Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31647

sale or marketed. The phrase ‘‘limited

quantities,’’ in this context means:

(i) 200 or fewer units, provided the

product is designed solely for operation

within one of the Commission’s

authorized radio services for which an

operating license is required to be

issued by the Commission; or

(ii) 10 or fewer units for all other

products.

(iii) Prior to importation of a greater

number of units than shown above,

written approval must be obtained from

the Chief, Office of Engineering and

Technology, FCC.

(iv) Distinctly different models of a

product and separate generations of a

particular model under development are

considered to be separate devices.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–15395 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB94

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for the Klamath

River and Columbia River Distinct

Population Segments of Bull Trout

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines threatened status

for the Klamath River and the Columbia

River distinct population segments of

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), with

special rules, pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The Klamath River

population segment is limited to seven

geographically isolated stream areas

representing a fraction of the historical

habitat. The distribution and numbers of

bull trout have declined in the Klamath

River basin due to habitat isolation, loss

of migratory corridors, poor water

quality, and the introduction of nonnative species. The Columbia River

population segment is represented by

relatively widespread subpopulations

that have declined in overall range and

numbers of fish. A majority of Columbia

River bull trout occur in isolated,

fragmented habitats that support low

numbers of fish and are inaccessible to

migratory bull trout. The few remaining

bull trout ‘‘strongholds’’ in the

Columbia River basin tend to be found

in large areas of contiguous habitats in

the Snake River basin of central Idaho

mountains, upper Clark Fork and

Flathead Rivers in Montana, and several

streams in the Blue Mountains in

Washington and Oregon. The decline of

bull trout is primarily due to habitat

degradation and fragmentation, blockage

of migratory corridors, poor water

quality, past fisheries management

practices, and the introduction of nonnative species. The special rules allow

the take of bull trout in the Columbia

River and Klamath River population

segments if in accordance with

applicable State and Native American

Tribal fish and wildlife conservation

laws and regulations and conservation

plans approved by the Service.

The listing proposal was restricted by

court order to information contained in

the 1994 administrative record. This

final determination was based on the

best available scientific and commercial

information including current data and

new information received during the

comment period. As a result, the

threatened listing status for the

Columbia River population segment has

been retained, however, the listing

status for the Klamath River population

segment is changed from endangered to

threatened. This listing status change

occurred because bull trout interagency

management and recovery efforts for the

Klamath River basin are being

implemented and, consequently, threats

have been reduced. This rule

implements the protection and

conservation provisions afforded by the

Act for the Klamath River and Columbia

River population segments of bull trout.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Snake River Basin Field Office,

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise,

Idaho 83709.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake River

Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section )

(telephone 208–378–5243, facsimile

208–378–5262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),

members of the family Salmonidae, are

char native to the Pacific northwest and

western Canada. Bull trout historically

occurred in major river drainages in the

Pacific Northwest from about 41° N to

60° N latitude, from the southern limits

in the McCloud River in northern

California and the Jarbidge River in

Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon

River in Northwest Territories, Canada

(Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the

west, bull trout range includes Puget

Sound, various coastal rivers of British

Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska

(Bond 1992). Bull trout are wide-spread

throughout tributaries of the Columbia

River basin, including its headwaters in

Montana and Canada. Bull trout also

occur in the Klamath River basin of

south central Oregon. East of the

Continental Divide, bull trout are found

in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan

River in Alberta and the MacKenzie

River system in Alberta and British

Columbia (Cavender 1978; Brewin and

Brewin 1997).

Bull trout were first described as

Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856

from a specimen collected on the lower

Columbia River, and subsequently

described under a number of names

such as Salmo confluentus and

Salvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bull

trout and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus

malma) were previously considered a

single species (Cavender 1978; Bond

1992). Cavender (1978) presented

morphometric (measurement), meristic

(geometrical relation), osteological (bone

structure), and distributional evidence

to document specific distinctions

between Dolly Varden and bull trout.

Bull trout and Dolly Varden were

formally recognized as separate species

by the American Fisheries Society in

1980 (Robins et al. 1980). Although bull

trout and Dolly Varden co-occur in

several northwestern Washington river

drainages, there is little evidence of

introgression (Haas and McPhail 1991)

and the two species appear to be

maintaining distinct genomes (Leary et

al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995; Kanda et

al. 1997; Spruell and Allendorf 1997).

Bull trout exhibit resident and

migratory life-history strategies through

much of the current range (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout

complete their entire life cycle in the

tributary (or nearby) streams in which

they spawn and rear. Migratory bull

trout spawn in tributary streams where

juvenile fish rear from one to four years

before migrating to either a lake

(adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in certain

coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous),

where maturity is reached in one of the

three habitats (Fraley and Shepard 1989;

Goetz 1989). Resident and migratory

forms may be found together and it is

suspected that bull trout give rise to

offspring exhibiting either resident or

migratory behavior (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout have more specific habitat

requirements compared to other

salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Habitat components that appear to

influence bull trout distribution and
31648 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

abundance include water temperature,

cover, channel form and stability, valley

form, spawning and rearing substrates,

and migratory corridors (Oliver 1979;

Pratt 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard

1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn

1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell

and Buchanan 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson

and Hillman 1997). Watson and Hillman

(1997) concluded that watersheds must

have specific physical characteristics to

provide habitat requirements for bull

trout to successfully spawn and rear,

and that the characteristics are not

necessarily ubiquitous throughout these

watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a

patchy distribution, even in pristine

habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993),

the fish should not be expected to

simultaneously occupy all available

habitats (Rieman et al. in press).

Bull trout are found primarily in

colder streams, although individual fish

are found in larger river systems

throughout the Columbia River basin

(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and

Gregory 1997; Rieman et al. in press).

Water temperature above 15° C (59° F)

is believed to limit bull trout

distribution, which may partially

explain the patchy distribution within a

watershed (Fraley and Shepard 1989;

Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Spawning

areas are often associated with coldwater springs, groundwater infiltration,

and the coldest streams in a given

watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. in press).

For example, the only stream with

substantial bull trout spawning in the

upper Blackfoot River in Montana was

Copper Creek, which had maximum

water temperatures less than 15° C (59°

F) (Hillman and Chapman 1996). Goetz

(1989) suggested optimum water

temperatures for rearing of about 7 to 8°

C (44 to 46° F) and optimum water

temperatures for egg incubation of 2 to

4° C (35 to 39° F). In Granite Creek,

Idaho, Bonneau and Scarnecchia (1996)

observed that juvenile bull trout

selected the coldest water available in a

plunge pool, 8 to 9° C (46 to 48° F)

within a temperature gradient of 8 to 15°

C (46 to 60° F).

All life history stages of bull trout are

associated with complex forms of cover,

including large woody debris, undercut

banks, boulders, and pools (Oliver 1979;

Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989;

Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and

Everest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992;

Rich 1996; Sexauer and James 1997;

Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober

(1995) observed bull trout overwintering

in deep beaver ponds or pools

containing large woody debris in the

Bitterroot River drainage, Montana, and

suggested that suitable winter habitat

may be more restrictive than summer

habitat. Maintaining bull trout habitat

requires stream channel and flow

stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently

inhabit side channels, stream margins,

and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer

and James 1997). These areas are

sensitive to activities that directly or

indirectly affect stream channel stability

and alter natural flow patterns. For

example, altered stream flow in the fall

may disrupt bull trout during the

spawning period and channel instability

may decrease survival of eggs and young

juveniles in the gravel during winter

through spring (Fraley and Shepard

1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston

1993).

