR Jicarilla Apache Nation and the Service. of fish between the Pecos and Canadian 39936; June 11, 2002), we focused our The Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout headwater streams. There is evidence analysis primarily on ‘‘core’’ Conservation Team recently completed that Rio Grande cutthroat trout may populations, which we defined using a range-wide status report (Alves et al. have occurred in (Garrett and conservative criteria for genetic 2007) concerning the Rio Grande Matlock 1991, p. 405; Behnke 1967, pp. integrity, population stability, and cutthroat trout. The status report and 5, 6) and Mexico (Behnke 1967, p. 4). security from invasion by nonnative the comprehensive database (referred to Currently, the southernmost distribution salmonids (trout and salmon). The as ‘‘2007 database’’ in this finding) that of Rio Grande cutthroat trout occurs in genetic criterion for these core is the basis for the report, along with Animas Creek, Sierra County, New populations was that the populations other supplemental submissions from Mexico, and Indian Creek on the have less than one percent the agencies listed above, provide the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation in representation of genetic markers from best scientific and commercial Otero County, New Mexico. Distribution another subspecies of cutthroat trout or information available on Rio Grande in the southern portion of the range is from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus cutthroat trout. The report summarizes currently limited and no conservation mykiss), as determined by genetic information provided by 15 fisheries populations (see discussion of testing. Rio Grande cutthroat trout are professionals from Colorado and New conservation populations below) exist able to interbreed, or hybridize, with Mexico having specific knowledge of south of Santa Fe, New Mexico. other subspecies of cutthroat trout and Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Alves et al. In the range-wide status report, rainbow trout. This hybridization may 2007, p. 58). In making this finding, we historically occupied habitat was based result in genes of one species or considered all scientific and commercial on habitat believed to be inhabited by subspecies being incorporated into the information that we received or Rio Grande cutthroat trout when early other species or subspecies. The acquired since our previous status European explorers entered the incorporation of genes from one species review. We relied primarily on Southern Rocky Mountain Region of into another is referred to by the published and peer-reviewed Colorado and New Mexico (circa 1800) technical term ‘‘introgression’’ (Mayr documentation for our conclusions. (Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). In general, 1970) and a species that has received such genes is referred to as streams currently capable of supporting Biology and Distribution ‘‘introgressed.’’ To simplify discussion trout (elevations of 1,829 meters (m) The Rio Grande cutthroat trout, one of in this review, we will also use these (6,000 feet (ft)) and above; 1,671 m 14 subspecies of cutthroat trout, is terms when describing when genetic (5,500 ft) and above on north-facing native to the Rio Grande, Pecos, and the markers of another subspecies are found slopes) were assumed to have been Canadian river basins in New Mexico in Rio Grande cutthroat trout, although historically occupied if they were not and Colorado (Behnke 2002, p. 219). Rio we recognize that these terms, as strictly above a barrier to fish movement (e.g., Grande cutthroat trout has the defined, refer to species. distinction of being the first North an impassable waterfall). Streams which Our previous status review concluded American trout recorded by Europeans cannot currently support trout were that the core populations, as then (Behnke 2002, p. 139). In 1541, assumed not to have been historically defined by conservative criteria, were Francisco de Coronado’s expedition occupied unless they were known to sufficiently abundant, distributed, and discovered Rio Grande cutthroat trout in have been degraded by such things as secure to conclude that listing of the Rio the upper Pecos River (Behnke 2002, p. water withdrawals, channel alterations, Grande cutthroat trout was not 139). The first specimens that were human-caused barriers, or chemical warranted. As described later in this collected for scientific purposes came contamination. Based on these criteria, review, the status of several of the from Ute Creek in Costilla County, 10,622 kilometers (km) (6,660 miles original core populations has Colorado, in 1853. Rio Grande cutthroat (mi)) of stream habitat were identified as subsequently declined and we believe trout was originally described in 1856 having the potential of being historically those populations alone are not (Behnke 2002, p. 210). Cutthroat trout occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat trout sufficient to conserve the Rio Grande subspecies are distinguished by the red (Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). The estimated cutthroat trout. to orange slashes in the throat folds amount of historical range in each State For the current review, the genetic beneath the lower jaw. is about 5,196 km (3,229 mi) in criterion for core populations is that The historical distribution of Rio Colorado (48 percent), and 5,521 km they be less than one percent Grande cutthroat trout is not known (3,431 mi) (52 percent) in New Mexico introgressed, which is the same genetic with certainty. In general, it is assumed (Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). criterion for core populations followed that Rio Grande cutthroat trout occupied To facilitate management and in the previous review. Although all streams capable of supporting trout conservation efforts, the Rio Grande population stability and security from in the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian cutthroat trout range is divided into invasion are not used to define core basins (Alves et al. 2007, p. 9). The Geographic Management Units (GMUs) populations, as they were in the Pecos River is a tributary of the Rio based on watersheds (Alves et al. 2007, previous review, those factors are still Grande, so a historic connection p. 2). The GMUs are, from north to addressed as attributes affecting the between the two basins likely existed. south, Rio Grande headwaters, Lower status of core and other populations. Although no early museum specimens Rio Grande, Canadian, Pecos, and Core populations in the current review document its occurrence in the Caballo. Historical occupancy by GMU correspond to the core populations headwaters of the Canadian River, it is is 5,277 km (3,279 mi) (49 percent) in described in the multi-state position almost certainly native there as well Rio Grande Headwaters, 3,396 km paper for cutthroat management (Utah (Behnke 2002, p. 208). The Canadian (2,110 mi) (32 percent) in Lower Rio Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) River, tributary to the Mississippi River, Grande, 1,027 km (638 mi) (10 percent) 2000, pp. 3, 4). In addition to these core has no connection with the Rio Grande. in the Canadian, 1,003 km (623 mi) (9 populations, we focused our review on It is possible that through headwater percent) in Pecos, and 16 km (10 mi) ‘‘conservation populations’’ as defined

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27902 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

by the position paper (UDWR 2000): and Comanche Creek) included in the (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) and populations less than 10 percent 120 are undergoing restoration and are Yellowstone (Oncorhynchus clarki introgressed, as measured by genetic currently unoccupied by Rio Grande bouvieri), Rio Grande cutthroat trout did markers, and that retain the ecological, cutthroat trout. Although we fully not originally inhabit large lake systems. behavioral, and phenotypic expect these two streams will become However, they have been introduced characteristics of Rio Grande cutthroat conservation populations within the into coldwater lakes and reservoirs. trout. In addition, we have included as next five years, they are not occupied by They spawn as high water flows from conservation populations those viable populations currently. Although snowmelt recede. In New Mexico, this populations which have not been we included in our analysis untested typically occurs from the middle of May genetically tested, but that retain the populations that are suspected to be to the middle of June (NMDGF 2002, p. ecological, behavioral, and phenotypic nonintrogressed as conservation 17). Spawning is believed to be tied to characteristics of Rio Grande cutthroat populations, we do not feel it is day length, water temperature, and trout and are not suspected to be appropriate to include untested runoff (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 54; introgressed or co-occurring with populations that are suspected to be Behnke 2002, p. 141). hybridizing species. introgressed or that co-occur with It is unknown if Rio Grande cutthroat The above criteria for core and hybridizing species. Alves et al. (2007) trout spawn every year or if some conservation populations have been provided all summary statistics (e.g., portion of the population spawns every applied in Service status reviews of percent populations with nonnative other year as has been recorded for other subspecies of cutthroat trout trout, percent historical habitat westslope cutthroat trout (McIntyre and published since 2002 (71 FR 8818; 72 occupied, number of populations in Rieman 1995, p. 1). Likewise, while it FR 32589). The status review (68 FR each state) for 120 conservation is assumed that females mature at age 3, 46989; August 7, 2003) for the westslope populations. Although the inclusion of they may not spawn until age 4 or 5 as cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki these populations in Alves et al. (2007) seen in westslope cutthroat trout lewisi) included populations with up to inflates the number of conservation (McIntyre and Rieman 1995, p. 3). Sex 20 percent introgression, based on populations and miles of stream ratio also is unknown with certainty, several studies of genetic markers and occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat trout, but based on field data, a ratio skewed morphological traits of introgressed their inclusion does not make a material towards more females might be populations that indicate that difference in the outcome of our finding. expected (Pritchard and Cowley 2006, p. populations with up to 20 percent of Therefore, we have decided to present 27). Although Yellowstone (Gresswell their nuclear genes derived from all summary statistics as presented in 1995, p. 36), Bonneville (Shrank and rainbow trout were morphologically Alves et al. (2007) rather than Rahel 2004, p. 1532), and westslope indistinguishable from nonintrogressed recalculate the summary statistics to (Bjornn and Mallet 1964, p. 73; westslope cutthroat trout populations. reflect the 105 populations we would McIntyre and Rieman 1995, p. 3) Comparable studies, where genetic and classify as conservation populations. cutthroat trout subspecies are known to morphological characters in the same Rio Grande cutthroat trout have a migratory life history phase, it is population are studied, have not been conservation populations currently not known if Rio Grande cutthroat trout performed on Rio Grande cutthroat occupy about 473 km (294 mi) in once had a migratory form when there trout; therefore, we have no justification Colorado (9.1 percent of Colorado was connectivity among watersheds. for departing from the general criterion historical habitat) and 637 km (396 mi) Most cutthroat trout are opportunistic of less than 10 percent introgression in New Mexico (11.6 percent of feeders, eating both aquatic proposed in the position paper on historical habitat) (Alves et al. 2007, p. invertebrates and terrestrial insects that cutthroat trout genetics (UDWR 2000). 26). The Lower Rio Grande GMU fall into the water (Sublette et al. 1990, In the remainder of this review, we contains the largest amount of occupied p. 54). Rio Grande cutthroat trout collectively refer to both core and habitat (489 km (304.1 mi)), followed by evolved with Rio Grande chub ( conservation populations, as defined the Rio Grande Headwaters GMU (452 pandora), (Rhinichthys above, as conservation populations. km (281.4 mi)), Canadian GMU (109 km cataractae) (all basins); Rio Grande Inclusion of conservation populations (67.5 mi)), and Pecos GMU (60 km (37.3 sucker (Catastomus plebius) (Rio with up to 10 percent introgression in mi)) (Alves et al. 2007, p. 26). The Grande Basin); white sucker (C. the present review does not mean we Caballo GMU contains a hybridized commersoni) and creek chub (Semotilus are any less concerned about the effects population of cutthroat trout that was atromaculatus) (Pecos and Canadian of introgression on Rio Grande cutthroat not included as a conservation Basins); and the southern redbelly dace trout. Our evaluation of introgression as population. Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Phoxinus erythrogaster) (Canadian a threat to the Rio Grande cutthroat occupy habitat in 14 of 19 watersheds River Basin) (Rinne 1995, p. 24). Many trout will be described along with other that supported historical habitat. They of these fish have either been extirpated applicable threats later in this review. are believed to be extirpated from the from streams with Rio Grande cutthroat Alves et al. (2007, p. 26) report that following watersheds: Arroyo Del trout or are greatly reduced in number 120 conservation populations of Rio Macho, Caballo, Upper Canadian, Rio (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 162; Calamusso Grande cutthroat trout currently occupy Hondo, and Rio Penasco (Alves et al. and Rinne 1999, pp. 233–236). It is not about 1110 km (690 mi) of habitat, or 2007, p. 11). If Rio Grande cutthroat known if they once were an important 10.4 percent of the historical range of trout once occurred in Texas and component of Rio Grande cutthroat the subspecies. The 120 conservation Mexico, there is no evidence that they trout diet. Other subspecies of cutthroat populations include 12 populations that occur there now. trout become more piscivorous (fish have not been tested for introgression eating) as they mature (Moyle 1976, p. and are suspected to be hybridized and Life History 139; Sublette et al. 1990, p. 54) and one population that to date has tested as As is true of other subspecies of cutthroat trout living in lakes will prey nonintrogressed but in which rainbow cutthroat trout, Rio Grande cutthroat heavily on other species of fish (Echo trout, a hybridizing species, co-occurs trout is found in clear cold streams. 1954, p. 244). It is possible that native (Alves et al. 2007, p. 34; 2007 data base). Unlike some subspecies of cutthroat cyprinids (i.e., chubs, minnows, and An additional two streams (Placer Creek trout, such as the Bonneville dace) and suckers may have once been

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27903

important prey items for Rio Grande their application to Rio Grande Historically, many watersheds cutthroat trout. Growth of cutthroat cutthroat trout. supporting Rio Grande cutthroat trout trout varies with water temperature and contained streams that were connected. availability of food. Most populations of A. The Present or Threatened For example, in Colorado, the Rio Grande cutthroat trout are found in Destruction, Modification, or Trinchera, Conejos, Culebra, Costilla, high elevation streams. Under these Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and Alamosa rivers would all have been conditions growth may be relatively Population Isolation and Fragmentation connected through the upper Rio slow and time to maturity may take Grande, forming a vast network of longer than is seen in subspecies that The historic range of Rio Grande streams (Alves et al. 2007, p. 10). As a inhabit lower elevation (warmer) cutthroat trout has been greatly reduced consequence of habitat loss, each of streams. over the last 150 years. Populations these watersheds is now isolated from Typical of trout, Rio Grande cutthroat have been lost because of water the other and Rio Grande cutthroat trout trout require several types of habitat for diversions, stream drying, dams, habitat are restricted to fragments of streams survival: spawning habitat, nursery or degradation, changes in hydrology, (Alves et al. 2007, pp. 12, 29). Of the rearing habitat, adult habitat, and hybridization with rainbow trout, or 120 conservation populations, 112 refugial habitat. Spawning habitat competition with brown (Salmo trutta) (representing 80 percent of occupied consists of clean gravel (little or no fine and (Salvelinus fontinalis) miles) are in isolated stream fragments sediment present) that ranges between 6 (Pritchard and Cowley 2006, pp. 16, 34– (Alves et al. 2007, p. 29). No to 40 millimeters (mm) (0.24–1.6 inches 37; 67 FR 39939). Quantifying the exact populations are considered to have (in)) (NMDGF 2002, p. 17). Nursery magnitude of loss in either number of strong connectivity (i.e., ≥ 5 connected habitat is usually at the stream margins fish or habitat is difficult because there streams with open migration corridors) where water velocity is low and water are no baseline data. Alves et al. (2007, (Alves et al. 2007, pp. 29, 77). One temperature is slightly warmer. Harig p. 26) estimate that conservation population has a moderate degree of and Fausch (2002, pp. 542, 543) found populations occupy about 10 percent of connectivity (4 to 5 connected streams); that water temperature may play a historically inhabited stream miles. however, this watershed (Comanche critical role in the life history of the Also, the current distribution of Creek) is currently under restoration young-of-year cutthroat. Streams with occupied miles on the landscape differs and has very few fish present. Seven mean daily temperature in July of less from the historical distribution. The ° ° populations have very little connectivity than 7.8 C (46 F) may not have range has contracted northward, Rio (2–3 connected streams, infrequent successful recruitment (survival of Grande cutthroat trout are now straying of adults may occur) (Alves et individuals to sexual maturity and restricted primarily to headwater al. 2007, pp. 29, 77). Because Rio joining the reproductive population) or streams, and the large connected Grande cutthroat trout habitat is reproduction in most years. Adult networks that once linked hundreds of severely fragmented and because the habitat consists of pools with cover and stream miles together no longer exist. effects of fragmentation are considered riffles for food production and foraging. The change in distribution is discussed one of the primary threats to Rio Grande Refugial habitat in the form of large briefly followed by a discussion of cutthroat trout populations, the deep pools is also necessary for fragmentation which has modified and consequences of fragmentation are survival. The primary form of refugial curtailed habitat. discussed in detail below. habitat is deep pools that do not freeze in the winter and do not dry in the Historically, 43 percent of Rio Grande Habitat fragmentation reduces the summer or during periods of drought. cutthroat trout populations occupied total area of habitat available, reduces Lack of large pools may be a limiting streams 2,438 m (8,000 ft) or less in habitat complexity, and prevents gene factor in headwater streams (Harig and elevation (Alves et al. 2007, p. 18). flow (Saunders et al. 1991, p. 25; Fausch 2002, p. 543). Refugial habitat Currently, only about 1.6 percent of the Rieman and McIntyre 1995, p. 293; may also be a downstream reach of populations are in streams less than Burkey 1995, pp. 527, 528; Dunham et stream or a connected adjacent stream 2,438 m (8,000 ft) (Alves et al. 2007, p. al. 1997, pp. 1126, 1127; Frankham et that has maintained suitable habitat in 18). Conservation populations, as al. 2002, p. 310; Noss et al. 2006, p. spite of adverse conditions. defined above, are now concentrated in 219). Fragmentation accelerates A technical review of Rio Grande elevations from 2,743–3048 m (9,000– extinction, especially when movement cutthroat trout was recently completed 10,000 ft) (Alves et al. 2007, p. 18). of fish among fragments is not possible, (Pritchard and Cowley 2006) which High-elevation streams (above 2,743 m as is the case with Rio Grande cutthroat covers the biology of the subspecies in (9,000 ft)) are subject to extreme and trout (Burkey 1995, p. 540; Frankham et greater detail and the reader is referred fluctuating environmental conditions al. 2002, p. 314). Isolated populations to that document for additional including forest fires, freezing, and are vulnerable to extinction through background information on the dewatering (Novinger and Rahel 2003, demographic stochasticity (random subspecies. p. 779). In addition, headwater changes in the population structure, mountain streams often lack critical e.g., uneven male/female ratios); Summary of Factors Affecting the resources such as deep pools (Harig and environmental stochasticity (random Subspecies Fausch 2002, p. 546) and provide changes in the ’ surroundings) and Section 4 of the Act and regulations insufficient refuge from catastrophic catastrophes (e.g., fires, stream drying, (50 CFR 424) promulgated to implement disturbance (Pritchard and Cowley freezing); loss of genetic heterozygosity the listing provisions of the Act set forth 2006, p. 17). Because high-elevation (genetic diversity) and rare alleles the procedures for adding species to the headwater streams are narrow and small (inherited forms of a genetic trait); and Federal list of endangered or threatened compared to the larger downstream human disturbance (Shaffer 1987, p. 71; species. A species may be determined to reaches that Rio Grande cutthroat trout Rieman et al. 1993, pp. 9–15; Burkey be threatened or endangered due to one once occupied, the absolute loss of 1995, pp. 527, 528; Dunham et al. 1997, or more of the five factors described in habitat in both quantity and quality is p. 1130; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 310– section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The following greater than stream miles might 324). Completely isolated fragments are analysis examines the listing factors and indicate. the most severe form of fragmentation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27904 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