Preferred spawning habitat consists of

low gradient streams with loose, clean

gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and

water temperatures of 5 to 9° C (41 to

48° F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz

1989). Pratt (1992) indicated that

increases in fine sediments reduce egg

survival and emergence. High juvenile

densities were observed in Swan River,

Montana, and tributaries with diverse

cobble substrate and low percentage of

fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984).

Juvenile bull trout in four streams in

central Washington occupied slowmoving water less than 0.5 m/sec (1.6 ft/

sec) over a variety of sand to boulder

size substrates (Sexauer and James

1997).

The size and age of bull trout at

maturity depends upon life-history

strategy. Growth of resident fish is

generally slower than migratory fish;

resident fish tend to be smaller at

maturity and less fecund (Fraley and

Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Bull trout

normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to

7 years and live as long as 12 years.

Repeat and alternate year spawning has

been reported, although repeat

spawning frequency and post-spawning

mortality are not well known (Leathe

and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard

1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre

1996).

Bull trout typically spawn from

August to November during periods of

decreasing water temperatures.

However, migratory bull trout

frequently begin spawning migrations as

early as April, and have been known to

move upstream as far as 250 kilometers

(km) (155 miles (mi)) to spawning

grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In

the Blackfoot River, Montana, bull trout

began migrations to spawning areas in

response to increasing temperatures

(Swanberg 1996). Temperatures during

spawning generally range from 4 to 10°

C (39 to 51° F), with redds often

constructed in stream reaches fed by

springs or near other sources of cold

groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992;

Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Bull trout

require spawning substrate consisting of

loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine

sediments (Fraley and Shepard 1989).

Depending on water temperature,

incubation is normally 100 to 145 days

(Pratt 1992), and after hatching,

juveniles remain in the substrate. Time

from egg deposition to emergence may

surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge

from early April through May

depending upon water temperatures and

increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992;

Ratliff and Howell 1992).

Growth varies depending upon lifehistory strategy. Resident adults range

from 150 to 300 millimeters (mm) (6 to

12 inches (in)) total length and

migratory adults commonly reach 600

mm (24 in) or more (Pratt 1985; Goetz

1989). The largest verified bull trout is

a 14.6 kilogram (kg) (32 pound)

specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille,

Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace

1982).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders

with food habits primarily a function of

size and life-history strategy. Resident

and juvenile migratory bull trout prey

on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macrozooplankton and small fish (Boag 1987;

Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger 1993).

Adult migratory bull trout are primarily

piscivorous, known to feed on various

fish species (Fraley and Shepard 1989;

Donald and Alger 1993).

Bull trout evolved with, and, in some

areas, co-occur with native cutthroat

trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.),

resident (redband) and migratory

rainbow trout (O. mykiss), chinook

salmon (O. tshawytscha), sockeye

salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish

(Prosopium williamsoni), various

sculpin (Cottus spp.), sucker

(Catastomidae) and minnow species

(Cyprinidae spp.) (Mauser et al. 1988;

Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout

habitat overlaps with the range of

several fishes listed as threatened,

endangered, proposed, and petitioned

for listing under the Act, including the

endangered Snake River sockeye salmon

(November 20, 1991; 56 FR 58619);

threatened Snake River spring and fall

chinook salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR

14653); endangered Kootenai River

white sturgeon (Acipenser

transmontanus) (September 6, 1994, 59

FR 45989); threatened and endangered

steelhead (August 18, 1997, 62 FR

43937); and westslope cutthroat trout

(O. c. lewisi) (petitioned for listing in

July 1997). Widespread introductions of

non-native fishes, including brook trout
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31649

(S. fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush)

(west of the Continental Divide), and

brown trout (Salmo trutta), have also

occurred across the range of bull trout.

These non-native fish have caused local

bull trout declines and extirpations

(Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and

Alger 1993; Leary et al. 1993; Montana

Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG)

1996h).

Bull trout habitat in the coterminous

United States is composed of a complex

mosaic of land ownership, including

Federal lands administered by the U.S.

Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), U.S. National

Park Service (NPS), and Department of

Defense (DOD); numerous Indian tribal

lands; State land in Montana, Idaho,

Oregon, Washington and Nevada; and

private lands. It is estimated that as

much as half of present bull trout

habitat is bordered by non-Federal

lands.

Migratory corridors link seasonal

habitats for all bull trout life-history

forms. For example, in Montana,

migratory bull trout make extensive

migrations in the Flathead River system

(Fraley and Shepard 1989) and resident

bull trout move to overwinter in

downstream pools in tributaries of the

Bitterroot River (Jakober 1995). The

ability to migrate is important to the

persistence of local bull trout

subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre

1993; M. Gilpin, University of

California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. in

press). Migrations facilitate gene flow

among local subpopulations because

individuals from different

subpopulations interbreed when some

stray and return to non-natal streams.

Subpopulations that are extirpated by

catastrophic events may also become

reestablished in this manner.

Metapopulation concepts of

conservation biology theory are

applicable to the distribution and

characteristics of bull trout (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an

interacting network of local

subpopulations with varying

frequencies of migration and gene flow

among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994).

Local subpopulations may become

extinct, but can be reestablished by

individuals from other subpopulations.

Metapopulations provide a mechanism

for spreading risk because the

simultaneous loss of all subpopulations

is unlikely. Habitat alteration, primarily

through the construction of

impoundments, dams, and water

diversions that create unsuitable

conditions, has fragmented habitats,

eliminated migratory corridors, and

isolated bull trout often in the

headwaters of tributaries (Rieman et al.

in press).

Though wide-ranging in parts of

Oregon, Washington, Idaho and

Montana, bull trout in the interior

Columbia River basin presently occur in

only about 44 to 45 percent of the

historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide

1997; Rieman et al. in press). Declining

trends and associated habitat loss and

fragmentation have been documented

rangewide (Bond 1992; Schill 1992;

Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994;

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

(IDFG), in litt. 1995; McPhail and Baxter

1996). Several local extirpations have

been reported, beginning in the 1950s

(Rode 1990; Ratliff and Howell 1992;

Donald and Alger 1993; Goetz 1994;

Newton and Pribyl 1994; Berg and Priest

1995; Light et al. 1996; Buchanan et al.

1997; Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997). For

example, bull trout were apparently

extirpated around 1975 from the

McCloud River, California, the

southernmost range (Moyle 1976; Rode

1990).

Distinct Population Segments

The Service’s June 13, 1997, proposal

to list the Klamath River and the

Columbia River population segments of

bull trout (62 FR 32268) was based on

the 1994 administrative record, as

required by the court. The Service’s

original June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30254),

12-month petition finding found that

listing the bull trout was warranted but

precluded throughout the coterminous

United States. As explained in the

proposed rule, the approach to break the

range of bull trout into distinct

population segments in the reanalysis of

the 1994 petition finding was

undertaken because the fish occurs in

widespread, but fragmented habitats

and has several life-history patterns. In

addition, the threats to bull trout are

diverse, and the quality and quantity of

information regarding the population

status and trends varies greatly

throughout the range. By examining bull

trout distinct population segments, the

Service was better able to evaluate

proposed listing of those segments,

based on the 1994 administrative

record, that were a priority in need of

Federal protection. Future listing

actions could, thereby, be based on best

available rather than outdated scientific

information.

In the process of making this final

listing determination, the Service

reexamined the appropriateness of

applying the bull trout distinct

population segments (DPSs) for the

purposes of listing. The joint National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and

Service policy regarding the recognition

of distinct vertebrate populations

published February 7, 1996 (61 FR

4722), was the basis for this

reexamination. Three elements are

considered in the decision on whether

a population segment could be treated

as threatened or endangered under the

Act—discreteness, significance, and

conservation status in relation to the

standards for listing. Discreteness refers

to the isolation of a population from

other members of the species and is

based on two criteria—(1) marked

separation from other populations of the

same taxon resulting from physical,

physiological, ecological, or behavioral

factors, including genetic discontinuity;

and (2) populations delimited by

international boundaries. Significance is

determined either by the importance or

contribution, or both, of a discrete

population to the species throughout its

range. Four criteria were used to

determine significance—(1) persistence

of the discrete population segment in an

ecological setting unusual or unique for

the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the

discrete population segment would

result in a significant gap in the range

of the taxon; (3) evidence that the

discrete population segment represents

the only surviving natural occurrence of

the taxon that may be more abundant

elsewhere as an introduced population

outside its historic range; and (4)

evidence that the discrete population

segment differs markedly from other

populations of the taxon in its genetic

characteristics. If a population segment

is discrete and significant, its evaluation

for endangered or threatened status is

based on the Act’s standards.

Based on the best available

information, numerous bull trout

subpopulations are isolated from each

other by either unsuitable habitat or

impassible dams and diversions, or

both. Although many subpopulations

could be considered discrete, few meet

the ‘‘significance’’ criteria. For example,

although some genetic differences were

identified among subpopulations of bull

trout in specific watersheds of the

Columbia River basin, the

subpopulations did not differ markedly

and they inhabit similar habitats. The

best available current information

supports designating five DPSs in the

coterminous United States—(1) Klamath

River, (2) Columbia River, (3) CoastalPuget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5)

St. Mary-Belly River. For purpose of this

final determination only the Klamath

River and Columbia River DPSs will be

addressed. The three remaining DPSs
31650 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

are the subject of a proposed rule

published concurrently.

Although the range of bull trout

extends into Canada and Alaska,

subpopulations outside the coterminous

United States are not being considered

in this rulemaking. In accordance with

the distinct vertebrate population

policy, the Service may determine a

population to be discrete at an

international border where there are

significant differences in the control of

exploitation, management of habitat,

conservation status, or regulatory

mechanisms. Bull trout management

and conservation strategy in Canada

differs from the United States and such

activities are beyond the regulatory

scope of the Act. The best available

information also disclosed uncertainty

regarding the status of bull trout in

Canada. Throughout British Columbia

and Alberta, data on bull trout status,

distribution, and the presence of

ongoing threats is incomplete and

covers only a portion of the species’

range within the provinces. The status

of bull trout in Alaska is unknown.

Within the coterminous United States,

bull trout distribution is highly

fragmented and many subpopulations

are geographically isolated. The best

available information indicates that bull

trout in the coterminous United States,

although still wide-ranging, have

suffered a significant reduction in range.

In addition, bull trout are faced with

varying degrees of ongoing threats. The

Service now determines that listing bull

trout distinct population segments only

within the coterminous United States is

warranted at this time.

Klamath River

The Klamath River originates in south

central Oregon near Crater Lake

National Park, and flows southwest into

northern California where it meets the

Trinity River and empties into the

Pacific Ocean. Bull trout in this

drainage are discrete because of

physical isolation from other bull trout

by the Pacific Ocean and several small

mountain ranges in central Oregon.

Leary et. al. (1991) determined genetic

characteristics of bull trout in the

Klamath River and Columbia River

drainages using protein electrophoresis.

They concluded that these two groups

of fish were reproductively isolated and

evolutionarily distinct. In addition,

Williams et al. (1995) separated bull

trout in the Klamath and Columbia

Rivers into different clades (i.e., groups

derived from different lineages) based

on genetic diversity patterns. As a

result, the Klamath River DPS is

significant because it differs markedly

in genetic characteristics from bull trout

in the Columbia River basin.

Columbia River

The Columbia River DPS occurs

throughout the entire Columbia River

basin within the United States and its

tributaries, excluding bull trout found in

the Jarbidge River, Nevada. Although

Williams et al. (1995) identified two

distinct clades in the Columbia River

basin (upper and lower Columbia River)

based on genetic diversity patterns, a

discrete geographical boundary between

the two clades was not documented.

The Columbia River DPS is significant

because the overall range of the species

would be substantially reduced if this

discrete population were lost.

Status and Distribution

The Service evaluated the status and

distribution of bull trout for each

subpopulation in the Klamath River and

Columbia River population segments.

The complete review of this evaluation

is found in a status summary compiled

by the Service (Service status summary

1998). A synopsis of the summary is

presented in this rule.

To facilitate evaluation of current bull

trout distribution and abundance for

both the Klamath River and Columbia

River population segments, the Service

analyzed data on bull trout relative to

subpopulations because fragmentation

and barriers have isolated bull trout

throughout their current range. A

subpopulation is considered a

reproductively isolated group of bull

trout that spawns within a particular

area of a river system. In areas where

two groups of bull trout are separated by

a barrier (e.g., an impassable dam or

waterfall, or reaches of unsuitable

habitat) that allows only individuals

upstream access to those downstream

(i.e., one-way passage), both groups

were considered subpopulations. In

addition, subpopulations were

considered at risk of extirpation from

naturally occurring events if they

were—(1) unlikely to be reestablished

by individuals from another

subpopulation (i.e., functionally or

geographically isolated from other

subpopulations); (2) limited to a single

spawning area (i.e., spatially restricted);

and either (3) characterized by low

individual or spawner numbers; or (4)

primarily of a single life-history form.

For example, a subpopulation of

resident fish isolated upstream of an

impassable waterfall would be

considered at risk of extirpation from

naturally occurring events if the

subpopulation had low numbers of fish

that spawn in a restricted area. In such

cases, a natural event such as a fire or

flood affecting the spawning area could

eliminate the subpopulation, and

reestablishment from fish downstream

would be prevented by the impassable

waterfall. However, a subpopulation

residing downstream of the waterfall

would not be considered at risk of

extirpation from naturally occurring

events because there would be

establishment potential by fish from the

subpopulation upstream. Because

resident bull trout may exhibit limited

downstream movement (Nelson 1996),

the Service’s determination of

subpopulations at risk of extirpation

from naturally occurring events may

overestimate the number of

subpopulations that are likely to be

reestablished.

The status of subpopulations was

based on modified criteria of Rieman et

al. (in press), including the abundance,

trends in abundance, and the presence

of life-history forms of bull trout. The

Service considered a subpopulation

‘‘strong’’ if 5,000 individuals or 500

spawners likely occur in the

subpopulation, abundance appears

stable or increasing, and life-history

forms were likely to persist; and

‘‘depressed’’ if less than 5,000

individuals or 500 spawners likely

occur in the subpopulation, abundance

appears to be declining, or a life-history

form historically present has been lost.

If there was insufficient abundance,

trend, and life-history information to

classify the status of a subpopulation as

either ‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘depressed,’’ the

status was considered ‘‘unknown.’’

Based on abundance, trends in

abundance, and the presence of lifehistory forms, bull trout were

considered strong (i.e., 5,000

individuals or 500 spawners likely

occur in the subwatershed or larger area,

abundance is stable or increasing with

at a minimum of half of historic

abundance, and the presence of all lifehistory forms historically present) in 13

percent of the occupied range in the

interior Columbia River basin (Quigley

and Arbelbide 1997). Using various

estimates of bull trout range, Rieman et

al. (in press) estimated that bull trout

were strong in 6 to 24 percent of the

subwatersheds in the Columbia River

basin. Bull trout declines have been

attributed to the effects of land and

water management activities, including

forest management and road building,

mining, agricultural practices, and

livestock grazing (Furniss et al. 1991;

Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Craig

and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993;

McIntosh et al. 1994; Platts et al. 1995).