because the isolation prevents fish from cutthroat trout streams), a stream length decreased. He concluded that managing mating with other fish carrying different of 11 km (6.8 mi) would be needed to for Rio Grande cutthroat trout genes, thereby preventing new genes support a population of 2,750 fish. population sizes in the range of 8,000 to from entering the isolated population Because the majority (71 percent) of Rio 16,000 would be more likely to ensure (Frankham et al. 2002, p. 314). Of 120 Grande cutthroat trout conservation population viability when there are low Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation populations occur in short stream to intermediate survival rates of young populations, 112 (93 percent, 80 percent fragments of 8.1 km (5 mi) or less, these fish. While any population number we of occupied miles) exist as isolated studies indicate that stream might use to assess the status of the segments or have very little connectivity fragmentation (resulting in short stream subspecies is unlikely to satisfy all (Alves et al. 2007, p. 29). lengths) pose a threat to Rio Grande interested parties, we believe 2,500 Apart from the isolation (lack of gene cutthroat trout conservation continues to be a reasonable standard by flow) that fragmentation causes, the populations. which to evaluate the populations. short length of the fragments and small Longer streams support larger While the range of acceptable standards population size that they support are populations (Harig and Fausch 2002, p. may range from 2,500 to 16,000, there is also of concern for Rio Grande cutthroat 546; Young et al. 2005, p. 2405). relative certainty that populations below trout. Seventy-one percent of Rio Population size is a major determinant 2,500 are likely at risk and may not be Grande cutthroat trout conservation of species persistence (Reed et al. 2003, contributing to long-term persistence of populations occupy stream segments of p. 23). Population persistence decreases the subspecies. 8.1 km (5 mi) or less (median 6.2 km as population size decreases (Rieman In 2007, fifteen of the 120 (4.2 mi)) (Alves et al. 2007, p. 26). and McIntyre 1993, p. 15). Long-term conservation populations had 2,500– Several researchers have found that persistence of a population depends on 7,000 Rio Grande cutthroat trout. The population viability of cutthroat trout is having a sufficient number of 120 conservation populations occur in correlated with stream length individuals to avoid inbreeding 161 individual streams. Several (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, p. 515; depression, which decreases population conservation populations occupy Young et al. 2005, p. 2405; Cowley viability, and to maintain genetic multiple individual stream segments 2007, DOI: 10.1002/aqc.845). Stream variation (Franklin 1980, pp. 135–148; that are connected, thus the numbers of length is important because trout need Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 190–192; occupied streams segments is larger a variety of habitats to complete their Reed 2005, pp. 563, 564). Genetic than the total number of conservation life cycle (i.e., spawning habitat, rearing variability within a population is populations. Of those 161 individual habitat, adult habitat, refugial habitat) necessary for adaptability (Reed 2005, p. streams, a minimum of 53 contain (Rieman and McIntyre 1995, p. 293; 564; Cowley 2007 DOI: 10.1002/ populations of under 500 reproducing Horan et al. 2000, p. 1251; Harig and aqc.845). Genetic variation will be lost adult fish. Because population estimates Fausch 2002, p. 546; Young et al. 2005, through time in isolated populations are unavailable for 38 streams, and most p. 2406). The shorter the stream, the and the loss occurs more quickly in of the 38 are short segments (2007 more likely it is that one or more of the small populations than in large database), the total number of Rio Grande cutthroat trout’s required populations (Rieman and Allendorf populations with fewer than 500 habitats is either missing, or inadequate 2001, p. 761). When a population is reproducing adult fish is much likely for completion of the species life cycle greatly reduced in size (bottlenecked), greater than 53. Of the 99 conservation (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, p. genetic diversity is decreased populations with quantitative estimates, 513). This is particularly true in high- (Frankham et al. 2002, p. 183) 19 have an abundance of 0–0.03 fish/m elevation streams which are narrower In our previous status review (67 FR (0–50 fish/mi) and 31 have an and shallower than larger, lower 39938), we concluded that a population abundance of 0.03–0.09 fish/m (50–150 elevation, streams. The longer a stream size of 2,500 fish would ensure long- fish/mi). These low abundances indicate is, the more complexity it encompasses term persistence of Rio Grande cutthroat that on average, Rio Grande cutthroat and the higher the probability that no trout, i.e., would reduce the risks trout need longer, rather than shorter, particular habitat type limits the associated with small population size stream segments to ensure their long- population. alone. Since that time other peer- term persistence because longer streams Hilderbrand and Kershner (2000, p. reviewed literature has been published support larger numbers of fish 515) estimated 8.3 km (5.1 mi) were that allows us to further evaluate this (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, p. required to maintain a population of number. Reed et al. (2003, p. 30), in a 515). 2,500 cutthroat trout when fish review of 102 vertebrate species, In 2002, we identified 13 Rio Grande abundance was high (0.3 fish/m (0.09 estimate that sufficient habitat should cutthroat trout populations as secure (67 fish/ft)). Adding a 10 percent loss rate, be present to allow for approximately FR 39940). All 13 had populations over to account for emigration and mortality, 7,000 breeding age adults in order to 2,500, contained no nonnative trout, increased the length up to 9.3 km (5.8 ensure long-term species persistence. and were protected from invasion by mi) in order to maintain 2,500 fish. For Cowley (2007 DOI: 10.1002/aqc.845) nonnative fish by a barrier. By 2007, 5 abundances of 0.2 fish/m (0.06 fish/ft) found that a population size of 2,500 of these populations had fewer than and 0.1 fish/m (0.03 fish/ft), the Rio Grande cutthroat trout failed to meet 1,000 fish and 3 others had fewer than corresponding length increased to 12.5 the desired long-term effective 2,000. One of the populations km (7.8 mi) and 25 km (15.5 mi), population size (number of adults (approximately 13,000 fish in 2002) is respectively (assuming no losses) actually contributing offspring to the thought to have been extirpated by low (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, p. 15). population) of at least 500. A minimum water effects (the stream either dried or Young et al. (2005, p. 2405) found that population size of 2,750 was sufficient froze). were discovered to maintain a population of 2,500 if there was infrequent loss of year above the barrier on one of the streams. cutthroat trout, 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of stream classes (all the individuals of a The status of only 5 populations were needed. Cowley (2007 DOI: population of fishes born or hatched in remained unchanged between 2002 and 10.1002/aqc.845) determined that in the same year). He found that a larger 2007. stream widths of approximately 2 m (6.6 population size was required as survival A ‘‘general health assessment’’ was ft) (average width of most Rio Grande rate of young fish (one year or less) used by Alves et al. (2007, pp. 41–43)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27905

to look at the health of individual assigned the lowest weights. This rating cutthroat trout conservation populations populations. Sixty-eight populations system is heavily biased towards primarily on stream length (9.6 km (6 (798 km (496 mi)) were judged to have production and does not provide a mi) or greater), population size (more a moderately high degree of health, 50 balanced assessment of population than 2,500 fish), and presence or (264 km (164 mi)) moderately low, and health. However, even with this absence of nonnative fish (Tables 1 and 1 (3.2 km (2 mi)) ranked as having low unbalanced health assessment, only one 2). All streams with a length of over 9.6 health (Alves et al. 2007, p. 42). Four stream ranked as having high health, km (6 mi) were initially evaluated. factors were considered in the Comanche Creek. A major restoration of Stream miles in Tables 1 and 2 include assessment: isolation, temporal Comanche Creek began in 2007, and all miles in the conservation population variability (a measure of variability in while we fully expect it to be restocked when more than one stream is the physical environment which with nonintrogressed Rio Grande connected. Habitat condition and correlates with stream length), cutthroat trout in the future, it has no presence of a barrier are also presented population size, and population Rio Grande cutthroat trout currently. in Tables 1 and 2 because these factors It has been argued that small, isolated production (a composite score based on are also considered important in populations have persisted for decades habitat condition, presence of evaluating the status of the populations. (Patten and Sloane 2007, p. 3). However, nonnatives, and disease) (Alves et al. Eight streams (4 in Colorado, 3 in New 2007, pp. 82, 83, 89). These factors were Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations Mexico, one shared) currently have over weighted in the following order: have only been monitored and 2,500 fish, are 9.6 km (6 mi) or longer, isolation (0.5), stream length (0.7), intensively managed during the last 50 and have no nonnative fish present population size (1.2), and population years or less, and habitat conditions and production (1.6). The first 3 factors have stressors are very different from historic (Table 1). In addition, the main stem of a range of 1 to 4, while the last, conditions. Consequently, long-term these streams is greater than 1.5 m (5 ft) population production, has a range of 2 persistence cannot be appropriately (although tributaries to the main stem to 8 (Alves et al. 2007, p. 89), effectively assessed. In addition, as Hilderbrand may be less than this width) and all doubling its importance beyond the and Kershner state (2000, p. 517), have abundances of 151 fish per mile or greater weighting (1.6) assigned to it. although some isolated populations may greater. Five of the streams, Cross, Rationale for the weighting scheme is have persisted for centuries, these Medano, San Francisco, Canones, and El not provided. Many scoring systems populations are probably exceptions. To Rito creeks, were identified as secure in could be devised to determine assume all isolated populations will 2002. Although these eight streams meet population health and it is unclear why behave similarly may lead to the criteria, some have characteristics isolation and stream length, two factors insufficient protection (Hilderbrand and that are less than optimal (Table 1). For that have been discussed extensively in Kershner 2000, p. 517). instance, habitat quality in Cross and conservation biology and cutthroat trout Based on the arguments presented Canones creeks is judged as ‘‘Fair.’’ In conservation literature (e.g., Saunders et above, we determined that stream Canones Creek, the percentage of pools al. 1991, pp. 18–26; Dunham et al. 1997, length, population size, and absence of (9 percent) is low and it was found to p. 1130; Hilderbrand and Kershner nonnative trout are the most important be at risk by Santa Fe National Forest 2000, p. 513; Frankham et al. 2002, criteria by which to evaluate long-term temperature standards (Ferrell 2006) Chapter 13; Young et al. 2005, p. 2405; population persistence. We have (discussed in more detail in the Noss et al. 2006, Chapter 7) were evaluated the status of Rio Grande ‘‘Climate Change’’ section below).

TABLE 1.—RIO GRANDE CONSERVATION POPULATIONS WITH UNALTERED (< 1%) GENETIC STATUS OCCURRING IN STREAM LENGTHS GREATER THAN 9.6 KM (6 MI), WITH GREATER THAN 2,500 FISH, AND NO NONNATIVE TROUT PRESENT

Population Length in km size (mi) Habitat condition Ownership State Barrier

San Francisco Creek ... 3,820 23.5 (14.6) Excellent ...... USFS, Private ...... CO Water diversion. Torcido Creek ...... 6,042 16.7 (10.4) Good ...... Private ...... CO Drying. Medano Creek ...... 5,795 33.6 (20.9) Excellent ...... NPS, USFS ...... CO None. Cross Creek ...... 3,675 12.9 (8.0) Fair ...... BLM, USFS, Private ... CO None. Costilla Creek ...... 5,200 21.1 (13.1) Excellent ...... Private ...... NM, CO Temporary/Manmade. Alamitos Creek ...... 3,080 11.4 (7.1) Good ...... USFS ...... NM Partial/Water diver- sion. El Rito Creek ...... 4,401 10.3 (6.4) Good ...... USFS ...... NM Temporary/Manmade. Canones Creek ...... 3,683 9.7 (6.0) Fair ...... USFS ...... NM Waterfall.

Table 2 shows all the other Rio per mile) is provided in Table 2 because lengths greater than 9.6 km (6 mi), all Grande cutthroat trout conservation some of these have less than 150 fish appear at risk for one or more reasons. populations in stream lengths greater per mile, and, as mentioned above, for Two additional streams (Osier and than 9.6 km (6 mi). Six of the populations with 0–50 or 50–150 fish Cascade) have strong populations 3,239 populations have more than 2,500 Rio per mile, a longer stream length would and 2,372, respectively, with no Grande cutthroat trout, but all of these be needed to ensure long-term nonnative trout present. However, have nonnative brook trout present as persistence. It should also be noted that stream length for Osier Creek is only 5.9 well. In addition, 4 of these have habitat Sangre de Cristo Creek has tested km (3.7 mi) and for Cascade it is 4.7 km quality judged as fair and one is in a positive for whirling disease. For all of (2.9 mi). While these populations do stream with a width less than 1.5 m (5 these reasons, although the Rio Grande currently contribute to the status of the ft) wide, which puts it at risk for drying cutthroat conservation populations subspecies range-wide, they are (as discussed below). Abundance (fish presented in Table 2 occur in stream considered too short to ensure long-term

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

persistence as their shorter length makes from ash flow or other localized them more vulnerable to extirpation disturbance.

TABLE 2.—RIO GRANDE CONSERVATION POPULATIONS IN STREAM LENGTHS GREATER THAN 9.6 KM (6 MI), SORTED BY POPULATION SIZE. NONNATIVE SPECIES MAY BE PRESENT OR ABSENT. BRK = BROOK TROUT, BRN = BROWN TROUT, WS = WHITE SUCKER

Abundance Stream name Population (fish per Length in km Nonnatives Habitat Width in State Barrier size mile) (mi) present condition feet

Jacks Creek ...... 4,849 ...... > 400 ...... 18.5 (11.5) BRK ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... CO Drying. Cabresto Creek ...... 4,570 ...... > 400 ...... 13.7 (8.5) BRK ...... Fair ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM Diversion. Sangre de Cristo Creek 3,793 ...... 151 to 400 36.2 (22.5) BRK ...... Fair ...... 5 to 10 ...... CO Partial/Diversion. South Carnero Creek .. 3,748 ...... 151 to 400 22.9 (14.2) BRK, BRN, Fair ...... 10 to 15 .... CO None. WS. West Indian Creek ...... 3,345 ...... 151 to 400 17.1 (10.6) BRK ...... Excellent .. 5 to 10 ...... CO Manmade dam. Trinchera Creek ...... 2,941 ...... 151 to 400 14.5 (9.0) BRK ...... Excellent .. 10 to 15 .... CO None. Polvadera Creek ...... 2,045 ...... 151 to 400 12.1 (7.5) None ...... Poor ...... < 5 ...... NM Waterfall. Jacks Creek ...... 1,504 ...... 151 to 400 11.3 (7.0) None ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM Temporary/Manmade. Jim Creek ...... 1,283 ...... 151 to 400 10.0 (6.2) BRK ...... Poor ...... 5 to 10 ...... CO None. Ute Creek ...... 1,260 ...... 50 to 150 .. 13.8 (8.6) None ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM None. Rio de Truchas ...... 692 ...... 50 to 150 .. 10.5 (6.5) None ...... Fair ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM Diversion. Little Vermejo Creek .... 680 ...... 50 to 150 .. 11.9 (7.4) BRK ...... Excellent .. 5 to 10 ...... NM Temporary/Manmade. Vallejos Creek ...... 678 ...... 50 to 150 .. 11.7 (7.3) BRN ...... Good ...... 10 to 15 .... CO None. Cave Creek ...... 411 ...... 50 to 150 .. 10.1 (6.3) BRK, BRN, Fair ...... 5 to 10 ...... CO None. WS. East Pass Creek ...... 369 ...... 50 to 150 .. 11.1 (6.9) None ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... CO Drying. Middle Carnero Creek 344 ...... < 50 ...... 11.3 (7.0) WS ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... CO Manmade dam. Ricardo Creek ...... 271 ...... 50 to 150 .. 14.5 (9.0) BRK ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... CO Temporary/Manmade. Torsido Creek ...... 250 ...... 50 to 150 .. 10.3 (6.4) BRK ...... Poor ...... < 5 ...... CO None. Wagon Creek ...... 246 ...... 151 to 500 20.9 (13.0) BRK ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... CO Partial/Diversion. McCrystal Creek ...... 236 ...... < 50 ...... 15.1 (9.4) None ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM Temporary. South Ponil Creek ...... 202 ...... < 50 ...... 15.3 (9.5) None ...... Good ...... 5 to 10 ...... NM Temporary/Manmade. Rio de Oso ...... 194 ...... < 50 ...... 12.4 (7.7) None ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... NM None. Capulin Creek ...... 186 ...... < 50 ...... 11.9 (7.4) None ...... Excellent .. 5 to 10 ...... NM Drying. North Fork Carnero 97 ...... < 50 ...... 13.0 (8.1) WS ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... CO Manmade dam. Creek. Cat Creek ...... Unknown .. Unknown .. 15.1 (9.4) None ...... Fair ...... < 5 ...... CO Drying.