Isolation and habitat fragmentation from

dams and agricultural diversions (Rode

1990; Mongillo 1993; Jakober 1995),
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31651

fisheries management practices,

poaching and the introduction of nonnative species (Rode 1990; Bond 1992;

Howell and Buchanan 1992; WDFW

1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et

al 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Rieman

and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996h;

Palmisano and Kaczynski, Northwest

Forest Resources Council (NFRC), in litt.

1997) also threaten bull trout

populations.

Klamath River Population Segment

Historical records suggest that bull

trout were once widely distributed and

exhibited diverse life-history traits in

the Klamath River basin (Gilbert and

Evermann 1894; Dambacher et al. 1992;

Ziller 1992; Oregon Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society (OCAFS)

1993). The earliest records of bull trout

in the basin are from Fort Creek

(formerly Linn Creek), a tributary to the

Wood River (L. Dunsmoor and C. Bienz,

Klamath Tribe, in litt. 1997). Records

from the late 1800s suggest that

migratory fish (adfluvial) inhabited

Klamath Lake (OCAFS 1993). Other

migratory bull trout (i.e., fluvial) were

evidently present in some of the larger

streams in the basin as recently as the

early 1970s (Ziller 1992). Bull trout are

thought to have been extirpated from

the Sycan River, the South Fork of the

Sycan River, and four streams in the

Klamath River basin (Cherry,

Sevenmile, Coyote, and Callahan creeks)

since the 1970s.

Currently, bull trout in the Klamath

River basin occur only as resident forms

isolated in higher elevation headwater

streams (Goetz 1989) within three

watersheds—Upper Klamath Lake,

Sprague River, and Sycan River (Light et

al. 1996). Factors contributing to

isolation include habitat degradation,

water diversion, and habitat

fragmentation (OCAFS 1993; Light et al.

1996). In addition, long distances

separate each isolated subpopulation

(Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997).

According to Light et al. (1996), bull

trout occupy approximately 38.2 km

(22.9 mi) of streams in the Klamath

River basin. More recently, Buchanan et

al. (1997) indicated that bull trout

occupy approximately 34.1 km (20.5 mi)

of streams. The risk of extinction for

Klamath River bull trout over the next

100 years was recently estimated at 70

to 90 percent (K. Schroeder and H.

Weeks, OCAFS, in litt. 1997). The

Service identified seven bull trout

subpopulations in three watersheds

(number of subpopulations in each

watershed)—Upper Klamath Lake (2),

Sycan River (1), and Sprague River (4).

The Service considers six of the

subpopulations at risk of extirpation

caused by naturally occurring events

due to their isolation, single life-history

form and spawning area, and low

abundance (Service status summary

1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

The Columbia River DPS includes

bull trout residing in portions of

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and

Montana. Bull trout are estimated to

have occupied about 60% of the

Columbia River Basin, and presently

occur in 45% of the estimated historical

range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

The Columbia River population segment

is composed of 141 subpopulations. For

discussion and analysis, the Service

considered four geographic areas of the

Columbia River basin—(1) lower

Columbia River (downstream of the

Snake River confluence), (2) midColumbia River (Snake River confluence

to Chief Joseph Dam), (3) upper

Columbia River (upstream from Chief

Joseph Dam), and (4) Snake River and

its tributaries (including the Lost River

drainage).

Lower Columbia River Geographical

Area

The lower Columbia River area

includes all tributaries in Oregon and

Washington downstream of the Snake

River confluence near the town of

Pasco, Washington. The Service

identified 20 subpopulations in

watersheds of nine major tributaries of

the lower Columbia River (number of

subpopulations in each watershed)—the

Lewis River (2), Willamette River (3),

White Salmon River (1), Klickitat River

(1), Hood River (2), Deschutes River (3),

John Day River (3), Umatilla River (2),

and Walla Walla River (3). The present

distribution of bull trout in the lower

Columbia River basin is less than the

historic range (Buchanan et al. 1997;

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) 1993). Bull trout are thought to

be extirpated from several tributaries in

five river systems in Oregon—the

Middle Fork Willamette River, the

North and South Forks of the Santiam

River, the Clackamas River, the upper

Deschutes River (upstream of Bend,

Oregon) and the Crooked River

(tributary to the Deschutes River)

(Buchanan et al. 1997).

Hydroelectric facilities and large

expanses of unsuitable, fragmented

habitat have isolated these

subpopulations. Large dams, such as

McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and

Bonneville, separate four reaches of the

lower Columbia River. Although fish

may pass each facility in both upstream

and downstream directions, the extent

to which bull trout use the Columbia

River is unknown. In addition, the nine

major tributaries have numerous

facilities, many of which do not provide

upstream passage.

Migratory bull trout are present with

resident fish or exclusively in at least 13

of the 20 subpopulations in the lower

Columbia River. Many migratory fish

are adfluvial and inhabit reservoirs

created by dams. However, this area

includes the only extant adfluvial

subpopulation in Oregon, which exists

in Odell Lake in the Deschutes River

basin (Ratliff and Howell 1992;

Buchanan et al. 1997). The Metolius

River-Lake Billy Chinook subpopulation

is also found in the Deschutes River

basin. It is the only subpopulation

considered ‘‘strong’’ and exhibits an

increasing trend in abundance. The

Service considers 5 of the 20

subpopulations at risk of extirpation

caused by naturally occurring events

exacerbated by isolation, single lifehistory form and spawning area, and

low abundance.

Mid-Columbia River Geographical Area

The mid-Columbia River area

includes watersheds of four major

tributaries of the Columbia River in

Washington, between the confluence of

the Snake River and Chief Joseph Dam.

The Service identified 16 bull trout

subpopulations in the four watersheds

(number of subpopulations in each

watershed)—Yakima River (8),

Wenatchee River (3), Entiat River (1),

and Methow River (4). Historically, bull

trout occurred in larger areas of the four

tributaries and Columbia River. Bull

trout are thought to have been

extirpated in 10 streams within the

area—Satus Creek, Nile Creek, Orr

Creek, Little Wenatchee River,

Napecqua River, Lake Chelan, Okanogan

River, Eightmile Creek, South Fork

Beaver Creek, and the Hanford Reach of

the Columbia River. Most bull trout in

the mid-Columbia River geographic area

are isolated by dams or unsuitable

habitat created by water diversions.

Bull trout in the mid-Columbia River

area are most abundant in Rimrock Lake

of the Yakima River basin and Lake

Wenatchee of the Wenatchee River

basin. Both subpopulations are

considered ‘‘strong’’ and increasing or

stable. The remaining 14

subpopulations are relatively low in

abundance, exhibit ‘‘depressed’’ or

unknown trends, and primarily have a

single life-history form. The Service

considers 10 of the 16 subpopulations at

risk of extirpation because of naturally

occurring events due to isolation, single

life-history form and spawning area, and

low abundance.
31652 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Upper Columbia River Geographic Area

The upper Columbia River geographic

area includes the mainstem Columbia

River and all tributaries upstream of

Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, Idaho,

and Montana. Bull trout are found in

two large basins, the Kootenai River and

Pend Oreille River, which include the

Clark Fork River. Historically, bull trout

were found in larger portions of the

area. Numerous dams and degraded

habitat have fragmented bull trout

habitat and isolated fish into 71

subpopulations in 9 major river basins

(number of subpopulations in each

basin)—Spokane River (1), Pend Oreille

River (3), Kootenai River (5), Flathead

River (24), South Fork Flathead River

(3), Swan River (3), Clark Fork River (4),

Bitterroot River (27), and Blackfoot

River (1). Bull trout are thought to be

extirpated in 64 streams and lakes of

various sizes—Nespelam, Sanpoil, and

Kettle rivers; Barnaby, Hall, Stranger,

and Wilmont creeks; 8 tributaries to

Lake Pend Oreille; 5 tributaries to Pend

Oreille River below Albeni Falls Dam;

Lower Stillwater Lake; Arrow Lake

(Montana); upper Clark Fork River, 12

streams in the Coeur d’Alene River

basin; and approximately 25 streams in

the St. Joe River basin (e.g., IDFG, in litt.

1995).

The upper Columbia River area

contains ‘‘strongholds’’ for bull trout.

Bull trout are considered ‘‘strong’’ in

Hungry Horse Reservoir and Swan Lake.

Trends in abundance are stable in

Hungry Horse Reservoir, and increasing

in Swan Lake. Although high numbers

of bull trout are found in Lake Pend

Oreille and the upper Kootenai River,

trends in abundance are either negative

or unknown. The high number of

subpopulations (27) in the Bitterroot

River basin, Montana, indicates a high

degree of habitat fragmentation where

numerous groups of resident bull trout

are restricted primarily to headwaters.

The Service considers 47 of the 71

subpopulations at risk of extirpation

because of naturally occurring events

due to isolation, single life-history form

and spawning area, and low abundance.

Snake River Geographical Area

Bull trout occupy portions of 14 major

tributaries in the Snake River basin of

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The

Service identified 34 bull trout

subpopulations in the Snake River

basin. The area consists of two primary

portions separated by Hells Canyon

Dam. Downstream of Hells Canyon

Dam, major tributaries that support bull

trout include (number of

subpopulations in each tributary)—

Tucannon River (2), Clearwater River

(3), Asotin Creek (2), Grande Ronde

River (1), Imnaha River (4), and Salmon

River (2). Upstream of Hells Canyon

Dam, major tributaries that support bull

trout include—Pine Creek (4), Powder

River (3), Malheur River (2), Payette

River (4), Weiser River (2), and Boise

River (2). Although bull trout

distribution upstream of Hells Canyon

Dam is limited primarily to the basin

downstream of Shoshone Falls in

southern Idaho, three geographically

isolated bull trout subpopulations occur

upstream of Shoshone Falls in the Little

Lost River drainage. Bull trout

subpopulations upstream of Hells

Canyon Dam are generally low in

abundance, fragmented, and isolated.

The current distribution of bull trout in

the Snake River basin is less than

historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992;

Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997; Quigley

and Arbelbide 1997), with recent

extirpations documented in Eagle Creek

(Powder River basin) and Wallowa Lake

(Grande Ronde River basin) (Ratliff and

Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al.

1997); and possibly in South Fork

Asotin Creek (WDFW 1997). Numerous

impassable dams and large expanses of

unsuitable habitat have isolated

subpopulations within the historic

range. Isolation is most prominent

upstream of Hells Canyon Dam

(southwest Idaho and southeast

Oregon). The basin downstream of Hells

Canyon Dam is relatively intact, and

connectivity among bull trout

subpopulations may still occur.

Bull trout occupy large areas of

contiguous habitat in the Snake River

basin downstream of Hell’s Canyon

Dam, such as in the Clearwater River

and Salmon River basins. High numbers

of bull trout have been observed in the

Tucannon River, Imnaha River,

Clearwater River, Salmon River, and

Malheur River subpopulations,

however, trends in abundance are

largely unknown or declining. The

Service considers 9 of the 34

subpopulations at risk of extirpation

because of naturally occurring events

due to isolation, single life-history form

and spawning area, and low abundance.

In summary, the Columbia River

population segment of bull trout has

declined in overall range and numbers

of fish. Though still widespread, there

have been numerous local extirpations

reported throughout the Columbia River

basin. In Idaho, for example, bull trout

have been extirpated from 119 reaches

in 28 streams (IDFG in litt. 1995) . The

population segment is composed of 141

subpopulations indicating habitat

fragmentation, isolation, and barriers

that limit bull trout distribution and

migration within the basin. Although

some strongholds still exist, bull trout,

generally, occur as isolated

subpopulations in headwater lakes or

tributaries where migratory fish have

been lost.

Previous Federal Action

On September 18, 1985, the Service

published an animal notice of review in

the Federal Register (50 FR 37958)

designating the bull trout a category 2

candidate for listing in the coterminous

United States. Category 2 taxa were

those for which conclusive data on

biological vulnerability and threats were

not currently available to support

proposed rules. The Service published

updated notices of review for animals

on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804),

reconfirming the bull trout category 2

status. The Service elevated bull trout in

the coterminous United States to

category 1 for Federal listing on

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).

Category 1 taxa were those for which the

Service had on file substantial

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support preparation of

listing proposals. Upon publication of

the February 28, 1996, notice of review

(61 FR 7596), the Service ceased using

category designations and included the

bull trout as a candidate species.

Candidate species are those which the

Service has on file sufficient

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support proposals to list

the species as threatened or endangered.

On October 30, 1992, the Service

received a petition to list the bull trout

as an endangered species throughout its

range from the following conservation

organizations in Montana—Alliance for

the Wild Rockies, Inc., Friends of the

Wild Swan, and Swan View Coalition

(petitioners). The petitioners also

requested an emergency listing and

concurrent critical habitat designation

for bull trout populations in select

aquatic ecosystems where the biological

information indicated that the species

was in imminent threat of extinction. A

90-day finding, published on May 17,

1993 (58 FR 28849), determined that the

petitioners had provided substantial

information indicating that listing of the

species may be warranted. The Service

initiated a rangewide status review of

the species concurrent with publication

of the 90-day finding.

On June 6, 1994, the Service

concluded in the original finding that

listing of bull trout throughout its range

was not warranted due to unavailable or

insufficient data regarding threats to,

and status and population trends of, the

species within Canada and Alaska.

However, the Service determined that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31653

sufficient information on the biological

vulnerability and threats to the species

was available to support a warranted

finding to list bull trout within the

coterminous United States. Because the

Service concluded that the threats were

imminent and moderate to this

population segment, the Service gave

the bull trout within the coterminous

United States a listing priority number

of 9. As a result, the Service found that

listing a distinct vertebrate population

segment of bull trout residing in the

coterminous United States was

warranted but precluded due to higher

priority listing actions.

On November 1, 1994, Friends of the

Wild Swan, Inc. and Alliance for the

Wild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit

in the U.S. District Court of Oregon

(Court) arguing that the warranted but

precluded finding was arbitrary and

capricious. After the Service issued a

‘‘recycled’’ 12-month finding for the

coterminous population of bull trout on

June 12, 1995, the Court issued an order

declaring the plaintiffs’ challenge to the

original finding moot. The plaintiffs

declined to amend their complaint and

appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, which found that the

plaintiffs’ challenge fell ‘‘within the

exception to the mootness doctrine for

claims that are capable of repetition yet

evading review.’’ On April 2, 1996, the

circuit court remanded the case back to

the district court. On November 13,

1996, the Court issued an order and

opinion remanding the original finding

to the Service for further consideration.

Included in the instructions from the

Court were requirements that the

Service limit its review to the 1994

administrative record, and incorporate

any emergency listings or high

magnitude threat determinations into

current listing priorities. In addition,

reliance on other Federal agency plans

and actions was precluded. The

reconsidered 12-month finding based on

the 1994 Administrative Record was

delivered to the Court on March 13,

1997.