Habitat fragmentation is a threat that been drafted so that the Costilla Creek mistakes. While many stream segments can be partially alleviated by project can be extended downstream. have been restored and the Costilla and management activities. Three major Successful implementation of this Placer watershed projects are in watershed-scale projects have been project would lead to the restoration of progress, no major watershed initiated on both private and USFS approximately 241 km (150 mi) and 25 restorations have been completed. lands and are in various phases of lakes (Patten and Sloane 2007, p. 7). The The Service has evaluated the data implementation. A joint project between Placer watershed in Colorado also presented by Alves et al. (2007) and Vermejo Park Ranch and the states of underwent chemical treatment in 2007. supplemental information requested Colorado and New Mexico to restore the This watershed has the potential for related to the database. Based on our Costilla Creek watershed began in 2002 approximately 80.5 km (50 mi) of knowledge of Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Patten et al. 2007, pp 95–102). The connected stream. If successful, the populations that we previously restoration removed brook trout, brown Costilla and Placer watersheds would classified as secure in 2002, and all of trout, and introgressed cutthroat trout represent substantial gains in the goal of the information available to us we and reintroduced Rio Grande cutthroat creating connected stream systems for conclude: (1) The majority of Rio Grande trout into Costilla Creek, 2 tributaries, Rio Grande cutthroat trout. cutthroat trout populations (93 percent) and 3 small lakes, totaling 22 km (13.6 While watershed restoration can are in isolated fragments less than 8 km miles) of stream and 9.5 ha (23.5 ac) of reconnect streams and is the best (5 mi) long (71 percent); lake (project is discussed further in the method for addressing fragmentation, (2) Populations are concentrated in ‘‘Fisheries Management’’ section below). major restoration projects face many high elevation (2,438 to 3,048 m (8,000 As part of the larger Costilla Project, 34 challenges including: negative public to 10,000 ft)) headwater streams that km (21.1 mi) of Comanche Creek and sentiment towards using piscicides in provide marginal habitat, especially in selected tributaries were chemically streams which slows or stops projects regards to the number and depth of treated with piscicides (chemicals that (Patten et al. 2007, p. 102), incomplete pools critical for trout survival in times kill fish) in 2007. Most likely a second treatment which leaves nonnatives of environmental extremes; treatment will be required and will be present, sabatoge of the treatment area (3) The drought in the early 2000s had completed in 2008 before Rio Grande (unauthorized introduction of nonnative resulted in adverse effects on several cutthroat trout are stocked back into the trout) (Japhet et al. 2007, p. 17), populations (discussed in more detail in watershed. A draft Candidate subsequent barrier failure which allows the ‘‘Climate Change’’ section below); Conservation Agreement with nonnatives to reinvade a system (Japhet (4) Eight of 13 populations we had Assurances with private landowners has et al. 2007, p. 15), and inadvertent identified as secure in 2002 would no

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27907

longer meet the criteria we used at that quality had some attributes that are less they are also relatively shallow, and time (67 FR 39937); and than ideal, and fair habitat has a greater thus provide limited refugial habitat in (5) Only eight populations currently number of attributes that are less than times of stream freezing or drying. Lack meet our revised criteria for long-term ideal. Poor habitat quality is found of deep pools could affect year-class persistence. where most habitat attributes reflect survival. As noted by Cowley (2007 Although additional populations may inferior conditions. Approximately 224 DOI: 10.1002/acq.845) loss of a year have greater than 2,500 fish or are in km (139 mi) (20.2 percent of occupied class of fish would suggest that longer streams longer than 9.6 km (6 mi), there habitat) received an excellent habitat stream length is needed to provide are additional significant threats to rating. Good habitat conditions were adequate habitat for long-term those populations that put their long- found in 426 km (265 mi) of habitat population persistence. However, as term persistence in question. For these (38.4 percent of occupied habitat), and mentioned above, the sample size (19 reasons, we find that Rio Grande fair habitat conditions were found in streams) is relatively small and it is not cutthroat trout is threatened by 335 km (208 mi) of habitat (30.1 percent known if the results accurately fragmentation, isolation, and loss of of occupied habitat). Poor conditions represent Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat throughout its range. While were found in 35 km (22 mi) (3.2 streams range-wide. watershed restoration may alleviate this percent of occupied habitat), and habitat Livestock grazing occurs in the threat in the future, insufficient progress conditions in 90 km (56 mi) (8.1 vicinity of 87 percent of the Rio Grande has been made to alleviate the threat of percent) were unknown (Alves 2007, p. cutthroat trout populations (Alves 2007, fragmentation range-wide at this time. 2). The majority of occupied habitat p. 49). We recognize that improper (58.6 percent) is considered in good or grazing does cause adverse impacts (e.g., Habitat Condition excellent condition (Alves et al. 2007, p. loss of cover, increased sedimentation, Many Rio Grande cutthroat trout 20). loss of riparian vegetation) to some conservation populations currently The Service also reviewed 19 detailed individual populations of Rio Grande occupy lands administered by Federal stream survey reports which were cutthroat trout, especially during agencies. Of the total 1,110 km (690 mi) conducted by the Santa Fe and Carson drought conditions when the cattle tend of occupied habitat, 698 km (434 mi) (63 national forests in the period 2001– to concentrate in riparian areas. While percent) are under Federal jurisdiction, 2006. Although these surveys represent a few of the USFS stream surveys noted with the majority (59 percent) occurring only about one quarter of the that impacts by cattle (or elk) were within National Forests (Alves et al. conservation populations in New causing localized problems, grazing was 2007). Rio Grande cutthroat trout Mexico (19 of 84 populations), both not cited as causing damage throughout occupy 6.1 km (3.8 mi) of land large (i.e., Pecos River, Rio de las Vacas, the length of any stream. Specific administered by the BLM, 30.5 km (19 Comanche Creek) and small (i.e., Yerba, information on grazing impacts to Rio mi) managed by the National Park Manzanita creeks) streams are Grande cutthroat trout habitat on a Service, and 397 km (247 mi) that are represented. Therefore, these surveys range-wide basis is not available. We owned privately. provide additional insight into the have no information that leads us to Land uses associated with each habitat condition on USFS lands. Of the conclude that improper grazing is a conservation population were identified 19 streams surveyed, the most significant threat to Rio Grande in Alves et al. (2007, p. 49, Table 33), consistent problem is lack of pool cutthroat trout range-wide. but the impact of the activities was not habitat. Of the 19 streams, 18 had less Timber harvest and associated road evaluated in relation to individual than the 30 percent pool habitat (range building has also led to the deterioration populations or the conservation of the 1–21 percent) needed to be considered of Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat. subspecies. Non-angling recreation (e.g., properly functioning trout streams. For However, timber harvest in the National camping, hiking, ATV use, etc.) occurs eight of these streams, a target value of Forests has declined appreciably in the in 90 percent of the conservation 30 percent pool habitat was not last 20 years. As an example, on the two populations, and angling occurs in 84 considered appropriate because they forests in New Mexico that have percent of the conservation populations. were 1st or 2nd order streams (i.e., conservation populations, the Santa Fe Livestock grazing occurs within the headwater streams) which often have National Forest and Carson National zone of influence (area around the few pools naturally because they occur Forest, there has been a total of 3.2 ha stream in which activities influence on high gradient slopes. But for four of (8 ac) clear cut since 1995 (Fink 2008 stream habitat) of 87 percent of the these eight streams, the pool habitat pp. 2, 3). The average amount of timber conservation populations, roads in 58 ranged from 1–3 percent and the reports cut per year from 1984 to 1994 in these percent, timber harvest in 19 percent, noted that even for headwater streams forests was 27.6 and 19 million board dewatering in 17 percent, and mining in this was an insufficient number of feet (MBF), respectively. From 1995 to 3 percent. Only 3 populations (3 pools. 2005, the average amount cut per year percent) were judged as having no land In most streams (16 of 19) the average was 3.5 and 0.09 MBF, respectively use activities within a zone that would residual pool volume, which represents (Fink 2008, pp. 2, 3). While the effects influence the stream habitat. Many initial pool depth if the stream were to of past logging practices may still be populations have more than one land dry, met the USFS standard of 0.3 m (1 evident on the landscape in some use occurring in the area. ft) or greater. However, the deepest locations, we conclude that timber An evaluation of habitat quality was average residual pool volume was only harvest is not currently a threat to Rio conducted for currently occupied 0.67 m (2.2 ft) and the mean depth of Grande cutthroat trout populations. habitat (Alves et al. 2007, p. 20). The pools for all 19 streams was 0.39 m (1.3 Roads and off-road vehicles can have evaluation considered both natural ft), indicating that the majority of pools negative impacts on stream habitat habitat features and human are relatively shallow. primarily through increased disturbances, including land use Pools are recognized as important sedimentation which degrades practices. A stream ranked excellent if overwintering habitat and also are spawning habitat. Non-angling it had ample pool habitat, low sediment holding areas for trout when streams recreation (which includes hiking and levels, optimal temperatures, and dry. Not only are the number of pools camping as well as off-road vehicle use) quality riparian habitat. Good habitat consistently fewer than desirable, but is present near 90 percent of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

conservation populations. On November sampled by the USFS in New Mexico, juveniles, leading to a reduction in 9, 2005, the USFS published revised we cannot draw the same conclusion population size (Peterson et al. 2004, p. rules regarding travel management on range-wide at this time because of lack 769). Experiments where brook trout their lands (70 FR 68264). One of the of data. Alves et al. (2007 database) did were removed from cutthroat trout primary purposes of the rule is to not identify a lack of pools as a populations showed an increase in the protect natural resources. The final rule systematic problem. While land survival of juvenile cutthroat trout requires the designation of roads, trails, management practices have clearly (Peterson et al. 2004, p. 767). Paroz and areas that are open to motor vehicle improved and have less direct impact (2005, p. 22) found that mean density use by class of vehicle and, if on Rio Grande cutthroat trout streams, and relative weight of Rio Grande appropriate, time of year. Use of motor some streams are still recovering from cutthroat trout were lower in vehicles off designated routes will be past land management practices. populations sympatric with brook trout. prohibited (70 FR 68264). The Service Therefore we conclude that there is Several Rio Grande cutthroat trout has begun consultation on the Travel insufficient information to indicate that conservation populations have been Management Plans proposed by habitat quality currently is a significant identified as at risk and declining National Forests in USFS Region 3 threat to Rio Grande cutthroat trout because of brook trout (Alves et al. 2002, (Arizona and New Mexico) and rangewide. pp. 1–4). protecting aquatic resources is an In New Mexico, brown trout is the Nonnative Species important component of these plans. most common nonnative trout present While roads have been identified as an The introduction of nonnative trout is in Rio Grande cutthroat trout area of concern for some streams (e.g., widely recognized as one of the leading conservation populations (summarized Tio Grande, Rio Grande del Rancho, causes of range reduction in cutthroat from 2007 database). Not only are brown Martinez 2001, 2002), we conclude that trout subspecies (Griffith 1988, pp. 134, trout piscivores (feed on other fish), but roads are not a threat to Rio Grande 137; Lassuy 1995, p. 394; Henderson et they have also been shown to compete cutthroat trout populations range-wide. al. 2000, pp. 584, 585; Dunham et al. with Rio Grande cutthroat trout for Management agencies are actively 2002, p. 374; Peterson et al. 2004, resources such as food and space. working towards improving habitat p. 769). Dunham et al. (2004) provide an Research has shown that Rio Grande conditions for Rio Grande cutthroat overview of the impact of nonnatives on cutthroat trout confined with brown trout. In addition to the travel headwater systems in North America. trout grew significantly less, while the management rule on USFS lands, Since the late 1800s, fishery managers brown trout grew significantly more, several projects have been completed introduced nonnative salmonids (trout than control fish (Shemai et al. 2007, recently to address habitat degradation and salmon species) into lake and pp. 315, 320, 321). A similar result was caused by roads. For example, grant stream habitats of Rio Grande cutthroat seen in experiments conducted with money was obtained and used to trout. Nonnative rainbow, brook, brown Bonneville cutthroat trout and brown inventory and identify 97 road trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout trout (McHugh and Budy 2005, p. 2788). improvement projects to reduce have been introduced extensively These results indicate that brown trout sediment input into Comanche Creek throughout the range of Rio Grande represent a threat to Rio Grande (Martinez 2006, p. 5). Six culverts were cutthroat trout, and they compete (brook cutthroat trout from competition as well installed or realigned and ten sediment and brown trout) and hybridize as predation (Paroz 2005, p. 34). traps and energy dissipaters were (rainbow and other cutthroat The primary threat to Rio Grande installed below culvert spillways. subspecies) with Rio Grande cutthroat cutthroat trout from rainbow trout and Culverts that drained directly into trout. Forty-six of 120 conservation other cutthroat trout subspecies is Comanche Creek were removed. populations (38 percent) have nonnative through hybridization and introgression Abandoned logging roads were trout present (2007 database). When Rio (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, pp. 83, stabilized and unneeded roads were re- Grande cutthroat trout occur in the same 97). The genetic distinctiveness of Rio contoured to natural slope and re- stream as nonnative trout, Rio Grande Grande cutthroat trout can be lost vegetated (USFS 2006, pp.18–19). In cutthroat trout typically occupy the through hybridization (Allendorf et al. 2006, on the Santa Fe National Forest, colder, headwater reaches and the 2004, p. 1205). Of the 120 conservation over 1,829 m (6,000 ft) of buck and pole nonnative trout occupy areas populations, 95 (79 percent) range-wide fence was constructed to improve traffic downstream (Griffith 1988, p. 135; have been tested and are less than 1 control and enforce an off-road vehicle Dunham et al. 1999, p. 885). percent introgressed (Alves et al. 2007, closure around Rio Cebolla. Competition from nonnative trout, p. 31). These nonintrogressed Approximately 17.7 km (11 mi) of especially brook trout, is recognized as populations occupy 870 km (541 mi), or stream and riparian habitat was a threat to Rio Grande cutthroat trout 78 percent, of the 1110 km (690 mi) protected by this project (USFS 2006, (Behnke 2002, p. 147; Peterson et al. occupied by conservation populations p. 12). On the Rio Grande National 2004, pp. 768, 769). When brook trout (Alves et al. 2007, p. 31). Another 161 Forest, road-stream crossing inventories invade streams occupied by cutthroat km (100 mi) are occupied by and assessments were conducted for all trout, the native cutthroat trout decline populations that are 90–99 percent streams with conservation populations or are displaced (Griffith 1988, p. 136; genetically pure, and 104 km (65 mi) are to determine if the culverts were Harig et al. 2000, pp. 994, 998, 999; occupied by populations that have not barriers to fish (USFS 2006, p. 4). Most Dunham et al. 2002, p. 378; Peterson et been tested but are connected to of the 120 conservation populations (90 al. 2004, p. 769; Young and Guenther- nonintrogressed populations and have percent) have one or more restoration, Gloss 2004, p. 193; Fausch et al. 2006, no record of stocking (Alves et al. 2007, conservation, or management activities p. 6). Brook trout are the most common p. 34). either completed or currently being nonnative trout sympatric (co-occurring) To minimize the contact of nonnative implemented (Alves et al. 2007, p. 60). with Rio Grande cutthroat trout trout with Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Range-wide habitat quality is still populations in Colorado (2007 barriers have been constructed where difficult to accurately assess. Although database). Brook trout reduce natural barriers didn’t already exist in an insufficient amount of pool habitat recruitment of cutthroat trout and order to prevent nonnatives from exists on the majority of streams reduce inter-annual survival of invading. Alves et al. (2007, pp. 35, 36)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27909

rated the genetic risk to the 120 seldom if ever is complete removal those with an inadequate number of conservation populations. A possible (Patten et al. 2007, p. 104). deep pools, are most likely to lose combination of barrier condition or Peterson et al. (2004, p. 769) show that suitable habitat. Even if streams do not presence and distance to hybridizing over 90 percent of the brook trout dry (or freeze) completely, stream length species, determined if a population was population must be removed each year can be truncated during drought and at moderate or low risk (Alves et al. for 3 consecutive years to allow a large many fish can perish, greatly reducing 2007, p. 80). Populations protected by a cohort of Colorado River cutthroat trout the population number (bottleneck) and complete barrier fell into the no risk to survive from age 0 to age 2. This level reducing genetic diversity (Frankham et category. They determined that 80 had of effort has not been documented for al. 2002, p. 183). no risk of genetic mixing with nonnative stream segments occupied by Rio Because of the documented trout, 32 were at moderate risk, and 4 Grande cutthroat trout populations (e.g., extirpation and population reductions were at low risk. As mentioned earlier, Japhet et al. 2007, p. 26). of Rio Grande cutthroat trout caused by four populations that Alves et al. (2007, The Service concludes that nonnative drought, the possibility of more pp. 35, 36) consider conservation fish are a threat to Rio Grande cutthroat widespread drought accompanying populations are sympatric with a trout range-wide based on the following climate change, and the lack of a range- hybridizing species, and, therefore, we facts: wide plan to address drought, we consider them at high risk. (1) Approximately 38 percent of the conclude that drought is a threat to Rio Since 2002, NMDGF and CDOW conservation populations have Grande cutthroat trout throughout its visited approximately 40 and 50 Rio nonnative trout present; range (discussed in ‘‘Climate Change’’ Grande cutthroat trout conservation (2) Nonnative fish are a documented section below). populations, respectively, to assess threat to Rio Grande cutthroat trout Fire barrier presence and condition. Seven populations; new barriers have been installed since (3) Mechanical removal cannot Wildfires are a natural disturbance in 2002, and maintenance was done on at remove all of the nonnative fish; forested watersheds. However, since the least eight (Japhet et al. 2007, pp. 24, 25; (4) The level of effort required to mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in Patten et al. 2007, pp. 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, reduce brook trout populations to levels western forests has nearly quadrupled 53). Both agencies have also sufficient for survival of young Rio compared to the average frequency mechanically and chemically removed Grande cutthroat trout is not currently during the period 1970–1986. The total nonnative trout from Rio Grande being conducted; and, area burned is more than six and a half cutthroat trout streams. NMDGF (5) The number of streams that need times the previous level (Westerling et removed nonnatives from 11 streams, regular treatment exceeds the capability al. 2006, p. 941). In addition, the and CDOW removed them from two of resource managers at their current average length of the fire season during (Patten and Sloane 2007, p. 5; Japhet et staffing levels. 1987–2003 was 78 days longer compared to that during 1970–1986 and al. 2007, p. 26). Drought Since 2002, CDOW and NMDGF have the average time between fire discovery also proactively pursued genetic testing The relatively short-term drought of and control was 29.6 days longer of Rio Grande cutthroat trout the early 2000s negatively impacted or (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). populations using the best technologies extirpated 14 Rio Grande cutthroat trout Westerling et al. (2006, p. 942) found available. In many instances, the results populations in Colorado and New that wildfire sensitivity was related to confirmed previous assessments of Mexico (Japhet et al. 2007, pp. 42–44; snowmelt timing with 56 percent of genetic purity, while in other cases Patten et al. 2007, pp. 14–40). A fires and 72 percent of burned area populations were either upgraded or fifteenth population is thought to have occurring in early snowmelt years. Early downgraded (Japhet et al. 2007, pp. 46– been extirpated in 2006 by complete spring snowmelt is strongly associated 47; Patten et al. 2007, pp. 43–45). freezing caused by low flow in the with spring temperature (Stewart et al. Diagnostic markers for Yellowstone winter (Ferrell 2006, p. 11). The number 2004, p. 218; Westerling et al. 2006, p. cutthroat trout were also identified, of streams impacted may have been 942). Westerling et al. (2006, p. 942) which has led to more refined testing greater, because managers only survey a conclude that there are robust statistical and more confidence in the fraction of the 120 conservation associations between wildfire and categorization of the populations. The populations in any given year. climate in western forests and that most recent results were used in the We assume that small streams (1.5 m increased fire activity over recent 2007 database. Results of the testing can (5 ft) wide or less) are more susceptible decades reflects responses to climate be found in peer-reviewed literature to drying, increased water temperatures, change (discussed further in the (e.g., Pritchard et al. 2007a, Pritchard et and freezing than larger ones and that ‘‘Climate Change’’ section below). al. 2007b) and in reports to the States stream width is an indicator of risk. In the Southwest, the fire season is (e.g., Pritchard and Cowley 2005). Decreased stream flow reduces the followed by the monsoon season (July to Approximately 38 percent of Rio amount of habitat available for aquatic August). Consequently, denuded Grande cutthroat trout conservation species, and water quality (e.g., watersheds are susceptible to heavy populations co-occur with nonnative temperature, dissolved oxygen) may precipitation leading to severe floods trout (2007 database). Competition, become unacceptable in declining flow. and ash flows. Although fish may predation, and hybridization with Approximately 27 conservation survive the fire, ash and debris flows nonnative trout are considered an populations are in streams that are 1.5 that occur after a fire can eliminate important source of stress that can m (5 ft) or less in width throughout their populations of fish from a stream (Rinne depress Rio Grande cutthroat trout entire length (2007 database). An 1996, p. 654; Brown et al. 2001, p. 142; population numbers or, under the right additional 29 stream segments that are USFS 2006, p. 32; Patten et al. 2007, p. circumstances, displace them (Fausch et tributaries to the conservation 33), and the fire suppression activities al. 2006, pp. 9, 10). Although resource populations are also less than 1.5 m (5 (e.g., fire retardant, water removal, road agencies remove nonnative trout feet) in width (2007 database). Although construction) may also impact stream through electrofishing when they co- not all small streams have equal risk, ecosystems (Buhl and Hamilton 2000, occur with cutthroat trout subspecies, small headwater streams, especially pp. 410–416; Backer et al. 2004, pp. 942,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27910 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