On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed

a motion for mandatory injunction to

compel the Service to issue a proposed

rule to list the Klamath River and

Columbia River bull trout populations

within 30 days based solely on the 1994

Administrative Record. In response to

this motion, the Service ‘‘concluded that

the law of this case requires the

publication of a proposed rule’’ to list

the two warranted populations. On

April 4, 1997, the Service requested 60

days to prepare and review the

proposed rule. In a stipulation between

the Service and plaintiffs filed with the

Court on April 11, 1997, the Service

agreed to issue a proposed rule in 60

days to list the Klamath River

population of bull trout as endangered

and the Columbia River population of

bull trout as threatened based solely on

the 1994 record.

Based upon the Court agreement and

stipulation, and information contained

solely in the 1994 record, the Service

proposed the Klamath River population

of bull trout as endangered and

Columbia River population of bull trout

as threatened on June 13, 1997 (62 FR

32268). The proposal included a 60-day

comment period and gave notice of five

public hearings in Portland, Oregon;

Spokane, Washington; Missoula,

Montana; Klamath Falls, Oregon; and

Boise, Idaho. The comment period on

the proposal, which originally closed on

August 12, 1997, was extended to

October 17, 1997 (62 FR 42092), to

provide the public with more time to

compile information and submit

comments.

On December 4, 1997, the Court

ordered the Service to reconsider

several aspects of the 1997 reconsidered

finding. On February 2, 1998, the Court

gave the Service until June 12, 1998, to

respond. The final listing determination

for the Klamath River and Columbia

River population segments of bull trout

and the concurrent proposed listing rule

for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge

River, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSs

constitute the Service’s response.

The Service published Listing Priority

Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and

1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The

guidance clarifies the order in which the

Service will process rulemakings giving

highest priority (Tier 1) to processing

emergency rules to add species to the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second

priority (Tier 2) to processing final

determinations on proposals to add

species to the Lists, processing new

proposals to add species to the Lists,

processing administrative findings on

petitions (to add species to the Lists,

delist species, or reclassify listed

species), and processing a limited

number of proposed or final rules to

delist or reclassify species; and third

priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed

or final rules designating critical habitat.

Processing of this proposed rule is a

Tier 2 action.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the June 13, 1997, proposed rule

(62 FR 32268), all interested parties

were requested to submit comments or

information that might contribute to the

final listing determination for bull trout.

Announcements of the proposed rule

and notice of public hearings were sent

to at least 370 individuals, including

Federal, State, county and city elected

officials, State and Federal agencies,

interested private citizens and local area

newspapers and radio stations.

Announcements of the proposed rule

were also published in nine

newspapers—the Oregonian, Portland,

Oregon; the Spokesman Review,

Spokane, Washington; the Yakima

Herald, Yakima, Washington; the

Missoulian, Missoula, Montana; the

Kalispell Interlake, Kalispell, Montana;

the Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho; the

Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho; the

Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and

the Herald and News, Klamath Falls,

Oregon. Public hearings were held on

July 1, 1997, in Portland, Oregon; July

8, 1997, in Spokane, Washington; July

10, 1997, in Missoula, Montana; July 15,

1997, in Klamath Falls, Oregon; and July

17, 1997, in Boise, Idaho. In response to

numerous requests for additional time

to complete compilation of information

and meaningfully participate in the

public comment process, the Service

published a notice on August 5, 1997

(62 FR 42092), extending the comment

period to October 17, 1997.

Eighty-four oral and 278 written

(including electronic mail) comments

were received on the proposed rule.

These included comments from 7

Federal agencies, 9 State agencies, 6

counties in Oregon and Idaho, 2 Native

American tribes, 6 private timber

companies, and 20 industry or trade

associations and bureaus. Comments

were also received from the Idaho

Congressional delegation, and

Governors from the states of Montana,

Idaho and Oregon.

The Service did not specifically

solicit formal scientific peer review of

the proposal as outlined in the Service’s

July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative

Policy (59 FR 34270) because the

proposal was based on the 1994

administrative record and not the best

available scientific information.

However, in the process of making this

final listing determination, a number of

professional fishery biologists were

consulted and their comments and

information were either incorporated

into the listing decision as appropriate

or are addressed below.

The Service considered all comments,

including oral testimony at the five

public hearings. A majority of

comments supported the listing

proposal and 65 comments were in

opposition. Opposition was based on

several concerns, including conflicts

between ongoing State conservation

efforts and Federal listing; possible

economic impacts from listing the bull
31654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

trout; lack of solutions to the bull trout

decline that would result from listing;

and because the proposed rule was not

peer-reviewed or based on the most

current information. Seventy-three

respondents provided new scientific

information considered by the Service

for this determination. The states of

Idaho and Montana submitted

conservation plans for bull trout for

consideration by the Service in lieu of

listing. The USFS (R. Joslin, USFS, in

litt. 1997), BLM (A. Thomas, BLM, in

litt. 1997) and U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR) (M. McClendon,

USBR, in litt. 1997) provided the

Service with information on respective

agency efforts to date to assess, evaluate,

monitor, and conserve bull trout

populations in habitats affected by each

agency’s management. Because multiple

respondents offered similar comments

in some cases, comments of a similar

nature or point are grouped. These

comments and the Service’s response

are discussed below—

Issue 1: Several respondents urged the

Service to list bull trout throughout its

entire range. Two respondents

recommended that the Service include

the Jarbidge River bull trout population

as a threatened species. Another

respondent stated that the proposal to

list the entire Columbia River bull trout

population was too broad and suggested

that the area be analyzed for listing

purposes by major river segments.

Conversely, another respondent

requested that the Service designate bull

trout in the Clark Fork and Kootenai

River basins as distinct population

segments, citing geographic and historic

isolation, and biological significance to

the species as a whole as reasons.

Additionally, several other commenters

suggested that smaller, more

manageable distinct population

segments be established to avoid listing

healthy populations so that

conservation efforts can be applied to

areas where restoration is truly needed.

Other commenters, at the Federal, State

and local level suggested other

delineations for the distinct population

segments, and questioned whether

listing would afford protection of bull

trout only in currently occupied habitat.

Service response: Based on the best

available scientific and commercial

information, and consistent with the

distinct vertebrate population policy (61

FR 4722, February 7, 1997), the Service

has determined that bull trout should be

divided into five distinct vertebrate

populations for listing purposes, but

only in the coterminous United States

(see Distinct Population Segment

section). The Klamath River and the

Columbia River population segments are

the subject of this final rule and the

remaining three population segments

are addressed in an accompanying

proposed rule.

In addressing the appropriateness in

designating additional DPSs within the

Columbia River basin, the Service

reviewed new genetic and other

biological data developed since 1994,

and determined that there is insufficient

information available to further divide

this DPS. Although many bull trout

groups in the Columbia River basin

were discrete according to the DPS

policy, they failed to meet criteria for

significance (e.g. bull trout in the Little

Lost River basin in Idaho and portions

of the upper Columbia River basin).

However, during the recovery process,

further division of the Columbia River

DPS into recovery units or zones

including separation of the bull trout in

the Kootenai River, Clark Fork-Pend

Oreille River, Little Lost River, 17

potential genetic conservation groups

(GCGs) in the State of Washington, and

8 additional GCGs in Oregon can be

considered. For wide-ranging species,

designation of recovery units can focus

recovery objectives on the specific

threats, status and habitat requirements

within the defined geographic area.

Although recovery units cannot be

individually delisted without

consideration of the entire listed entity

(species or DPS), the Service can

develop ‘‘special rules’’ (under section

4(d) of the Act) for individual recovery

units (see issue #6 below for more

information on special rules).

Issue 2: Several respondents stated

that because the proposed rule was

based on information gathered prior to

June 1994, listing should be deferred

until new information is analyzed and

updated. Comments that ‘‘* * * quality

of peer reviewed scientific data is

noticeably lacking’’ were also received.

Some respondents questioned why the

bull trout is now being considered for

listing when the Service’s analysis in

the proposed rule concluded that bull

trout had a widespread range and

threats to the fish were only moderate.

Respondents also stated that

conclusions in the proposed rule

regarding population distribution and

population trends were inaccurate.

Service response: The U.S. District

Court of Oregon ordered the Service on

November 13, 1996, to reconsider the

original 1994 bull trout finding based

only information available to the agency

when it made the original 1994 finding.

Therefore, the Service was mandated to

move ahead with a listing proposal

based on the information contained in

the 1994 administrative record. In

making this final listing determination,

however, the Service has reviewed and

considered new information regarding

distribution and life history for the

Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments of bull trout. This

includes, but is not limited to, new bull

trout status, distribution, and threats

information, and also descriptions of

ongoing conservation actions, contained

in reports and other written

correspondence available since 1994

concerning bull trout in Idaho (Adams

and Bjornn 1997; Batt 1996; Bonneau

and Scarnecchia 1996; Corley 1997; Elle

1995; Espinoza et al. 1997; N. Horner,

IDFG, in litt. 1997); Montana (Berg and

Priest 1995; Hillman and Chapman

1996; Hansen and DosSantos 1997;

Kanda et al. 1997; Long 1995, 1997;

Mathieus 1996; McDowell et al 1997;

MBTSG 1995a–e; MBTSG 1996a–h; Rich

1996; Swanberg 1996; Swanberg and

Burns 1997); Oregon (Buchanan et al.

1997; Buchanan and Gregory 1997;

Capruso 1997; Crabtree 1996; Germond

et al. 1996a, b; Ratliff et al. 1996; Spruell

and Allendorf 1997); Washington (Faler

and Bair 1996; Northrop 1997; Raekes

1996; Sexauer and James 1997; WDFW

1997); the Klamath River basin

(Buktenica 1997; Buktenica and Larson

1997; Light et al. 1996; ODFW 1996) and

bull trout in the Columbia River basin

(Platts et al. 1995; Quigley and

Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al in press;

Rieman and McIntyre 1995, 1996;

Watson and Hillman 1997; Williams et

al 1995; R. Joslin, in litt, 1997; J. Kraft,

Plum Creek, in litt. 1997; M.

McClendon, in litt, 1997; Palmisano and

Kacynski, in litt, 1997; Thomas, in litt,

1997).

Based on the best information

currently available, bull trout in the

Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments are not more

widespread or found in other areas of

the Klamath or Columbia River basins

than shown in the 1994 administrative

record. Bull trout occur over a large

geographic area in four states within the

Columbia River drainage. However, bull

trout display a generally patchy

distribution (Rieman and McIntyre

1993). The best available information

indicates that bull trout are in

widespread decline across the historic

range and restricted to numerous

reproductively isolated subpopulations

in the Columbia River basin with many

recent local extirpations. The largest

contiguous areas supporting bull trout

are ‘‘strongholds’’ in central Idaho and

Montana, such as the upper Flathead

River basin. Many remaining bull trout

subpopulations are characterized by

declining trends, low relative

subpopulation size, loss of migratory
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31655

fish or the presence of a single lifehistory form, and isolated from other

bull trout by large geographic

separation(s). Habitat loss,

fragmentation and other changes that

have isolated and continue to impact

bull trout subpopulations also increase

their susceptibility to naturally

occurring processes (both

demographically and environmentally).

Many remaining subpopulations in both

the Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments are at risk of

extirpation from the combined effects of

habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of

migration corridors, and inability to

reestablish extirpated subpopulations

through emigration, and recovery

actions are required to slow the rate of

habitat loss and continued reductions in

range. Existing regulations have not

arrested the decline of bull trout and

newly developed State and local

conservation strategies are largely not

implemented.

Issue 3: Several respondents opposed

the Federal listing or believed it not

necessary, and expressed support for

various State and local conservation

plans developed for bull trout. Two

respondents stated that State forest

practice rules and regulations are

adequate to conserve and restore bull

trout. In addition, others recommended

that if the bull trout is eventually listed,

the Service should defer to the States for

management and recovery.

Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of

the Act, requires that listing decisions

be made solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available after

conducting a review of the status of the

species. The Act also instructs the

Service to consider ‘‘existing regulatory

mechanisms, including taking into

account those efforts by State, local and

other entities to protect a species,

including conservation plans or

practices.’’ However, several recent

Federal court decisions have limited the

extent to which the Service may rely

upon land management plans,

agreements and other documents that

are under development and promise

proposed future actions, as a basis for

determining that listing is not warranted

(Southwest Center for Biological

Diversity v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920

(D. Ariz. 1996); Biodiversity Legal

Foundation v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23

(D. D.C. 1996).

The Service has reviewed

conservation plans developed by the

States of Montana and Idaho, and other

local conservation agencies for bull

trout. These actions are encouraging for

long term bull trout conservation and

recovery. It is recognized that individual

restoration projects have been

undertaken by States (for instance, the

Klamath River Basin Bull Trout

Working Group has been implementing

conservation activities and planning

efforts since 1993), and harvest

regulations for bull trout have become

more restricted. However, based on the

best available information, the Service

cannot determine or predict the

effectiveness of the conservation actions

in reducing threats to the bull trout in

the Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments to the extent that

listing is unnecessary.

The Idaho Bull Trout Conservation

Plan (Plan) (Batt 1996), approved in July

1996, addresses bull trout conservation

in 59 key watersheds to provide for the

conservation and recovery of bull trout

statewide. The Plan emphasizes locally

developed, site-specific programs with

technical assistance from appropriate

State and Federal agencies. Although

the Plan establishes a mechanism for

generating 59 conservation plans by the

year 2008, it lacks any description of

how specific practices that currently

affect bull trout (e.g., timber harvest,

mining, grazing, hydropower

operations) will be modified. This

specificity would provide a basis for the

development of future conservation

plans and help ensure adequate

protection for bull trout. It must also be

clear how Federal agencies and private

landowners in key watersheds will be

required to institute bull trout

conservation measures. Given the extent

of Federal lands in Idaho,

implementation of bull trout

conservation measures by the USFS and

BLM are critical to the Plan. The Plan

also cites hydropower and irrigation

practices contributing to the decline of

bull trout, but the Plan needs to address

these practices in light of the existing

Idaho water law, USBR water

commitments, and existing Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

licenses. The Plan provides potential

future benefits to bull trout conservation

and recovery once adequate funding and

full implementation occurs.

The Montana bull trout conservation

effort was initiated in 1994. Since 1994,

11 basin-specific status reports and two

technical, peer-reviewed papers have

been completed. Local watershed

groups are being established; however,

few on-the-ground local efforts have

been completed or are underway. The

Service is a member of the Montana Bull

Trout Restoration Team which has been

formed as part of the State’s Montana

Bull Trout Plan. Although actions taken

to date under the Montana Plan have

provided some benefits, not all threats

to bull trout have been addressed, partly

by lack of State jurisdiction, except in

a few local areas. The Service is

encouraged by State of Montana’s

progress in implementing the Montana

plan and developing appropriate

strategies to remove threats and promote

conservation and recovery of bull trout.

The Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe

Salmon Recovery Plan (Wallowa County

and Nez Perce Tribe, in litt. 1997) in

Oregon is intended to primarily aid in

the recovery of listed chinook salmon

and steelhead. Twenty-six stream

segments in the County have been

identified for restoration, with two to

five stream segments scheduled to be

addressed each year over the next 15

years. By 2008, some positive steps

towards improved land and water

management in Wallowa County should

occur; however, the limited scope of the

plan will not benefit bull trout outside

the County or necessarily address

threats on Federal lands.