943). Wildfires within the range of Rio subalpine forests (Schoennagel et al. threatening their long-term persistence. Grande cutthroat trout have impacted or 2004, p. 666). Detailed habitat surveys, although not eliminated fish populations (Japhet et Wildfires that eliminate nonnative available range-wide, are uniformly al. 2007, p. 20; Ferrell 2006, p. 32; fish provide the opportunity to reclaim consistent in documenting a lack of Patten et al. 2007, pp. 33, 36), and the streams for Rio Grande cutthroat trout. pools in streams occupied by Rio effects of large fires are recognized as a The 1996 Dome Fire in the Jemez Grande cutthroat trout. Deep pools are threat to greenback cutthroat Mountains (Santa Fe National Forest) considered a critically important (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) extirpated the fish residing in Capulin element of Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations in Colorado (Young and Canyon. In 2006, after 10 years of habitat. As discussed above, in order to Guenther-Gloss 2004, p. 194). Imperiled habitat recovery, 100 Rio Grande ensure some level of population fish populations can be rescued if ash cutthroat trout from Canones Creek were stability and contribute to the long-term flows are imminent, but a rescue and stocked into Rio Capulin adding 11.2 persistence of the subspecies, evacuation plan should be in place (e.g., km (7.0 mi) of occupied habitat in New populations should consist of more than Brooks 2004, pp. 1–15). Mexico (Patten et al. 2007, p. 94). In 2,500 fish, occupy 9.6 km (6 mi) of Dunham et al. (2007, p. 342) found addition, ash flows after the 2004 stream or more, and have no nonnative significantly elevated stream Peppin Fire in the Capitan Wilderness trout present. Currently, only eight Rio temperatures for at least a decade after (Lincoln National Forest) apparently Grande cutthroat trout populations meet a stand-replacing wildfire because of the eliminated all fish from Pine Lodge these criteria. Nonnative trout co-occur lack of stream shading. In addition, the Creek and Copeland Creek (Patten et al. with 38 percent of Rio Grande cutthroat authors suggest that longer term (over 20 2007, pp. 255–258), and there are plans trout conservation populations. Because years) increases in stream temperatures to restore Rio Grande cutthroat trout of the documented negative impacts of are likely in systems where debris flows into these streams. Restoration of Pine nonnative trout on cutthroat trout or severe floods completely eliminate Lodge Creek would add approximately discussed above, nonnatives are an streamside vegetation and reorganize 4 km (2.5 mi) of habitat in the Pecos ongoing threat to the security of Rio the channel. Rainbow trout were found Headwaters GMU (Patten et al. 2007, p. Grande cutthroat trout. Additionally, to be resilient and recolonized the 255). although drought and fire have Although we recognize that Rio burned streams within 1 year of impacted a limited number of Grande cutthroat trout evolved in a extirpation in spite of elevated water populations since the last status review, landscape that included fire, wildfire temperatures (Dunham et al. 2007, p. negative impacts from these two factors intensities and size are likely changing 343). Dunham et al. (2003a, pp. 188, may increase in response to climate because of increased fuel loads and 189) suggest that fire poses a greater change (as discussed in the ‘‘Climate possibly climate change (see ‘‘Climate Change’’ section below). Based on the threat to fish populations when habitat Change’’ section below). Wildfire today is fragmented. Moyle and Light (1996, p. best scientific and commercial is much more of a threat than it was information available to us, we 157) argue that habitat degradation historically to Rio Grande cutthroat favors nonnative fishes and that species conclude that the present or threatened trout because of existing habitat loss, destruction, modification, or with narrow habitat requirements are fragmentation, and climate change. curtailment of its habitat or range is a expected to be more sensitive to habitat These multiple stressors may threat to the continued existence of Rio alteration caused by fire than generalist overwhelm the subspecies’ resilience to Grande cutthroat trout. species such as rainbow trout (Dunham disturbance such as fire (Rieman et al. et al. 2003a, p. 189). 2005, pp. 2, 3). Although fire may also B. Overutilization for Commercial, Fire risk can be reduced through fuels provide opportunity for repatriation of Recreational, Scientific, or Educational reduction and prescribed burns. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout by Purposes National Forests in New Mexico have eliminating nonnative fish, total No commercial harvest occurs for Rio active programs to improve forest elimination of nonnative fish from fire- Grande cutthroat trout. Recreational health. As an example, 28,314 ha affected streams is not guaranteed, and angling occurs on approximately 84 (69,965 ac) have undergone fuel- it may take many years for the habitat percent of the populations (Alves et al. reduction treatment, thereby improving to become suitable. For these reasons, 2007, p. 49). Fishing regulations in New watershed conditions associated with we conclude that wildfire is a Mexico and Colorado appropriately 100 km (62 miles) of stream, and an significant threat to Rio Grande manage recreational angling. For additional 58,912 ha (145,575 ac) are cutthroat trout throughout its range. example, many of the streams with Rio planned for treatment to improve Grande cutthroat trout are ‘‘catch and conditions associated with an additional Summary of Factor A release.’’ Those that are not have a 2 128 km (79.5 mi) of stream (Ferrel 2002, In summary, Rio Grande cutthroat (New Mexico) or 4 (Colorado) fish limit. p. 12). Such techniques have been found trout populations have been and Many of the streams with pure to reduce fire severity even under continue to be impacted by habitat populations of Rio Grande cutthroat extreme weather conditions in low- fragmentation and isolation, nonnative trout are remote and angling pressure is elevation ponderosa pine forests species interactions, drought, and fire. light. For these reasons, angling is not (Schoennagel et al. 2004, p. 669). Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation considered a threat to Rio Grande However, for mid-elevation, mixed- populations occupy a fraction of their cutthroat trout. severity fire regimes, fuel-reduction historical habitat, they are confined Scientific collection of Rio Grande treatments had virtually no effect on the primarily to small high-elevation cutthroat trout for scientific or 2002 Hayman Fire (Colorado), and streams with marginal habitat, they are educational purposes is controlled by a extreme climate can override the highly fragmented, and the stream strict permitting process that prevents influence of stand structure and fuels on segments they occupy are short in excessive sampling. In addition, fire behavior (Schoennagel et al. 2004, length. All of these factors work to advancements in molecular technology pp. 672, 673). Climate variation, not fuel reduce gene flow between populations have resulted in the need for only a levels, is seen as the dominant influence and reduce the ability of populations to small clipping from a fin to provide on fire frequency and severity in recover from catastrophic events thus sufficient material to perform molecular

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27911

analysis of genetic purity. To test for (Nehring 2007, p. 2). In 2006, the Placer Creek, Colorado, a conservation whirling disease (see ‘‘Disease’’ section number of sites that tested positive for population, and in 2007 it was below for further discussion), usually 60 whirling disease was considerably chemically treated to remove infected fish are collected and sacrificed. higher than in any of the previous field fish and nonnative brook trout. However, to minimize the collection of seasons (Nehring 2007, p. 11). Whirling In 2002, the Pecos, Cebolla, San Juan, Rio Grande cutthroat trout during disease is also present in several streams Cimarron, Red, and Canones rivers in whirling disease testing, nonnative trout in New Mexico (67 FR 39943, Patten New Mexico were listed as being are collected preferentially over Rio and Sloane 2007, p. 11). Laboratory infected with whirling disease (67 FR Grande cutthroat trout, or sample sites (DuBey et al. 2007, pp. 1411, 1412) and 39943). By 2007, more than 80 streams are selected below a barrier that protects field (Thompson 1999, pp. 323–325) and lakes had been tested for the disease a population of Rio Grande cutthroat experiments have shown that Rio (Patten and Sloane 2007, pp. 10–13). trout from nonnative trout. In some Grande cutthroat trout is very North Bonito Creek, Brazos River, and situations fewer than 60 Rio Grande susceptible to whirling disease. Los Pinos River were added to the list cutthroat trout will be collected and Among the four lineages (I, III, V, and of streams testing positive for whirling sacrificed for testing. For these reasons, VI) of T. tubifix known to occur in disease. Canones and Jacks creeks, overutilization for scientific purposes is Colorado, New Mexico, and other states, which had tested positive in 2000, not considered a threat to Rio Grande lineage III is the only one susceptible to tested negative in 2005, and 2003, cutthroat trout. infection by M. cerebralis (DuBey and respectively (Patten and Sloane 2007, Caldwell 2004, p. 183; Nehring 2007, p. Summary of Factor B pp. 10–13). Of the streams listed, Rio 11). Because T. tubifix is typically found Cebolla, Pecos River and Cimarron River Because no commercial harvest in degraded habitat with higher levels of are occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat occurs for Rio Grande cutthroat trout, sediment and warmer temperatures, it trout upstream above barriers. fishing regulations in New Mexico and had been hypothesized that Rio Grande NMDGF policies and regulations Colorado minimize the impact of cutthroat trout were provided some prohibit the stocking of any whirling recreational angling, and scientific level of protection because they occur in disease positive fish in the State of New high-elevation cold-water streams (67 collection of Rio Grande cutthroat trout Mexico (Patten and Sloane 2007, p. 10). FR 39943). Extensive sampling of for scientific or educational purposes is All private facilities must maintain a tubificid worms in Colorado does not controlled by a strict permitting process pathogen-free certification. The Seven support this hypothesis. Nehring (2007) that prevents excessive sampling, we Springs Hatchery, which is used for Rio collected tubificid worm samples from conclude that the best scientific and Grande cutthroat trout broodstock, has over 100 sites in Colorado, including commercial information available to us tested negative on all occasions since it streams occupied by Rio Grande indicates that Rio Grande cutthroat trout was refurbished (Patten and Sloane cutthroat trout. He stratified his results is not threatened by overutilization for 2007, p. 10). In Colorado stocking of by 305 m (1,000 ft) elevation groups commercial, recreational, scientific, or whirling disease positive fish in educational purposes. from 1829 m (6,000 ft) to 3657 m (12,000 ft) (e.g. 1829–2134 m (6,000– protected habitats, which include native C. Disease or Predation 7000 ft), 2134–2438 m (7001–8,000 ft), cutthroat trout waters, is prohibited (Japhet et al. 2007, p. 12). Colorado and Disease etc.). Lineage III worms had the greatest abundance, outnumbering all of the New Mexico have web sites, brochures, Whirling disease is of great concern to other lineages combined, at all and information in their fishing fishery managers in western States. elevations. The number of sites with regulations regarding whirling disease Whirling disease is caused by the lineage III worms was approximately the and what anglers can do to prevent its nonnative myxosporean parasite, same at all elevations from the 1829– spread. In addition, both States have Myxobolus cerebralis. This parasite was 2134 m (6,000–7,000 ft) band up to the regulations regarding the stocking of introduced to the United States from 3048–3353 m (10,000–11,000 ft) band fish by private landowners that are Europe in the 1950s and requires two (Nehring 2007, p. 10) indicating that the designed to eliminate the importation of separate hosts, a salmonid fish and an high-elevation cold-water streams do whirling disease positive fish. It states aquatic worm (Tubifex tubifex) to not provide protection from lineage III clearly in the fishing regulations that it complete its life cycle. Spores of the worms. is illegal to stock fish in public waters parasite are released from infected fish One hundred and five conservation without prior permission from a State when they die. The spores are ingested populations (88 percent) are judged to agency. by T. tubifix where they undergo have very limited risk from whirling Whirling disease remains a concern transformation in the gut to produce disease or other potential diseases for Rio Grande cutthroat trout actinosporean triactionomyxons because the pathogens are not known to populations. One Rio Grande cutthroat (TAMs). Trout are infected either by exist in the watershed or a barrier blocks trout conservation population was eating the worms (and TAMs) or upstream fish movement (Alves et al. infected in Colorado, and restoration through contact with water in which 2007, p. 38). Six populations are at efforts were immediately implemented TAMs are present. minimal risk because they are greater to address the issue. Although The myxosporean parasite became than 10 km (6.2 mi) from the pathogen widespread increases in M. cerebralis widely distributed in Colorado in the or they are protected by a barrier, but have not been seen, additional infected early 1990s through the stocking of the barrier may be at risk of failure sites have been documented. Because of millions of catchable size trout from (Alves et al. 2007, p. 38). Eight the limited level of infection currently, infected hatcheries (Nehring 2007, p. 1). populations were identified as being at whirling disease is not seen as a Up to 2001, it was estimated that moderate risk because whirling disease significant threat to populations range- whirling disease infection had had been identified within 10 km of wide. However, climate change and negatively impacted recruitment of wild occupied habitat (Alves et al. 2007, p. warmer stream temperature may rainbow and brook trout fry (small 38). In 2006, it was discovered that facilitate the spread of whirling disease recently emerged fish) in 560–600 km whirling disease had infected brook in the future (discussed in the ‘‘Disease’’ (350–400 mi) of stream in Colorado trout and Rio Grande cutthroat trout in section in Factor E below).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27912 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

Predation and broodstock management are in U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 Brown trout are piscivores and are the place in both States. In 2004, the U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and the National most likely predator on Rio Grande ‘‘Conservation Plan for Rio Grande Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. cutthroat trout. Additionally, brown Cutthroat trout in Colorado’’ was 4321 et seq.). Approximately 59 percent trout have been found to have a approved by the Director of CDOW. The of Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat goal of the plan is to assure the long- occurs on lands managed by Federal significant negative impact on the term persistence of Rio Grande cutthroat agencies. The majority of those lands are condition of coexisting Rio Grande trout throughout its historic range by managed by the USFS. Rio Grande cutthroat trout through harassment (e.g., preserving genetic integrity, reducing cutthroat trout occur over a large chasing) (Shemai 2004, pp. 315–323; population fragmentation, and geographic area within the Rio Grande, McHugh and Budy 2005, p. 2788). It is providing suitable habitat to support Santa Fe, and Carson National Forests in probable that larger brown trout prey on self-sustaining populations (Japhet et al. Colorado and New Mexico. Rio Grande young Rio Grande cutthroat trout and, 2007, p. ii). New Mexico (2002) has an cutthroat trout is designated as a unchecked, brown trout can depress approved management plan currently sensitive species on all USFS lands. population levels. Warmer water being implemented that will ‘‘facilitate The Regional Forester’s Sensitive temperatures in the future may give long range cooperative, interagency Species List policy is applied to projects brown trout a greater competitive conservation of Rio Grande cutthroat implemented under the 1982 National advantage over Rio Grande cutthroat trout.’’ Forest Management Act Planning Rule. trout (discussed in the ‘‘Climate Rio Grande cutthroat trout However, in 2005, USFS implemented a Change’’ section below). However, we populations have been lost because of new planning rule (70 FR 1023, January have insufficient information at this stream drying (Japhet et al. 2007 pp. 42– 5, 2005), which directs land time to conclude that predation by 44), and other trout populations in the management plans to be more strategic brown trout is currently a significant Southwest have been extirpated as the and less prescriptive. Under the new threat to Rio Grande cutthroat trout. result of ash flows following fire (Brown rule, land management plans identify Summary of Factor C et al. 2001 p. 142). Imperiled fish ecosystem-level desired conditions and populations can be rescued from provide management objectives and One population of Rio Grande streams (Brooks 2004, pp. 1–15; Japhet guidelines to move toward the desired cutthroat trout has been infected with et al. 2007, p. 20). In the face of conditions. The land management plans whirling disease since our 2002 status widespread drought or fire (discussed in also will provide species-specific review and eight conservation the ‘‘Climate Change’’ section below) it direction for special status species when populations are considered to be at is expected that many streams would be the broader ecosystem-level desired moderate risk of infection. Although affected at one time, as seen in the 2002 conditions do not provide for their whirling disease is currently limited in drought (Japhet et al. 2007, pp. 42–44; needs. However, the United States distribution and effect, it has the Patten et al. 2007, pp. 14–40). An District Court in Citizens for Better potential to become a more widespread emergency rescue and evacuation plan Forestry et al. v. U.S. Department of problem due to warmer waters that is not in place for Rio Grande cutthroat Agriculture (N.D. Calif.) enjoined the could result from climate change trout, nor do we anticipate that this Forest Service from implementation and (discussed in the ‘‘Climate Change’’ strategy would be effective in utilization of the National Forest land section below). We have insufficient eliminating the threat of stream drying management planning rule published on information to conclude that predation or post-fire ash flows in the face of January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023). Currently, is a significant threat at this time. widespread drought. the U.S. Department of Agriculture Therefore, we conclude that the best In 2003, a range-wide conservation Office of General Counsel is reviewing scientific and commercial information agreement was signed by CDOW, this matter and will provide legal advice available to us indicates that, although NMDGF, USFS, the Service, BLM, NPS, to USFS on how to proceed with forest the status of Rio Grande cutthroat trout and Jicarilla Apache Nation. The planning. Therefore, efforts specific to has not yet been affected by disease, Rio purpose of the agreement is to facilitate forest planning are postponed until Grande cutthroat trout is likely to be cooperation and coordination among further direction is available (USFS threatened by disease in the foreseeable State, Federal, and tribal agencies in the 2008). future. conservation of Rio Grande cutthroat Threats to depletion of stream flow D. The Inadequacy of Existing trout. The Conservation Team has met can be reduced by the U.S. Forest Regulatory Mechanisms several times and the ‘‘Range-wide Service utilizing its authorities, if any, Status of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout to further secure additional instream The NMDGF and the CDOW have (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis): 2007’’ flows in Colorado. Rio Grande cutthroat authority and responsibility for the is a product of the team’s cooperative trout conservation populations are management of Rio Grande cutthroat effort. protected by State instream flow water trout. Rio Grande cutthroat trout is rights or USFS Reserve water rights designated as a species of special Regulatory Mechanisms Involving Land along 620 km (385 mi) in 63 stream concern by the State of Colorado and of Management segments (approximately 70 percent of special management concern by the Numerous State and Federal laws and occupied habitat) within the Rio Grande State of New Mexcio. The agencies’ regulations help to minimize adverse basin in Colorado. Most of the capabilities include the regulation of effects of land management activities on remaining Rio Grande cutthroat trout fishing, law enforcement, research, and Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Federal laws conservation populations that are not conservation and educational activities that protect Rio Grande cutthroat trout associated with instream flow water relating to Rio Grande cutthroat trout. and their habitats include the Clean rights are found on private property Policies regarding the stocking of Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), within the boundaries of the old nonnative fish (no nonnatives are Federal Land Policy and Management Spanish Land Grants where natural stocked in Rio Grande cutthroat trout Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National resource stewardship is practiced. populations), minimization of exposure Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 Regulatory controls of water quality in to whirling disease and other diseases, et seq.), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 Colorado are implemented by the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27913

Colorado Water Quality Control information on actual and projected climate models that the Southwest will Division and Commission. Water quality global climate change currently get drier in the 21st century and that the standards are in place to protect the available. transition to a more arid climate is maintenance of aquatic life in coldwater Although the extent of warming likely already under way. Only one of 19 environments, and special resource to occur is not known with certainty at models has a trend toward a wetter restrictions are also available to provide this time, the IPCC (2007a, p. 5) has climate in the Southwest (Seager et al. further site-specific protection to water concluded that warming of the climate 2007, p. 1181). Stewart et al. (2004, quality (Japhet et al. 2007, p. 18). is unequivocal and continued p. 1152) show that timing of spring greenhouse gas emissions at or above streamflow in the western United States Summary of Factor D current rates would cause further during the last five decades has shifted The NMDGFG, CDOW and USFS are warming (IPCC 2007a, p. 13). The IPCC so that the major peak now arrives 1 to actively managing Rio Grande cutthroat also projects that there will very likely 4 weeks earlier, resulting in less flow in trout and its habitat. They also have be an increase in the frequency of hot the spring and summer. They conclude authority for and are undertaking extremes, heat waves, and heavy that almost everywhere in North fisheries management, research, precipitation (IPCC 2007a, p. 15). America, a 10 to 50 percent decrease in educational and law enforcement Warming in the Southwest is expected spring-summer streamflow fractions activities designed to improve the to be greatest in the summer (IPCC will accentuate the seasonal summer conservation status of the species. There 2007b, p. 887). Annual mean dry period with important consequences is a range-wide conservation agreement precipitation is likely to decrease in the for warm-season water supplies, that also involves the Service and other Southwest and the length of snow ecosystems, and wildfire risks (Stewart parties. Existing regulations, authorities, season and snow depth are very likely et al. 2004, p. 1154). An increase in and policies address current threats to to decrease (IPCC 2007b, p. 887). Most average mean air temperature of just the species that are subject to regulatory models project a widespread decrease in over 1 °C (2.5 °F) in Arizona and just ° ° control. However, climate change will snow depth in the Rocky Mountains and under 1 C (1.8 F) in New Mexico since have potential impact throughout the earlier snowmelt (IPCC 2007b, p. 891). 1976 has already been documented range of this species. At this time it is In consultation with leading scientists (Lenart 2007, p. 4). Udall (2007, p. 7) difficult to state how these effects will from the Southwest, the New Mexico found that multiple independent data be addressed through existing regulatory Office of the State Engineer prepared a sets confirm widespread warming in the mechanisms. report for the Governor (State of New West. Long-term studies (25 plus years) Mexico 2006) which made the following of Mexican jays (Aphelocoma E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors ultramarina) in Arizona and of yellow- Affecting Its Continued Existence observations about the impact of climate change in New Mexico: bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris) Climate Change (1) Warming trends in the American in the Rocky Mountains indicate changes in the timing of important life In this section, we discuss the aspects Southwest exceed global averages by about percent (p. 5); history events (e.g., breeding, emergence of climate change that will most likely from hibernation) for both species affect the habitat of Rio Grande (2) Models suggest that even moderate increases in precipitation would not related to warmer temperatures cutthroat trout. We begin by presenting (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004, pp. 18, the evidence that indicates that climate offset the negative impacts to the water supply caused by increased temperature 19). change is occurring globally. We then As we will discuss below, climate (p. 5); discuss literature related to climate change is predicted to have four major (3) Temperature increases in the change that has been published for the effects on the cold water habitat Southwest are predicted to continue to Southwest and southern Rocky occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat trout: be greater than the global average (p. 5); Mountains that documents changes (1) Increased water temperature; (2) (4) There will be a delay in the arrival either that have already occurred or that decreased stream flow; (3) a change in of snow and acceleration of spring snow researchers predict will occur. Finally, the hydrograph (a graphical melt, leading to a rapid and earlier we present data that have been collected representation of the distribution of seasonal runoff (p. 6); and for streams occupied by Rio Grande water discharge or runoff over a period cutthroat trout that indicate that the (5) The intensity, frequency, and of time); and (4) an increased effects of climate change could duration of drought may increase (p. 7). occurrence of extreme events (fire, exacerbate the threats discussed above. By the late 21st century, one simulation drought, and floods). The Intergovernmental Panel on predicts no sustained snowpack south Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific of Santa Fe or in the Sangre de Cristo Increased Water Temperature body set up by the World Mountains (State of New Mexico 2006, Water temperature influences the Meteorological Organization and the p. 13). Snow pack would remain in far survival of salmonids in all stages of United Nations Environment Program in northern New Mexico and southern their life cycle. Alterations in the 1988. It was established because Colorado but would be greatly reduced temperature regime from natural policymakers needed an objective in mass, with a decrease in water mass background conditions negatively affect source of information about the causes between one-third and one-half (State of population viability, when considered of climate change, its potential New Mexico 2006, p. 14). at the scale of the watershed or environmental and socio-economic Consistent with the outlook presented individual stream (McCullough 1999, consequences, and the adaptation and for New Mexico, Hoerling (2007, p. 35) p. 160). Salmonids are classified as mitigation options to respond to it. The states that, relative to 1990–2005, coldwater fish with thermal preferences Service considers the IPCC an impartial simulations indicate that a 25 percent centered around 15 °C (59 °F) (Shuter and legitimate source of information on decline in stream flow will occur from and Meisner 1992, p. 8). High climate change. In 2007, the IPCC 2006–2030 and a 45 percent decline will temperatures suppress appetite and published its Fourth Assessment Report, occur from 2035–2060 in the Southwest. growth, can influence behavioral which is considered the most Seager et al. (2007, p. 1181) show that interactions with other fish (Shrank et comprehensive compendium of there is a broad consensus among al. 2003, p. 100), or can be lethal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27914 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

(McCullough 1999, Species with narrow temperature more northern latitudes (Meisner et al. p. 156). Salmonids inhabiting warm tolerances will likely experience the 1988, p. 6; Regier and Meisner 1990, p. stream segments have higher greatest effects from climate change, and 11; Keleher and Rahel 1996, p. 2; probabilities of dying from stress it is anticipated that populations located Nakano et al. 1996, pp. 716, 717; Rahel (McCullough 1999, p. 156). at the margins of species’ hydrologic et al. 1996, p. 1122; Poff et al. 2002, p. Eaton and Scheller (1996, p. 1111) and geographic distributions will be 7; Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1558). state that the maximum temperature affected first (Meisner 1990a, p. 282). Consequently, coldwater species tolerance for cutthroat trout is 23.3 °C Climate change has already had or is occupying the southern distributions of (74 °F), but Dunham et al. (2003b, p. predicted to have negative their range are seen as more susceptible 1042) state that Lahontan cutthroat trout consequences on coldwater fisheries to extirpation as a consequence of global (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) show globally (Nakano et al. 1996, p. 711; climate change (Poff et al. 2002, p. 8; signs of stress (decreased growth and Hari et al. 2006, p. 24), across North Rieman et al. 2007, pp. 1552, 1553). Rio appetite and increased mortality) when America (Meisner 1990a, pp. 287, 290; Grande cutthroat trout are the water temperature exceeds 22 °C Regier and Meisner 1990, p. 11; southernmost subspecies of cutthroat (71.6 °F) for even a short time (less than Carpenter et al. 1992, p. 124; Eaton and trout (Behnke 2002, p. 143). 1 day). For Bonneville cutthroat trout, Scheller 1996, p. 1111; O’Neal 2002, Rio Grande cutthroat trout primarily the 7-day upper incipient lethal p. 3; Poff et al. 2002, p. iv; Chu et al. occupy high-elevation headwater temperature (temperature lethal to 50 2005, p. 303; Preston 2006, pp. 106, 107, tributaries. Dispersal to new habitats is percent of the fish) was 24.2 °C (75.6 °F) 110, 111, 115; Reiman et al. 2007, pp. unlikely because they currently occupy under constant thermal conditions 1553, 1558), and in the Southwest and the uppermost available habitat. (Johnstone and Rahel 2003, p. 96). Rocky Mountains specifically (Keleher Warming of lower elevation stream However, when the temperature was and Rahel 1996, p. 1; Rahel et al. 1996, segments may limit restoration cycled daily between 16–26 °C (60.8– pp. 1116, 1122; O’Neal 2002, pp. 43, 44; opportunities in the future and provide 78.8 °F) for 7 days, similar to what the Preston 2006, pp. 101, 102, 113) through a competitive advantage to brown, trout would experience in high increases in ground and surface water rainbow, and brook trout in locations mountain streams, all trout survived temperature. where these nonnatives occur with Rio (Johnstone and Rahel 2003, p. 97). The magnitude of habitat loss due to Grande cutthroat trout (De Staso and Dickerson and Vineyard (1999, pp. 519, increased water temperature depends on Rahel 1994, pp. 293, 294; Dunham et al. 520) found a similar result (cycling the climate change model used, the 2002, p. 380; Paroz 2005, p. vi; Bear et between 20 and 26 °C (68 and 78.8 °F)) model used to predict the air al. 2007, p. 1118; Shemai et al. 2007, p. for Lahontan cutthroat trout. Although temperature/water temperature 322). trout may survive cyclic exposures to relationship, and the timeframe. Keleher high temperatures, growth is slowed or and Rahel (1996, p. 4) found that the The Santa Fe and Carson National stopped due to the high metabolic costs distribution of salmonids in Wyoming Forests have monitored stream and reduced food intake (Dickerson and streams was limited to areas where temperature data using thermographs Vineyard 1999, p. 519; Johnstone and mean July air temperature did not (instruments that record temperature at Rahel 2003, p. 98). exceed 22 °C (71.6 °F). They projected designated intervals, e.g., once every 4 Although temperature preferences of that for temperature increases of 1, 2, 3, hours) (Eddy 2005, Martinez 2007). Rio Grande cutthroat trout have not 4, or 5 °C, there would be a From 2001–2003, 47 thermograph been researched specifically, their corresponding loss of area suitable for stations were used to monitor 21 optimum growth temperature (appetite salmonids of 16.2, 29.1, 38.5, 53.3, and streams on the Santa Fe National Forest, is high and maintenance requirements 68.0 percent, respectively (Keleher and representing 385 km (239 mi) of stream low) is most likely in the range of 13– Rahel 1996, p. 4). Rahel et al. (1996) (Eddy 2005, p. 5). Seven of the 21 15 °C (55.4–59 °F), similar to other used three approaches to examine streams are currently occupied by Rio cutthroat trout (Meeuwig et al. 2004, p. potential salmonid habitat loss due to Grande cutthroat trout conservation 213; Bear et al. 2007, p. 1118) and their warming in the North Platte river populations; all 21 are believed to be upper incipient lethal limit is most drainage of the Rocky Mountains. They historical habitat. Temperature data likely near 23–24 °C (73.4–75.2 °F), as found that there was a loss of 9 to 76 collected were compared with New has been found for other subspecies of percent of coldwater habitat based on Mexico Environment Department cutthroat trout (Wagner et al. 2001, air temperature increases of 1 to 5 °C (NMED) standards for high quality p. 434; Johnstone and Rahel 2003, p. (Rahel et al. 1996, p. 1120). Other coldwater fisheries and with Santa Fe 97). Upper incipient lethal limit studies have predicted losses of 18–92 National Forest standards, which are (temperature at which 50 percent of the percent of suitable natal bull trout slightly more stringent than NMED but fish can survive for 7 days) for rainbow (Salvelinus confluentus) habitat are more in line with standards for trout ranges from 24–26 °C (75.2– (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1558), and coldwater fisheries in the western States 78.8 °F), for brown trout 23–26 °C (73.4– Preston (2006, p. 92), in a re-analysis of (Table 3) (Eddy 2005, p. 4). ‘‘Properly 78.8 °F), and for brook trout 24–25 °C other studies, found a 20, 35, and 50 functioning’’ indicates that the water (75.2–77 °F) (McCullough 1999, pp. 47, percent loss of coldwater habitat from temperature of the stream is within the 48), which means these nonnative trout the Rocky Mountains in 2025, 2050, and optimal range for feeding, physiology, are better able to tolerate higher water 2100, respectively. and behavior for coldwater fish. ‘‘At temperatures than cutthroat trout. In these studies, habitat loss occurs in risk’’ indicates that the water The IPCC states that of all ecosystems, the lower elevation stream reaches (or temperature is slightly warmer than freshwater ecosystems will have the lower latitude streams) due to increased optimal, and ‘‘not properly functioning’’ highest proportion of species threatened temperatures. As a result, salmonid indicates that the water temperature is with extinction due to climate change populations will be restricted to too warm to support a healthy coldwater (Kundzewicz et al. 2007, p. 192). increasingly higher elevations or to fishery.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27915

TABLE 3.—SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST AND NMED [Water quality temperature standards for high quality coldwater fisheries]

Not properly Water temperature standards Properly functioning At risk functioning

Santa Fe National Forest 7-Day Average Maximum ...... ≤64 °F (≤17.8 °C) ...... 64 to 70 °F ...... >70 °F (>21.1 °C). (17.8–21.1 °C) ...... NMED 3-Day Average Maximum ...... <68 °F (<20 °C) ...... 68 to <73.4 °F ...... ≥73.4 °F (23 °C). (20 to <23 °C) ......

Using the Santa Fe National Forest several days of warm temperatures that Colorado from 1996 to 1999 (Harig and standards, stream segments represented occurred before monitoring began Fausch 2002, p. 540). None of the by 12 thermograph stations were (Martinez 2007, pp. 3–22). In total, of 14 streams in New Mexico had July water properly functioning (67.3 km (41.8 streams occupied by Rio Grande temperatures below 7.8 °C (46 °F) mi)), stream segments represented by 20 cutthroat trout and monitored by (lowest July average was in the Pecos stations were at risk (162.1 km (100.7 thermographs on the Santa Fe and River, 9.2 °C (48.6 °F)). Three of four mi)), and stream segments represented Carson National Forests, 8 streams were streams in Colorado that no longer had by 15 stations were not properly either at risk or not properly functioning translocated fish present had summer functioning (154.7 km (96.1 mi)) (Eddy because of high water temperature averages below 7.8 °C (46 °F) (Harig and 2005, p. 5). Using NMED standards, (NMED 2007, pp. 15–331; Eddy 2005, Fausch 2002, pp. 538, 539). The stream segments represented by 23 pp. 8–116; Martinez 2007, pp. 3–22). An remaining 8 streams in Colorado had stations (172.7 km (107.3 mi)) were additional conservation population in summer averages ≥8.3 °C (46.9 °F), properly functioning, stream segments Colorado was also identified at risk from indicating that cold summer water represented by 12 stations (82.2 km high water temperatures by Pritchard temperatures were most likely not (51.1 mi)) were at risk, and stream and Cowley (2006, p. 39). Because only limiting for these Rio Grande cutthroat segments represented by 12 stations a fraction of the streams occupied by trout populations (Harig and Fausch (129.1 km (80.2 mi)) were not properly Rio Grande cutthroat trout have been 2002, pp. 538, 539). Two of the four functioning (Eddy 2005, p. 5). Only nine monitored, there are likely more that are streams (Little Medano and Unknown streams were properly functioning for at risk. Creek), which no longer had their entire length, using both standards. The thermograph data collected on transplanted fish at the time of Harig Of these, only one is occupied by a Rio the Santa Fe and Carson National and Fausch’s research (1996–1998), Grande cutthroat trout conservation Forests indicate that stream dried in 2002 (Alves et al. 2007, pp. 43, population (Cave Creek) (Eddy 2005, p. temperatures in several streams are 44), raising the possibility that 5). The Pecos River and Rio de las Vacas already at risk or are considered ‘‘not insufficient refugial habitat may have are properly functioning in occupied properly functioning’’ for trout. Because been limiting, not low summer water Rio Grande cutthroat trout habitat but air temperature and consequently water temperatures. have at risk (Pecos River) or not temperature are expected to increase Cold summer water temperatures properly functioning sections (Rio de las with climate change, we would have been identified as limiting in one Vacas) below occupied habitat (Eddy anticipate that more streams that are stream: Deep Canyon, Colorado 2005, pp. 34, 35, 92). Canones, currently not properly functioning will (Pritchard and Cowley 2006, p. 42). Polvadera, and Rio Cebolla were the become unsuitable for Rio Grande However, Alves et al. (2007 database) other streams monitored that have cutthroat trout, those currently at risk indicate that Deep Canyon has conservation populations of Rio Grande will enter the not properly functioning temperatures from 8 to 16 °C (46.4 to cutthroat trout. These streams were category, and more streams will fall into 60.8 °F) during spawning and identified as at risk or not properly the at risk category for temperature. As incubation periods. Of the 14 Rio functioning (Rio Cebolla) in occupied a consequence, suitable habitat will Grande cutthroat trout streams habitat (Eddy 2005, pp. 9, 19, 26). decrease and fragmentation will monitored with thermographs on the Monitoring on the Carson National increase. Santa Fe and Carson National Forests, Forest indicated that Comanche Creek In contrast to the potential negative two (Pecos and Mora rivers) were found had several periods in which impacts of water temperature increase to have July temperatures less than temperature standards were exceeded on Rio Grande cutthroat trout, there 7.8 °C (46 °F) (data summarized from (Martinez 2007, pp. 3–22). Eight sites on could also be a potential benefit. Cold Eddy 2005, Martinez 2007). The result Comanche Creek were monitored in summer water temperatures (mean July for the Pecos River contrasts with the 1998, 1999, and 2004. Temperatures temperature of less than 7.8 °C (46 °F)) data Harig and Fausch (2002, p. 540) were highest in 1998 and 1999, years of have been found as a limiting factor to collected (9.2 °C (48.6 °F)) and likely lower runoff. Temperatures in 1998 recruitment of cutthroat trout in high- reflects a difference in thermograph were very high, with 5 of the 8 sites elevation streams (Harig and Fausch placement or year (e.g., temperature recording temperatures from 26.6– 2002, p. 545; Coleman and Fausch 2007, variability, amount of runoff). 29.5 °C (80–85 °F) (Martinez 2007, pp. pp. 1238–1240). Coleman and Fausch In summary, we find that data 3–22). At the remaining three sites, (2007, p. 1240) found that cold summer collected thus far indicate that warm temperatures reached 26.4 °C (79.5 °F). water temperatures in Colorado streams water temperatures have already Thermographs went in on June 23 each likely limited recruitment of cutthroat reached the likely limits of suitability in year, and in 1998, maximum trout because of reduced survival of age- some Rio Grande cutthroat trout streams temperatures ranged from 22.9–24 °C 0 fish (fish less than 1 year old). Harig and several others are at risk. Water (73.2–76 °F) at all eight sites on the first and Fausch (2002, p. 538) recorded temperatures are expected to increase in day the recorders were deployed, summer water temperatures in 5 streams the future, affecting more streams and indicating that there were probably in New Mexico and 11 streams in making lower elevation reaches either

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27916 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

marginal or unsuitable. This is et al. 2007, p. 76). Consequently, the p. 232) modeled the effects of an particularly true for populations that are one moderately well-connected increase of 2 °C air temperature on located in New Mexico and are at the population may already be at risk. brown trout distribution in the Sierra southernmost extent of the range but Seven Rio Grande cutthroat trout Nevada, California. They found that could also be true for smaller streams in conservation populations are considered brown trout numbers would increase in Colorado. Although cold water weakly networked (occupied habitat upstream cooler reaches, and decrease temperatures are limiting to some high- consists of 2–3 connected streams, downstream through starvation of elevation salmonid populations, cold possible infrequent straying of adults juvenile and adult fish (Jager et al. 1999, water limitation has not been may occur) (Alves et al. 2007, p. 77). Of p. 235). This is consistent with convincingly demonstrated for any Rio these seven, six have connecting stream observations in Switzerland. In Grande cutthroat trout population. segments less than 5 feet in width (2007 Switzerland in 1987, after a long period Therefore, we view the negative impact database), and are therefore considered of essentially stable river water of stream warming to outweigh any at risk from drying. Consequently, temperatures, water temperatures took benefit that may occur from increased fragmentation of these weakly an abrupt and significant increase to a water temperature. networked systems appears reasonably higher mean level, which was attributed The studies cited above that forecast likely in the foreseeable future. to a corresponding increase in air coldwater habitat loss, calculate the loss Nonnative Fish Interactions. Water temperature (Hari et al. 2006, pp. 10, of habitat based on increases in temperature is a determining factor in 21). Suitable habitat for brown trout, a temperature alone, assuming the distribution of salmonids (Rahel and trout species native to the area, moved temperatures will rise above the thermal Hubert 1991, p. 326; Schrank et al. upstream, and downstream portions tolerance limits of coldwater species, 2003, p. 100; Sloat et al. 2005, p. 225). became unsuitable (Hari et al. 2006, pp. thereby limiting the amount of suitable Additionally, temperature regime is a 10, 21). habitat available. The ancillary effects of key determinant of the outcome of McHugh and Budy (2005, p. 2791) increased temperature, such as competitive interactions in a fish hypothesized that cold incubation increased habitat fragmentation (Rahel community (MuCullough 1999, p. 156). temperatures might explain why brown et al. 1996, pp. 1121, 1122; Rieman et Fish living within their optimum trout did not form self-sustaining al. 2007, pp. 1553, 1560, 1562), changes temperature range have improved populations at high elevations in Logan in invertebrate prey base (both species performance relative to other species River, Utah, where upstream water composition and availability) (Ries and not within their optimum range temperatures were not too cold for adult Perry 1995, p. 204; O’Neal 2002, p. 4; (MuCullough 1999, p. 156). There is brown trout. Because brown trout have IPCC 2002, p. 17; Harper and Peckarsky evidence that the reason cutthroat trout a higher optimal growth temperature 2006, p. 618; Bradshaw and Holazpel occupy headwater streams and rainbow, (between 13–18 °C) than cutthroat trout 2008, p. 157), effects on spawning (Jager brook, and brown trout occupy (12–13 °C), and because cold incubation et al. 1999, p. 236), increased downstream reaches is because of the temperatures may currently be limiting competitive interactions with nonnative influence of temperature on competitive brown trout range expansion upstream, trout (Meisner 1990b, p. 1068; De Staso abilities (Dunham et al. 2002, p. 380). it is anticipated that warmer water and Rahel 1994, pp. 289, 294; O’Neal DeStaso and Rahel (1994, pp. 293, 294) temperatures will make additional 2002, p. 33; Chu et al. 2005, p. 307; looked at competition between Colorado upstream habitat suitable for brown Sloat et al. 2005, p. 235), additional River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus trout, reducing the area where Rio invasive species (IPCC 2002, p. 32), clarki pleuriticus) and brook trout. They Grande cutthroat trout are now increased susceptibility to disease (Hari found that at warmer water dominant. et al. 2006, p. 24), and effects on water temperatures (20 °C (68 °F)) brook trout When cutthroat trout co-occur with quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen, was dominant, as evidenced by a higher rainbow trout, cutthroat trout typically nutrients, pH) (Meisner et al. 1988, p. 7), level of interspecific aggression, more occupy the upper colder reaches and are not considered in calculating the time spent at the optimal feeding rainbow trout occupy the lower, warmer potential habitat loss. position, and greater food consumption stream reaches (Sloat et al. 2005, p. 235; Of these factors, increased (DeStaso and Rahel 1994, pp. 293, 294). Robinson 2007, p. 80). As identified by fragmentation, increased effects from Brook trout also tolerated higher Alves et al. (2007, p. 35), rainbow trout nonnative fish, and increased disease temperatures (DeStaso and Rahel 1994, occupy the same stream reaches as four risk are considered of particular p. 294). conservation populations of Rio Grande importance to Rio Grande cutthroat As mentioned earlier, when brook cutthroat trout. Rainbow trout have a trout and are discussed in more detail. trout co-occur with cutthroat trout, higher thermal tolerance than do Fragmentation. Climate change is species interactions act to suppress cutthroat trout (Bear et al. 2007, pp. predicted to increase fragmentation of cutthroat trout populations (Dunham et 1115, 1116). Because rainbow trout are coldwater fish habitat (Nakano et al. al. 2002, p. 378; Young and Guenther- able to tolerate higher temperatures than 1996, p. 719; Rahel et al. 1996, p. 1122; Gloss 2004, p. 193; Peterson et al. 2004, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, we expect Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1553). Currently, pp. 765–769). Because brook trout that warming stream temperatures will 112 of 120 (93 percent) conservation tolerate higher temperatures, warmer give rainbow trout a competitive populations of Rio Grande cutthroat stream temperatures would provide a advantage over Rio Grande cutthroat trout exist as fragments, with no well- competitive advantage to brook trout trout. Monitoring and maintenance of connected populations (Alves et al. over Rio Grande cutthroat trout, barriers will continue to be essential, to 2007, p. 29). Only one population has a exacerbating the problems that already prevent hybridization and competition. moderate degree of connectivity exist for Rio Grande cutthroat trout White sucker is native to the middle (Comanche Creek) (2007 database). As populations. elevations of the Pecos and Canadian noted above, Comanche Creek currently In New Mexico, brown trout is the river drainages in New Mexico, but it has very high water temperatures most common nonnative trout present has been introduced widely throughout (Martinez 2007, pp. 3–22), and several in Rio Grande cutthroat trout the State and is sympatric with at least of the small tributaries of upper conservation populations (summarized two populations of Rio Grande cutthroat Comanche Creek dried in 2006 (Patten from 2007 database). Jager et al. (1999, trout (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 199; 2007

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27917

database). White sucker has a preferred cerebralis was 41.7 percent. Mean within the range of Rio Grande cutthroat water temperature of 22.4–27.1 °C (72.3– mortality of rainbow trout exposed to M. trout, managers will need to continue to 80.8 °F) (Sublette et al. 1990, p. 198). cerebralis and held at a temperature of monitor the disease closely. Increased Sublette et al. (1990, p.199) note that 17 °C (62.6 °F) was 60 percent (Schisler water temperatures would increase the white sucker is highly fecund (able to 2000, p. 861). Water temperature often threat posed by whirling disease. reproduce) and often dominates a body exceeds 17 °C (62.6 °F) in July and Decreased Stream Flow of water. Comanche Creek (elevation August in Rio Grande cutthroat trout approximately 2900 m (9500 ft)) has an streams that have been monitored (Eddy Current models suggest a decrease in abundant white sucker population, most 2005, Martinez 2007). precipitation in the Southwest (Seager likely due to the warm water Thompson et al. (1999, p. 318) found et al. 2007, p. 1181; Kundzewicz et al. temperatures discussed above. In 2007, that as water temperature increased 2007, p. 183), which would lead to over 20,000 white sucker were removed from May to July, rainbow and cutthroat reduced stream flows and a reduced from Comanche Creek during a Rio trout infected with M. cerebralis amount of habitat for Rio Grande Grande cutthroat trout restoration suffered high rates of mortality even cutthroat trout. Stream flow is also project (Patten 2007). Before the though they had survived well in the predicted to decrease in the Southwest restoration, fish biomass was dominated winter. In a field study of the effects of even if precipitation were to increase by white sucker, and an inverse water temperature, discharge, substrate moderately (Nash and Gleick 1993, p. relationship was found between Rio size, nutrient concentration, primary ix; State of New Mexico 2005, p. 6; Grande cutthroat trout density and productivity, and relative abundance of Hoerling 2007, p. 35). Winter and spring white sucker density (Patten et al. 2007, T. tubifix, de la Hoz Franco and Budy warming causes an increased fraction of pp. 17, 18). Because both white sucker (2004, p. 1183) found that prevalence of precipitation to fall as rain, resulting in and Rio Grande cutthroat trout feed on M. cerebralis in trout increased with a reduced snow pack, an earlier aquatic insects, there is the potential for water temperature. Across sites where snowmelt, and decreased summer high numbers of white sucker to cutthroat trout were present, the lowest runoff (Christensen et al. 2004, p. 4; negatively impact food availability for prevalence of infection occurred in the Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1137; Regonda et Rio Grande cutthroat trout. We would headwaters where average daily water al. 2005, p. 373). Earlier snowmelt and anticipate the warmer stream temperature was 9.2 °C (48.6 °F), warmer air temperatures lead to a longer temperatures would lead to more stream whereas the highest levels of infection dry season, which affects stream flow. habitat becoming suitable for white occurred at a low elevation site where Warmer air temperatures lead to sucker with potential negative impacts the temperature was the highest (>12 °C increased evaporation, increased evapo- on Rio Grande cutthroat trout (53.6 °F)) (de la Hoz Franco and Budy transpiration, and decreased soil populations. 2004, p. 1186). moisture. These three factors would Disease. As mentioned earlier (see the While water temperature in some lead to decreased stream flow even if ‘‘Disease and Predation’’ section in streams may warm to the point (>20 °C precipitation increased moderately. Factor C above) it had been thought that (68 °F)) of inhibiting the production of The effect of decreased stream flow is Rio Grande cutthroat trout were TAMs (Blazer et al. 2003, p. 24), it is that streams become smaller, thereby provided some level of protection anticipated that the overall increases in reducing the amount of habitat available against whirling disease because water temperature will be favorable for for aquatic species (Lake 2000, p. 577). tubificid worms are most abundant in T. tubifix and TAM production. From A smaller stream is affected more by air warm, degraded habitats and Rio these studies we conclude that elevation temperature than a larger one, Grande cutthroat trout occur in high- does not provide protection to Rio exacerbating the effects of warm (and elevation, coldwater streams (67 FR Grande cutthroat trout populations and cold) air temperature (Smith and Lavis 39943). However, Nehring (2007, p. 10) that increasing water temperature would 1975, p. 229). Small headwater streams, found equal abundance of lineage III increase the production of TAMs and such as those occupied by Rio Grande tubificid worms in elevations from the survival of tubificid worms (up to cutthroat trout, and intermittent streams 1,829 m (6,000 ft) to 3,657 m (12,000 ft). about 20 °C (68 °F)), and increased water may dry completely. Seventy-one Thus, it is clear that elevation does not temperature would increase mortality of percent of Rio Grande cutthroat trout provide protection from exposure to the infected Rio Grande cutthroat trout. streams are less than 8 km (5 mi) in disease. In summary, stream warming will length (Alves et al. 2007, p. 26). Because El-Matubouli et al. (1999) found that most likely decrease the amount of stream length is one indicator of temperatures from 10–15 °C (50–59 °F) suitable habitat available for Rio Grande population viability (Harig et al. 2000, were optimum for development and cutthroat trout. Warmer stream p. 997; Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000, maturation of the parasite inside the temperatures may in the foreseeable p. 515; Young et al. 2005, p. 2405; tubificid worm. Blazer et al. (2003, p. future make currently occupied reaches Cowley 2007 10.1002/aqc.845), further 24) found that the greatest production of of stream more stressful or unsuitable. shortening of Rio Grande cutthroat trout TAMs occurred at temperatures from Suitable habitat is likely to be reduced, streams due to drying is expected to 13–17 °C (55.4–62.6 °F). Although the primarily at the downstream end of have a negative impact on populations. effect of temperature on survival of the stream reaches and in small tributaries, In fact, fourteen Rio Grande cutthroat tubificid worms was not statistically leading to increased fragmentation, trout streams with conservation detectable, DuBey et al. (2005, p. 341) shorter occupied segments, and populations became intermittent, and found that survival was consistently increased risk of extirpation. Warmer had populations negatively impacted or higher at 17 °C (62.6 °F) than at 5 °C water temperatures will allow nonnative lost because of the 2002 drought (Japhet (41 °F). Schisler et al. (2000, p. 862) fishes to expand their range and give et al. 2007, pp. 42–44; Patten et al. 2007, found that multiple stressors on them a competitive advantage over Rio pp. 14, 31, 32, 34, 39, 76). The number rainbow trout, especially the Grande cutthroat trout. Stress from of streams impacted was most likely combination of M. cerebralis infection warm water temperatures increases higher, because managers only survey a and temperature, increased mortality susceptibility to and mortality from fraction of the 120 conservation drastically. At 12.5 °C (54.5 °F) mean disease. Although whirling disease populations in any given year. mortality of rainbow trout exposed to M. positive sites are currently still limited Approximately 27 conservation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27918 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

populations are in streams that are 1.5 A rangewide emergency rescue and ice (ice frozen on the stream bed) and m (5 ft) or less in width throughout their evacuation plan does not exist for Rio frazil ice (ice crystal suspended in the entire length (2007 database). An Grande cutthroat trout and would likely water) can also have negative impacts additional 29 stream segments that are not be effective. If widespread drought on trout (Needham and Jones 1959, p. tributaries to the conservation were to occur, affecting many streams at 465). High-elevation streams are rarely populations are also less than 1.5 m (5 the same time, it is unclear if sufficient visited in winter; consequently, it is ft) in width (2007 database), which facilities or donor streams exist to difficult to document the extent to indicates that fragmentation of existing accept the rescued fish, or if the effort which freezing may impact populations. connected populations could increase. would take place according to a However, the combination of reduced We recognize that not all streams less carefully conceived, well-organized stream flow and reduced snow pack than 1.5 m (5 ft) wide have an equal plan. could lead to an increased probability of probability of drying. Some are likely stream freezing in small headwater Rio Change in Hydrograph spring fed or are narrow and deep, thus Grande cutthroat trout streams. decreasing the likelihood of drying. Changes in air temperature and Earlier snowmelt, which leads to less However, because of the high number of precipitation will likely lead to changes flow in the spring and summer, could Rio Grande cutthroat trout streams less in the magnitude, frequency, timing, either benefit Rio Grande cutthroat trout than 8 km (5 mi) in length (71 percent and duration of runoff (Poff et al. 2002, or be detrimental. The benefit could of conservation populations) and less p. 4). Stewart et al. (2004, p. 1152) show come because the young-of-year would than 1.5 m (5 ft) wide, the risk of drying that spring streamflow during the last have a longer growing season before is considered high. five decades has shifted so that the winter. However, as discussed above, a Insight into the effects that climate major peak now arrives 1 to 4 weeks longer season of lower flows would lead change may have on headwater streams earlier, resulting in declining fractions to increased stream temperatures and is provided by research done at the of flow in the spring and summer. The increased probability of intermittency Experimental Lakes Area in life history of salmonids is closely tied and drying. northwestern Ontario (Schindler et al. to the flow regime, runoff in particular In summary, it is difficult to project 1996). The experimental area was set up (Fausch et al. 2001, p. 1440). A change how changes in the hydrograph as a in 1968, and precipitation, evaporation, in timing or magnitude of floods can result of climate change will affect Rio air temperature, wind velocity, and scour the streambed, destroy eggs, or Grande cutthroat trout populations. If other meteorological and hydrological displace recently emerged fry growing season is increased, water parameters were monitored downstream (Erman et al. 1988, p. 2199; temperatures remain suitable, and the continuously throughout the 1970 to Montgomery et al. 1999, p. 378; Fausch stream does not dry, a beneficial effect 1990 study period (Schindler et al. et al. 2001, p. 1440). The environmental could occur. If spawning cues are 1996, p. 1005). During this period, the cues for spawning of Rio Grande disrupted or egg and fry success is area experienced gradual air cutthroat trout are not known with reduced because of winter floods or temperature warming (1.6 °C (2.9 °F)) certainty, but they are most likely tied unseasonal extreme floods, a negative and decreased precipitation (as to increasing water temperature, impact would occur. In addition, stream measured by a decline of over 50 increasing day length, and possibly freezing may reduce suitable over- percent in annual runoff) (Schindler et flow, as it has been noted that they winter habitat or reduce population size al. 1996, p. 1004). Whether these spawn when runoff from snowmelt has in susceptible streams. peaked and is beginning to decrease changes can be attributed to climate Extreme Events change or local variation is unknown, (Behnke 2002, p. 141; Pritchard and but they are consistent with changes Cowley 2006, p. 25). Consequently, a An increase in extreme events such as that are predicted under global climate change in the timing of runoff from drought, fires, and floods is predicted to change scenarios. In the early 1970s, spring to winter could disrupt spawning occur because of climate change (IPCC two streams in the area were perennial cues because peak flow would occur 2007a, p. 15). It is anticipated that an and one stream was dry for less than 10 when the days are still short in length increase in extreme events will most days per year. By the late 1980s all three and water temperatures cold. likely affect populations living at the streams were dry for 120–160 days Increased winter temperatures cause edge of their physiological tolerances. during the summer (Schindler et al. more precipitation to fall as rain instead The predicted increases in extreme 1996, p. 1006). Because northern of snow (Regonda et al. 2005, p. 373). temperature and precipitation events latitude ecosystems mimic higher Snow covering small streams provides may lead to dramatic changes in the elevation systems in southern latitudes, valuable insulation that protects aquatic distribution of species or to their the effects seen on these streams likely life (Needham and Jones 1959, p. 470; extirpation or extinction (Parmesan and represent what may happen at high- Gard 1963, p. 197). Gard (1963, p. 196) Matthews 2006, p. 344). elevation streams in New Mexico and measured temperatures above, within, Drought. The relatively short-term Colorado, within the range of Rio and below the snow at Sagehen Creek, drought of the early 2000s had a Grande cutthroat trout. California, a small Sierra Nevada negative impact on or extirpated 14 Rio In summary, stream drying has mountain stream. He found that Grande cutthroat trout populations in already had a negative impact on several although there was a 35.4 °C (63.8 °F) Colorado and New Mexico (Japhet et al. Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations; diurnal air temperature variation, 2007, pp. 42–44; Patten et al. 2007, pp. 71 percent of Rio Grande cutthroat trout within the snow the temperature 14–40). A fifteenth population is conservation populations are in stream variation was only 1.3 °C (2.3 °F) and the thought to have been extirpated in 2006 fragments 8 km (5 mi) or less in length, water temperature in the stream below by complete freezing caused by low and many of the populations are in varied by only 0.3 °C (0.55 °F). Stream flow in the winter (Ferrell 2006, p. 11). streams less than 1.5 m (5 ft) wide. freezing, which is more likely absent As discussed above, in the ‘‘Decreased Further, the increased risk of stream insulating snow cover, has been Stream Flow’’ section, it is anticipated drying as a result of climate change, suggested as the cause of the extirpation that a prolonged, intense drought would leading to shorter stream segments and of one Rio Grande cutthroat trout affect many Rio Grande cutthroat trout increased fragmentation, is seen as high. population (Ferrell 2006, p. 11). Anchor populations, in particular those less

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27919

than 1.5 m (5 ft) wide and less than 8 largest influence on the size, timing, and runoff may be significant but is more km (5 mi) long because of their small severity of the fires. In contrast, low- difficult to predict. size. elevation, ponderosa pine forests in the Climate Change Summary Most Rio Grande cutthroat trout Rocky Mountains were historically populations are currently protected characterized by frequent, low-severity The extent to which climate change from downstream populations of fires (Schoennagel et al. 2004, p. 669). will affect Rio Grande cutthroat trout is nonnative trout by barriers. Downstream Fire suppression has significantly not known with certainty at this time. reaches are larger streams that increased ladder fuels (fuels that allow Preliminary projections point to a historically could have provided refugia fire to climb from the forest floor to the possible rangewide negative impact for populations threatened by stream tops of trees) and tree densities leading through increased water temperatures, drying. If Rio Grande cutthroat trout to unprecedented high-severity fires in decreased stream flow, a change in disperse downstream now, they are lost these ecosystems (Schoennagel et al. hydrograph, and an increased from their conservation population once 2004, p. 669). Rio Grande cutthroat trout occurrence of extreme events, which they pass over the barrier because they streams occur in both forest types. will all tend to exacerbate the threats to will not be able to pass back over the As discussed in the ‘‘Fire’’ section in the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and its barrier moving the upstream direction. Factor A above, because of the observed habitat discussed under Factors A and In the future, downstream water and predicted increase in fire season C above. Although the extent that the temperatures may be too warm to be length; the predicted increase in global climate will change in the future suitable for Rio Grande cutthroat trout. frequency and severity of fires; the is not known, even a minimal increase In addition to stream drying, there is a observation that fuel treatment is only in temperature will lead to increased clear association between severe effective in low-elevation, ponderosa habitat unsuitability and will exacerbate droughts and large fires in the pine forests; the expectation of an most other known threats to the Southwest (Swetnam and Baisan 1994, increase in the frequency of hot subspecies. pp. 11, 24, 28), as discussed below. extremes, heat waves, and heavy Fire. Since the mid-1980s, wildfire precipitation (IPCC 2007a, p. 15); and Fisheries Management frequency in western forests has nearly the fact that most Rio Grande cutthroat Future management of Rio Grande quadrupled compared to the average of trout streams occur within a forested cutthroat trout will depend in part on the period 1970–1986. The total area landscape, we conclude that wildfire the use of hatchery-reared fish. burned is more than six and a half times associated with climate change will Although hatcheries can produce many the previous level (Westerling et al. exacerbate habitat loss to Rio Grande fish in a short period of time, the use of 2006, p. 941). In addition, the average cutthroat trout populations across their hatchery fish is not without risks length of the fire season during 1987– range. (Busack and Currens 1995, pp. 73–78). 2003 was 78 days longer compared to Floods. The life history of salmonids Two recent papers have explored the 1970–1986 and the average time is tied to the timing of floods (Fausch et risks of captive propagation used to between fire discovery and control al. 2001, p. 1440). A change in timing increased from 7.5 days to 37.1 days for or magnitude of floods can scour the supplement species that are declining in the same timeframes (Westerling et al. streambed, destroy eggs, or displace the wild (Araki et al. 2007, Frankham 2006, p. 941). McKenzie et al. (2004, p. recently emerged fry downstream 2007). Araki et al. (2007, p. 102) found 893) suggest, based on models, that the (Erman et al. 1988, p. 2199; that there was approximately a 40 length of the fire season will likely Montgomery et al. 1999, p. 378; Fausch percent decline in reproductive increase further and that fires in the et al. 2001, p. 1440). Floods that occur capabilities per captive-reared western United States will be more after intense wildfires that have generation when steelhead trout frequent and more severe. In particular, denuded the watershed are also a threat. (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were moved to they found that fire in New Mexico As described above, in the ‘‘Fire’’ natural environments. Frankham (2007, appears to be acutely sensitive to section under Factor A, several streams p. 2) notes that characteristics selected summer climate and temperature in the Southwest have had populations for under captive breeding conditions changes and may respond dramatically of trout extirpated as a result of ash are overwhelmingly disadvantageous in to climate warming. flows which occurred after fire (Rinne the natural environment. Minimizing Changes in relative humidity, 1996, p. 654; Brown et al. 2001, p. 142; the number of generations in captivity especially drying over the western Patten et al. 2007, p. 33). Consequently, or making the captive environment United States, are also projected to an increase in rain or snow events, similar to the wild environment are increase the number of days of high fire intense precipitation that is effective means for minimizing genetic danger (Brown et al. 2004, p. 365). High- unseasonable, or precipitation that adaptation to captivity (Frankham 2007, elevation, subalpine forests in the Rocky occurs after fire could extirpate affected pp. 4, 5). Mountains typically experience Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations. The history of brood stock infrequent (i.e., one to many centuries), In summary, extreme events, management in New Mexico has been high severity crown fires (Schoennagel especially widespread fire and drought, marked by many challenges (Cowley et al. 2004, p. 664). These fires usually will likely affect Rio Grande cutthroat and Pritchard 2003, pp. 12, 13). The occur in association with extremely dry trout populations in the foreseeable most recent challenges came from regional climate patterns (Swetnam and future through population extirpation, whirling disease infection at Seven Baisan 1994, p. 28; Schoennagel et al. extreme population reduction, or habitat Springs Hatchery and the discovery that 2004, p. 664). Short drying periods do reduction. Several Rio Grande cutthroat the brood stock was introgressed with not create the conditions appropriate for trout populations have already been Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Patten et fire in these typically cool, humid impacted by drought. Fire has thus far al. 2007, p. 42). The hatchery was forests. Schoennagel et al. (2004, p. 665, primarily affected nonnative trout refurbished to eliminate M. cerebralis 666) conclude that recent increases in streams within the range of Rio Grande and the brood stock program was the area burned in subalpine forests are cutthroat trout, but there is no safeguard restarted in 2005 (Patten et al. 2007, p. not attributable to fire suppression but for Rio Grande cutthroat trout streams. 42). A recently revised brood stock that variation in climate exerts the The impact of a change in the timing of management plan was completed for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27920 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

New Mexico (Cowley and Pritchard stream surveys, which adds greatly to Unlimited, New Mexico Trout, and the 2003). our knowledge of habitat condition. USFS. The members are committed to Although the intent of fisheries New Mexico Tribes and Pueblos have Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation. management is positive, fisheries recently taken initiatives to restore Rio One obstacle to fisheries managers in management may result in Grande cutthroat trout on their New Mexico has been the difficult unanticipated outcomes. For example, homelands. The Mescalero Apache process of approval for chemical Costilla Creek restoration efforts were Tribe began inventorying their streams treatment of streams. In August 2004, unfortunately marred by the to determine presence, and has the New Mexico Game Commission introduction of rainbow trout into the reopened the Mescalero Tribal Fish voted to prohibit the use of piscicides in recently reclaimed stream (Patten et al. Hatchery. The Tribe hopes to establish New Mexico (Patten et al. 2007, p. 102). 2007, p. 101, Appendices VIII-X). The a Rio Grande cutthroat trout brood stock This decision effectively terminated a rainbow trout came from Seven Springs and raise Rio Grande cutthroat trout to project on Animas Creek, Gila National Hatchery, even though this hatchery is support native fish restoration projects Forest, and has made stream restoration designated as a Rio Grande cutthroat on Tribal lands. Santa Clara Pueblo project approval difficult. Another trout facility (NMDGF 2002, p. 28; received a Tribal Wildlife grant for obstacle to successful stream renovation Pattten et al. 2007, p. 379). It is unclear nearly $200,000 for Rio Grande is the stocking of nonnative trout by why Seven Springs Hatchery was cutthroat trout restoration. The Pueblo anglers into streams that have been holding rainbow trout. Through a is in the initial phases of project treated to remove them (Japhet et al. coordinated effort, managers believe planning for restoring the Santa Clara 2007, p. 17). Although education and they captured most, if not all, of the Creek watershed. Nambe Pueblo has regulation may help, there is no known rainbow trout that were stocked into also expressed an interest in Rio Grande way to stop this illegal activity. cutthroat trout restoration and is Costilla Creek along with Rio Grande Summary of Factor E working in collaboration with USFS, the cutthroat trout (Patten et al. 2007, pp. Fisheries management is integral to 18, 102). While electrofishing to recover Service, Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC), and NMDGF to the conservation of Rio Grande cutthroat the rainbow trout, two brook trout were trout. Although there are some risks also caught, indicating that the lower formulate a restoration plan to restore Rio Grande cutthroat trout in the Nambe associated with fisheries management, barrier was compromised, not all the we conclude that the benefits outweigh fish were killed during treatment, or River watershed. The Jicarilla Apache Nation has also been involved in Rio the risks. We also conclude that the best that an angler had released the fish Grande cutthroat trout restoration and scientific and commercial information above the barrier. In addition, because plans to expand their restoration efforts available to us indicates that the threats the stocked Rio Grande cutthroat trout to additional creeks on the reservation facing Rio Grande cutthroat trout will be came from Seven Springs Hatchery in the near future. The SWTFC, an exacerbated by climate change. before the introgression with organization composed of southwestern Continued management actions to Yellowstone cutthroat trout was Native American tribes, has developed a connect fragmented populations are discovered, the Rio Grande cutthroat Memorandum of Understanding with essential. However, at this time, it is not trout that were stocked were slightly NMDGF to acquire Rio Grande cutthroat clear that management actions can introgressed (Patten et al. 2007, p. 102). trout eggs for juvenile and adult outpace some of the projected effects of For these reasons, relying on hatchery- production in support of tribal climate change. reared Rio Grande cutthroat trout does restoration Rio Grande cutthroat trout Finding not provide certainty that repatriation projects. Currently, the Memorandum is will be successful. still awaiting approval by both We have carefully assessed the best Fisheries managers have worked very participants. If successful, these actions scientific and commercial information hard in the last several years to monitor would provide further conservation for available regarding the past, present, populations, check and maintain Rio Grande cutthroat trout. and future threats faced by Rio Grande barriers, test the genetic purity of The Santa Fe National Forest, led by cutthroat trout. We have reviewed populations, test streams for whirling their fisheries biologist, has been very information supplied to us by State and disease, fund research, and reintroduce proactive about public education. They Federal agencies, peer-reviewed populations into appropriate streams estimate that up until 2006 their literature, comments from private (Patten et al. 2007, pp. 4–19; Japhet et ‘‘Respect the Rio’’ program directly citizens, and other unpublished al. 2007, pp. 22–27). New populations reached over 9,300 people (Ferrell 2006, documents. The information have been established in Costilla, South p. 16). They developed the Rio Grande summarized in this status review Ponil, Leandro, and Capulin creeks in Cutthroat Trout Life Cycle Game, which includes substantial information that New Mexico and in Big Springs, East has traveled to classrooms, Earth Day was not available at the time of our 2002 Costilla, and West Costilla creeks in events, and Kids’ Fishing Day finding (67 FR 39936). On the basis of Colorado. Populations were restarted in celebrations (Ferrell 2006, p. 15). The this review, we find that listing of Rio Cat Creek and Little Medano Creek, game has also been translated into Grande cutthroat trout as threatened or Colorado, after being lost to the drought Spanish to reach students who speak endangered is warranted, due to a (Japhet et al. 2007, pp. 42–44). In English as a second language. It is combination of population addition, major restoration projections estimated that over 1,000 children and fragmentation, isolation, small have gone through environmental adults have played the game. population size, nonnative trout, review and are in progress on Placer In New Mexico, a Rio Grande drought, and fire. We anticipate these Creek, Comanche Creek, and Costilla cutthroat trout Working Group meets threats will be compounded by the Creek. Completion of these projects will monthly to discuss Rio Grande cutthroat projected effects of climate change. contribute to the long-term persistence trout conservation, projects, and However, listing of the Rio Grande of Rio Grande cutthroat trout. The volunteer opportunities, and to cutthroat trout is precluded at this time USFS, BLM, and NPS have been active coordinate and communicate efforts by pending proposals for other species partners in project implementation and among the participants. Regular with higher listing priorities and have completed many miles of detailed members are NMDGF, the Service, Trout actions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27921

In the context of the Act, the term fish, 9.6 km (6 mi) of occupied habitat, or significant portion of the range). The ‘‘threatened species’’ means any species no nonnatives present). Although 97 lower the listing priority number, the (or subspecies or, for vertebrates, additional conservation populations higher the listing priority (that is, a distinct population segments) that is exist, they all are affected by one or species with an LPN of 1 would have likely to become an endangered species more threats (e.g., small population size, the highest listing priority). within the foreseeable future throughout short stream length, poor habitat Many of the threats to this subspecies all or a significant portion of its range. quality, nonnative trout) that we could result in complete loss of a given The term ‘‘endangered species’’ means consider significant enough to threaten population at any time (e.g., fire, any species that is in danger of their long-term survival. The disease, nonnative introgression). extinction throughout all or a significant overarching threat that magnifies the However, because there are many portion of its range. The Act does not problems for each individual population known conservation populations and indicate threshold levels of historic is fragmentation. Over 90 percent of Rio because many populations are being population size at which, as the Grande cutthroat trout populations exist actively managed, the threats to this population of a species declines, listing in stream fragments. Consequently, subspecies as a whole are considered as either ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ recolonization of streams cannot occur moderate. becomes warranted. Instead, the after a natural disaster occurs and An increase in average mean air principal considerations in the populations are much more susceptible temperature of just over 1 °C (2.5 °F) in determination of whether or not a to extirpation. Arizona and just under 1 °C (1.8 °F) in species warrants listing as a threatened Because of the increases in air New Mexico since 1976 (Parmesan and or an endangered species under the Act temperature that have already been Galbraith 2004, pp. 18, 19; State of New are the threats that now confront the documented in the Southwest, and Mexico 2006, p. 5; Lenart 2007, p. 4) species and the probability that the other changes that have been suggest that climate change is already species will persist into ‘‘the foreseeable documented in hydrology, fire patterns, occurring in the Southwest. Coldwater future.’’ The Act does not define the and the life history of in the species like Rio Grande cutthroat trout term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, we region, there is evidence that the effects are expected to be among the most consider the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be of climate change are already occurring sensitive species to climate change. 20 to 30 years, which equates to in the range of Rio Grande cutthroat Water temperatures in some Rio Grande approximately 4 to 10 Rio Grande trout. Every aspect of climate change we cutthroat trout streams are already cutthroat trout generations, depending examined will likely have a negative elevated beyond recommended on the productivity of the environment. effect on Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Rio temperatures for coldwater trout. At We find that this is both reasonable and Grande cutthroat trout populations are least 14 Rio Grande cutthroat trout appropriate for the present status review currently surviving with multiple streams either dried up or had because it is long enough to take into stressors. Adding the effects of climate populations negatively affected by the account multi-generational dynamics of change on these populations may 2002 drought. Rio Grande cutthroat life-history and ecological adaptation, exacerbate the existing threats and trout populations already face multiple yet short enough to incorporate social stressors on the species. stresses such as nonnative trout, and political change that affects species There is documented commitment of fragmented habitat, and limited habitat. management. agency personnel, tribes, and private The additional effects of climate change Evidence shows that populations of landowners to continue conservation are expected to cause population Rio Grande cutthroat trout have been efforts for Rio Grande cutthroat trout. extirpations and population bottlenecks. greatly reduced over the last 200 years. This is evidenced by the lists of Consequently, threats to this species are The range of Rio Grande cutthroat trout accomplishments the States and considered imminent. Therefore, based has contracted northward and agencies have provided to us. Both State on the moderate magnitude and populations are primarily restricted to and Federal agencies have been actively immediacy of threats, we have given high-elevation headwater streams. We involved in Rio Grande cutthroat trout this subspecies an LPN of 9. attribute the decline in the distribution management. Several habitat restoration Preclusion and Expeditious Progress of Rio Grande cutthroat trout to habitat projects are in progress and several degradation and the introduction of others are planned. It is too early to Preclusion is a function of the listing nonnative sport fish into Rio Grande determine the level of success of current priority of a species in relation to the cutthroat trout habitat that began in the large watershed projects as they have resources that are available and late 1800s. The wide distribution of not been fully completed and evaluated. competing demands for those resources. rainbow trout and nonnative cutthroat Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), Listing Priority Number trout have compromised Rio Grande multiple factors dictate whether it will cutthroat trout populations through In accordance with guidance we be possible to undertake work on a competition, hybridization, and published on September 21, 1983, we proposed listing regulation or whether predation. These introduced fish have assign a Listing Priority Number (LPN) promulgation of such a proposal is expanded and colonized new habitat to each candidate species (48 FR 43098). warranted but precluded by higher and formed naturally reproducing Such a priority ranking guidance system priority listing actions. populations that occupy the former, and is required under section 4(h)(3) of the The resources available for listing in some cases current, range of Rio Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). Using this actions are determined through the Grande cutthroat trout. guidance, we assign each candidate an annual Congressional appropriations We find that populations we LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the process. The appropriation for the considered secure in 2002 suffered magnitude of threats (high vs. moderate Listing Program is available to support severe to moderate population declines. to low); immediacy of threats (imminent work involving the following listing We considered 13 populations secure in or non-imminent); and taxonomic status actions: proposed and final listing rules; 2002, and now we find that only 8 of the species, in order of priority 90-day and 12-month findings on populations (5 identified in 2002, 3 new (monotypic genus (i.e., a species that is petitions to add species to the Lists of populations) would meet our definition the sole member of a genus), species, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of long-term persistence (over 2,500 subspecies, distinct population segment, and Plants (Lists) or to change the status

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27922 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

of a species from threatened to address other listing activities’’ (House related to critical habitat designations endangered; annual determinations on Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st for species that already are listed) will prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and be used to fund work in the following petition findings as required under each year until FY 2006, the Service has categories: Compliance with court section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; proposed had to use virtually the entire critical orders and court-approved settlement and final rules designating critical habitat subcap to address court- agreements requiring that petition habitat; and litigation-related, mandated designations of critical findings or listing determinations be administrative, and program habitat, and consequently none of the completed by a specific date; section 4 management functions (including critical habitat subcap funds have been (of the Act) listing actions with absolute preparing and allocating budgets, available for other listing activities. In statutory deadlines; essential litigation- responding to Congressional and public FY 2007, we were able to use some of related, administrative, and program inquiries, and conducting public the critical habitat subcap funds to fund management functions; and high- outreach regarding listing and critical proposed listing determinations for priority listing actions. The allocations habitat). The work involved in high-priority candidate species; we for each specific listing action are preparing various listing documents can expect to also be able to do this in FY identified in the Service’s FY 2008 Draft be extensive and may include, but is not 2008. Allocation Table (part of our limited to: gathering and assessing the Thus, through the listing cap, the administrative record). We are working best scientific and commercial data critical habitat subcap, and the amount on completing our allocation at this available and conducting analyses used of funds needed to address court- time. More funds are available in FY as the basis for our decisions; writing mandated critical habitat designations, and publishing documents; and Congress and the courts have in effect 2008 than in previous years to work on obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating determined the amount of money listing actions that are not the subject of public comments and peer review available for other listing activities. court orders or court-approved comments on proposed rules and Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, settlement agreements. incorporating relevant information into other than those needed to address We currently have more than 120 final rules. The number of listing court-mandated critical habitat for species with an LPN of 2. Therefore, we actions that we can undertake in a given already listed species, set the limits on further rank the candidate species with year also is influenced by the our determinations of preclusion and an LPN of 2 by using the following complexity of those listing actions; that expeditious progress. extinction-risk type criteria: is, more complex actions generally are Congress also recognized that the International Union for the more costly. For example, during the availability of resources was the key Conservation of Nature and Natural past several years, the cost (excluding element in deciding whether, when Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, publication costs) for preparing a 12- making a 12-month petition finding, we Heritage rank (provided by month finding, without a proposed rule, would prepare and issue a listing NatureServe), Heritage threat rank has ranged from approximately $11,000 proposal or make a ‘‘warranted but (provided by NatureServe), and species for one species with a restricted range precluded’’ finding for a given species. currently with fewer than 50 and involving a relatively The Conference Report accompanying individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for Public Law 97–304, which established Those species with the highest IUCN another species that is wide-ranging and the current statutory deadlines and the rank (critically endangered), the highest involving a complex analysis. warranted-but-precluded finding, states Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage (in a discussion on 90-day petition We cannot spend more than is threat rank (substantial, imminent findings that by its own terms also appropriated for the Listing Program threats), and currently with fewer than covers 12-month findings) that the without violating the Anti-Deficiency 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In deadlines were ‘‘not intended to allow populations, comprise a list of addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal the Secretary to delay commencing the approximately 40 candidate species year since then, Congress has placed a rulemaking process for any reason other (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate species statutory cap on funds which may be than that the existence of pending or have the highest priority to receive expended for the Listing Program, equal imminent proposals to list species funding to work on a proposed listing to the amount expressly appropriated subject to a greater degree of threat for that purpose in that fiscal year. This would make allocation of resources to determination. To be more efficient in cap was designed to prevent funds such a petition [that is, for a lower- our listing process, as we work on appropriated for other functions under ranking species] unwise.’’ proposed rules for these species in the the Act (for example, recovery funds for In FY 2008, expeditious progress is next several years, we are preparing removing species from the Lists), or for that amount of work that can be multi-species proposals when other Service programs, from being used achieved with $8,206,940, which is the appropriate, and these may include for Listing Program actions (see House amount of money that Congress species with lower priority if they Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st appropriated for the Listing Program at overlap geographically or have the same Session, July 1, 1997). this time (that is, the portion of the threats as a species with an LPN of 2. Recognizing that designation of Listing Program funding not related to In addition, available staff resources are critical habitat for species already listed critical habitat designations for species also a factor in determining high- would consume most of the overall that are already listed). Our process is priority species provided with funding. Listing Program appropriation, Congress to make our determinations of Finally, proposed rules for also put a critical habitat subcap in preclusion on a nationwide basis to reclassification of threatened species to place in FY 2002 and has retained it ensure that the species most in need of endangered are lower priority, since the each subsequent year to ensure that listing will be addressed first and also listing of the species already affords the some funds are available for other work because we allocate our listing budget protection of the Act and implementing in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical on a nationwide basis. The $8,206,940 regulations. We assigned the Rio Grande habitat designation subcap will ensure for listing activities (that is, the portion cutthroat trout an LPN of 9, based on that some funding is available to of the Listing Program funding not our finding that the subspecies faces

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27923

threats of moderate magnitude that are the Lists because that work is conducted ‘‘precluded’’ finding, expeditious imminent. using appropriations for our Recovery progress in adding qualified species to As explained above, a determination program, a separately budgeted the Lists is a function of the resources that listing is warranted but precluded component of the Endangered Species available and the competing demands must also demonstrate that expeditious Program. As explained above in our for those funds. Our expeditious progress is being made to add or remove description of the statutory cap on progress in FY 2007 in the Listing qualified species to and from the Lists Listing Program funds, the Recovery Program, up to the date of making this of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Program funds and actions supported by finding for the Rio Grande cutthroat and Plants. (We note that we do not them cannot be considered in trout, included preparing and discuss specific actions taken on determining expeditious progress made publishing the following progress towards removing species from in the Listing Program.) As with our determinations:

FY 2007 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/11/2006 ...... Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the Cow Head Tui Final withdrawal, Threats 71 FR 59700–59711. Chub (Gila biocolor vaccaceps) as Endangered. eliminated. 10/11/2006 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding for the Beaver Cave Beetle Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 59711–59714. (Pseudanophthalmus major). finding, Not warranted. 11/14/2006 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Island Marble But- Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 66292–66298. terfly (Euchloe ausonides insulanus) as Threatened or En- finding, Not warranted. dangered. 11/14/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Kennebec River Pop- Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 66298–66301. ulation of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon as Part of the En- ing, Substantial. dangered Gulf Of Maine Distinct Population Segment. 11/21/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp- Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 67318–67325. Tailed Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 12/5/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Tricolored Blackbird Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 70483–70492. as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 12/6/2006 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Cerulean Warbler Notice of 12-month petition 71 FR 70717–70733. (Dendroica cerulea) as Threatened with Critical Habitat. finding, Not warranted. 12/6/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Upper Tidal Potomac Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 71 FR 70715–70717. River Population of the Northern Water Snake (Nerodia ing, Not substantial. sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct Population Segment. 12/14/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Remove the Uinta Basin Notice of 5-year Review, Initi- 71 FR 75215–75220. Hookless Cactus From the List of Endangered and Threat- ation. ened Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day petition find- Pariette Cactus as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. Notice of 90-day petition find- ing, Substantial. 12/19/2006 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Penstemon grahamii Notice of withdrawal, More 71 FR 76023–76035. (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened With Critical Habi- abundant than believed, or tat. diminished threats. 12/19/2006 ...... 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Pop- Notice of 90-day petition find- 71 FR 76057–76079. ulation of the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or En- ing, Not substantial. dangered. 1/9/2007 ...... 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To List the Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 1063–1099. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened Throughout Its finding, Warranted. Range; Proposed Rule. Proposed Listing, Threatened 1/10/2007 ...... Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Clarification Clarification of findings ...... 72 FR 1186–1189. of Significant Portion of the Range for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. 1/12/2007 ...... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Lepidium papilliferum Notice of withdrawal, More 72 FR 1621–1644. (Slickspot Peppergrass). abundant than believed, or diminished threats. 2/2/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the American Eel as Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 4967–4997. Threatened or Endangered. finding, Not warranted. 2/13/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jollyville Plateau Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 6699–6703. Salamander as Endangered. ing, Substantial. 2/13/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the San Felipe Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 6703–6707. Gambusia as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 2/14/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on A Petition to List Astragalus debequaeus Notice 90-day petition finding, 72 FR 6998–7005. (DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial. 2/21/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Notice of 5-year Review, Initi- 72 FR 7843–7852. Dog From Threatened to Endangered and Initiation of a 5- ation. Year Review. Notice of 90-day petition find- ing, Not substantial. 3/8/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Monongahela River Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 10477–10480. Basin Population of the Longnose Sucker as Endangered. ing, Not substantial. 3/29/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Siskiyou Mountains Notice 90-day petition finding, 72 FR 14750–14759. Salamander and Scott Bar Salamander as Threatened or Substantial. Endangered.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27924 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

FY 2007 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

4/24/2007 ...... Revised 12-Month Finding for Upper Missouri River Distinct Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 20305–20314. Population Segment of Fluvial Arctic Grayling. finding, Not warranted. 5/2/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sand Mountain Notice of 12-month petition 72 FR 24253–24263. Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens ssp. arenamontana) finding, Not warranted. as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. 5/22/2007 ...... Status of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout ...... Notice of Review ...... 72 FR 28664–28665. 5/30/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mt. Charleston Blue Notice of 90-day petition find- 72 FR 29933–29941. Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Substantial. 6/5/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Wolverine as Notice of Review ...... 72 FR 31048–31049. Threatened or Endangered. 6/6/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Yellow-Billed Loon Notice 90-day Petition Finding, 72 FR 31256–31264. as Threatened or Endangered. Substantial. 6/13/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Colorado River Notice 12-month petition find- 72 FR 32589–32605. Cutthroat Trout as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not warranted. 6/25/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sierra Nevada Notice amended 12-month pe- 72 FR 34657–34661. Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow- tition finding, Warranted but Legged Frog (Rana muscosa). precluded. 7/5/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Casey’s June Bee- Notice 12-month petition find- 72 FR 36635–36646. tle (Dinacoma caseyi) as Endangered With Critical Habitat. ing, Warranted but pre- cluded. 8/15/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Yellowstone National Notice 90-day Petition Finding, 72 FR 45717–45722. Park Bison Herd as Endangered. Not substantial. 08/16/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus anserinus Notice 90-day Petition Finding, 72 FR 46023–46030. (Goose Creek milk-vetch) as Threatened or Endangered. Substantial. 8/28/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Gunnison’s Prairie Notice of Review ...... 72 FR 49245–49246. Dog as Threatened or Endangered. 9/11/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Kenk’s Amphipod, Vir- Notice 90-day Petition Finding, 72 FR 51766–51770. ginia Well Amphipod, and the Copepod Acanthocyclops Not substantial. columbiensis as Endangered. 9/18/2007 ...... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List Sclerocactus Notice 12-month petition find- 72 FR 53211–53222. brevispinus (Pariette cactus) as an Endangered or Threat- ing for uplisting, Warranted ened Species; Taxonomic Change From Sclerocactus but precluded. glaucus to Sclerocactus brevispinus, S. glaucus, and S. wetlandicus.

In FY 2007, we provided funds to kuhihewa, Cyrtandra oenobarba, nesiotes, Megalagrion leptodemas, work on proposed listing Dubautia imbricata ssp. imbricata, Megalagrion oceanicum, Megalagrion determinations for the following high- Dubautia plantaginea ssp. magnifolia, pacificum), and one Hawaiian plant priority species: 3 southeastern aquatic Dubautia waialealae, Geranium (Phyllostegia hispida (no common species (Georgia pigtoe, interrupted kauaiense, Keysseria erici, Keysseria name)). In FY 2008, we are continuing rocksnail, and rough hornsnail), 2 Oahu helenae, Labordia helleri, Labordia to work on these listing proposals (we plants (Doryopteris takeuchii, Melicope pumila, Lysimachia daphnoides, are now including an additional 17 hiiakae), 31 Kauai species (Kauai Melicope degeneri, Melicope paniculata, species in the Kauai species proposed creeper, Drosophila attigua, Astelia Melicope puberula, Myrsine mezii, listing determination package). In waialealae, Canavalia napaliensis, Pittosporum napaliense, Platydesma addition, we are continuing to work on Chamaesyce eleanoriae, Chamaesyce rostrata, Pritchardia hardyi, Psychotria several other determinations listed remyi var. kauaiensis, Chamaesyce grandiflora, Psychotria hobdyi, below, which we funded in FY 2007 remyi var. remyi, Charpentiera Schiedea attenuata, Stenogyne kealiae), and are scheduled to complete in FY densiflora, Cyanea eleeleensis, Cyanea 4 Hawaiian damselflies (Megalagrion 2008.

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2007 THAT HAVE YET TO BE COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement: Western sage grouse ...... 90-day petition finding (remand). Actions with Statutory Deadlines: Polar bear ...... Final listing determination. Ozark chinquapin ...... 90-day petition finding. Tucson shovel-nosed snake ...... 90-day petition finding. Gopher tortoise—Florida population ...... 90-day petition finding. Sacramento valley tiger beetle ...... 90-day petition finding. Eagle lake trout ...... 90-day petition finding. Smooth billed ani ...... 90-day petition finding. Mojave ground squirrel ...... 90-day petition finding. Gopher Tortoise—eastern population ...... 90-day petition finding. Bay Springs salamander ...... 90-day petition finding. Tehachapi slender salamander ...... 90-day petition finding.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 27925

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2007 THAT HAVE YET TO BE COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Evening primrose ...... 90-day petition finding. Northern leopard frog ...... 90-day petition finding. Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl ...... 90-day petition finding.

Our expeditious progress so far in FY 2008 in the Listing Program, includes preparing and publishing the following:

FY 2008 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication date Title Actions FR pages

10/09/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Black-Footed Alba- Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 72 FR 57278–57283. tross (Phoebastria nigripes) as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Substantial. 10/09/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Giant Palouse Earth- Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 72 FR 57273–57276. worm as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Not Substantial. 10/23/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 72 FR 59983–59989. (Prosopium williamsoni) in the Big Lost River, ID, as ing, Not Substantial. Threatened or Endangered. 10/23/2007 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Summer-Run Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 72 FR 59979–59983. Kokanee Population in Issaquah Creek, WA, as Threat- ing, Not substantial. ened or Endangered. 11/08/2007 ...... Response to Court on Significant Portion of the Range, and Response to Court ...... 72 FR 63123–63140. Evaluation of Distinct Population Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk. 12/13/2007 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Jollyville Plateau Notice of 12-month Petition 72 FR 71039–71054. Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) as Endangered With Crit- Finding, Warranted but Pre- ical Habitat. cluded. 1/08/2008 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 73 FR 1312–1313. (Brachylagus idahoensis) as Threatened or Endangered. ing, Substantial. 1/10/2008 ...... 90-Day Finding on Petition To List the Amargosa River Popu- Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 73 FR 1855–1861. lation of the Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard (Uma scoparia) as ing, Substantial. Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat. 1/24/2008 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Siskiyou Moun- Notice of 12-month Petition 73 FR 4379–4418. tains Salamander (Plethodon stormi) and Scott Bar Sala- Finding, Not Warranted. mander (Plethodon asupak) as Threatened or Endangered. 2/05/2008 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Gunnison’s Prairie Notice of 12-month Petition 73 FR 6660–6684. Dog as Threatened or Endangered. Finding, Warranted. 2/07/2008 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Bonneville Cut- Notice of Review ...... 73 FR 7236–7237. throat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) as Threatened or Endangered. 2/19/2008 ...... Listing Phyllostegia hispida (No Common Name) as Endan- Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 9078–9085. gered Throughout Its Range. 2/26/2008 ...... Initiation of Status Review for the Greater Sage-Grouse Notice of Review ...... 73 FR 10218–10219. (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. 3/11/2008 ...... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the North American Notice of 12-month Petition 73 FR 12929–12941. Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Finding, Not Warranted. 3/20/2008 ...... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Notice of 90-day Petition Find- 73 FR 14950–14955. Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered. ing, Substantial.

Our expeditious progress also section of the table are being conducted resources, and, when appropriate, includes work on listing actions, which to meet statutory timelines, that is, species with a lower priority if they we are funding in FY 2008. These timelines required under the Act. overlap geographically or have the same actions are listed below. We are Actions in the bottom section of the threats as the species with the high conducting work on those actions in the table are high priority listing actions, priority. top section of the table under a deadline which include at least one or more set by a court. Actions in the middle species with an LPN of 2, available staff

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2008 THAT HAVE YET TO BE COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement: Bonneville cutthroat trout ...... 12-month petition finding (remand). Mexican garter snake ...... 12-month petition finding (remand). Actions with Statutory Deadlines: Polar bear ...... Final listing determination.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2 27926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2008 THAT HAVE YET TO BE COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Phyllostegia hispida ...... Final listing. Yellow-billed loon ...... 12-month petition finding. Black-footed albatross ...... 12-month petition finding. Mount Charleston blue butterfly ...... 12-month petition finding. Goose Creek milk-vetch ...... 12-month petition finding. Mojave fringe-toed lizard ...... 12-month petition finding. White-tailed prairie dog ...... 12-month petition finding. Pygmy rabbit (rangewide) ...... 12-month petition finding. Delta smelt (uplisting) ...... 90-day petition finding. Mono Basin sage grouse (vol. remand) ...... 90-day petition finding. Ashy storm petrel ...... 90-day petition finding. Longfin smelt—San Fran. Bay population ...... 90-day petition finding. Black-tailed prairie dog ...... 90-day petition finding. Lynx (include New Mexico in listing) ...... 90-day petition finding. Wyoming pocket gopher ...... 90-day petition finding. Llanero coqui ...... 90-day petition finding. Least chub ...... 90-day petition finding. American pika ...... 90-day petition finding. Dusky tree vole ...... 90-day petition finding. Sacramento Mts. checkerspot butterfly ...... 90-day petition finding. Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population ...... 90-day petition finding. 206 species ...... 90-day petition finding. 475 Southwestern species ...... 90-day petition finding. High Priority Listing Actions: 48 Kauai species 1 ...... Proposed listing. 21 Kauai species ...... Proposed listing. 11 packages of high-priority candidate species ...... Proposed listing. Flatwoods salamander (taxonomic revision) ...... Proposed listing. 1 Funds used for this listing action were also provided in FY 2007.

We have endeavored to make our action for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout New Mexico Ecological Services Field listing actions as efficient and timely as to be as accurate as possible. Therefore, Office (see ADDRESSES section). possible, given the requirements of the we will continue to accept additional Author relevant law and regulations, and information and comments on the status constraints relating to workload and of and threats to this subspecies from all The primary author of this notice is personnel. We are continually concerned governmental agencies, the the staff of the Albuquerque Ecological considering ways to streamline scientific community, industry, or any Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road processes or achieve economies of scale, other interested party concerning this NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113. such as by batching related actions finding. If an emergency situation Authority: The authority for this action is together. Given our limited budget for develops with this subspecies that the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as implementing section 4 of the Act, these warrants an emergency listing, we will amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). actions described above collectively act immediately to provide additional Dated: April 30, 2008. constitute expeditious progress. protection. We will list the Rio Grande cutthroat Kenneth Stansell, trout as threatened or endangered when References Cited Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. funding is available for discretionary A complete list of all references cited [FR Doc. E8–10182 Filed 5–13–08; 8:45 am] listing actions. We intend any listing in this document is available from the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:43 May 13, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MYP2.SGM 14MYP2 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2