Bull trout conservation and planning

efforts in the Klamath River basin were

initiated earlier than similar State

conservation efforts, and incorporated

all land owners of occupied bull trout

habitat. The Klamath River Basin Bull

Trout Working Group (Working Group)

functions under a Memorandum of

Understanding, and has been actively

implementing portions of the Klamath

Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy

(Light et al. 1996). These proactive

interagency efforts to stabilize and

expand bull trout in the Klamath River

basin are unique in their early initiation

and multi-entity approach. The Service

supports and encourages the Working

Group to continue implementing phases

I and II of the Conservation Strategy and

complete a formal implementation plan

for conservation of bull trout in the

Klamath River basin.

Bull trout have declined across much

of their former range due to a variety of

factors, including effects of dam

construction, agricultural practices,

introduced non-native fishes, and forest

practices. A thorough discussion of the

factors affecting bull trout is found in

‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species.’’ Existing State law addressing

forest practices is discussed under

Factor D in the ‘‘Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species.’’ Although State

rules and regulations governing forested

land management activities are

improving, they are generally not

adequate to conserve and recover bull

trout or remedy the effects of past

damage to bull trout habitats.

Issue 4: Several respondents opposed

the proposed listing of bull trout

because possible ‘‘activity restrictions’’

and economic impacts might occur.

Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of

the Act, requires that a listing
31656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

determination be based solely on the

best scientific and commercial

information available. The legislative

history of this provision clearly states

the intent of Congress to ‘‘ensure’’ that

listing decisions are ‘‘based solely on

biological criteria and to prevent nonbiological considerations from affecting

such decisions’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 97–835,

97th Congress 2nd Session 19 (1982)).

Because the Service is specifically

prohibited from considering economic

and other non-biological impacts of

species listing, such impacts are not

addressed in this final rule.

Issue 5: Some respondents suggested

that bull trout listing and recovery may

conflict with recovery of other listed

fish, notably endangered Snake River

salmon species.

Service response: Concerns regarding

the possible adverse environmental and

non-biological effects from

implementing future recovery measures

cannot be considered in a decision to

list a species. However, these concerns

are important in developing recovery

measures that take into account

environmental effects on other species,

including listed Snake River salmon.

The Service will fully evaluate the

environmental effects and consequences

of implementing future recovery

measures for bull trout in the Columbia

River and Klamath River basins. It

should be noted that bull trout coevolved with Snake River salmon and

recovery actions that benefit one species

may also benefit other native fishes.

Issue 6: The Service received several

comments on the proposed special rule

that would allow for take of bull trout

within the Columbia River population

segment when it is in accordance with

applicable State fish and wildlife

conservation laws and regulations.

While some respondents supported the

proposed special rule, others were

opposed to the special rule in its current

form. Various activities were cited that

continue to threaten bull trout,

including poaching, electrofishing, and

mis-identification of bull trout by

fisherman.

Service response: Based on comments

received during the public comment

period, the Service modified the special

rule to address those concerns. The 4(d)

special rule conditions in this final rule

relate to existing State and Tribal

conservation laws and harvest

regulations pertaining to bull trout at

the time of publication of this rule. The

Service has determined that, as

currently constituted, the applicable

State and Tribal fishing regulations

provide conservation of bull trout. In

the event any of these laws and

regulations are modified in a manner

that is inconsistent with conservation of

bull trout, the 4(d) rule would not allow

the take of bull trout.

The Service also has discretion under

section 4(d) of the Act to issue special

regulations for activities other than

harvest regulations for a threatened

species that are deemed necessary and

advisable for its conservation. The

Service recognizes that on-going and

future land-use activities will occur on

non-Federal lands that may result in

take of bull trout. In the future, the

Service will consider issuing special

rules that would define the conditions

under which take associated with State

permitted, or other activities deemed

necessary and advisable for the species’

conservation, would be authorized for

bull trout. Special rules allow for more

efficient management of threatened

species, and encourage and enhance the

conservation of species through the

development of regulations the Service

deems necessary and advisable to

provide for conservation of the species.

For example, conservation actions or

other activities implemented as part of

the Idaho Governor’s bull trout plan,

Wallowa County-Nez Perce Salmon

Plan, Montana Bull Trout Recovery

Plan, and Klamath Basin Bull Trout

Conservation Strategy may qualify for

consideration under a special rule. The

Service will consider the development

and approval of special rules that will

lead to the conservation of bull trout,

allowing certain specific land

management activities that may allow

take of bull trout to continue or occur,

with certain restrictions. Under a

special rule, this take of bull trout as a

result of these activities would not be

considered a violation of section 9 of the

Act.

This process can provide non-Federal

landowners with the flexibility to

develop prescriptions or restrictions for

their lands which would achieve the

level of bull trout conservation

consistent with the special rule.

Issue 7: Several respondents stated

that since hatcheries will be relied on

for bull trout restoration efforts, habitat

threats would not be addressed and

hatchery-reared fish could transmit and

introduce disease to wild bull trout.

Service response: According to

section 2(b) of the Act, one of the

purposes of the Act is ‘‘to provide a

means whereby the ecosystems upon

which endangered species and

threatened species depend may be

conserved.’’ Once a species becomes

listed as threatened or endangered,

section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service

to develop and implement recovery

plans for that species. Recovery means

improvement in the status of a listed

species to the point at which listing is

no longer appropriate under the criteria

provided in section 4 of the Act (50 CFR

402.02). Two goals of the recovery

process are: (1) The maintenance of

secure, self-sustaining wild populations

of the species; and (2) restoration of the

species to the point where it is a viable,

self-sustaining component of its

ecosystem.

The Service recognizes that captive

propagation and hatchery

supplementation can be valid

conservation tools and assist in recovery

efforts, but by themselves, do not

contribute to secure, self-sustaining bull

trout populations in the wild. For

example, the Service agrees with the

findings of the Montana Bull Trout

Scientific Group that stocking or

supplementation is a potential tool in

the restoration of bull trout and should

only be used if the actual cause(s) of

local extirpations are identified and

corrected first (MBTSG 1996g). Any

such project ‘‘* * * involving stocking

must be appropriate in scope,

judiciously applied, rigorously

designed, and thoroughly monitored.’’

Issue 8: Several respondents stated

that the introduction of exotic fishes,

hybridization with brook trout, and past

agency efforts to eradicate bull trout are

the primary causes of decline.

Response: The Service agrees that the

introduction of exotic fishes by fish

management agencies, ongoing

hybridization with brook trout, and past

efforts to eradicate bull trout have

contributed to the decline of the species.

The significance of these threats,

however, varies by subpopulation

location and habitat characteristics (See

Factors B, C and E of the ‘‘Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species’’ section).

Issue 9: Several respondents

requested that the Service designate

critical habitat as part of the final

rulemaking process. A representative of

the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association,

stated that ‘‘* * * the delineation of

critical habitat should be based on

repeatable, verifiable scientific data

followed by a common sense approach

to economics.’’

Service response. A majority of the

comments in this regard were

standardized requests advocating

critical habitat designation with special

attention on roadless areas and riparian

buffers. These comments included no

sight-specific analysis and provided no

information to aid the Service in

delineation of critical habitat. The

proposed rule included a ‘‘not

determinable’’ finding for designation of

critical habitat based on the 1994

administrative record and solicited

comments on whether any habitat
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31657

should be determined critical bull trout

habitat. The Service received no

substantial new information regarding

critical habitat during the open

comment period for the proposed rule.

Therefore, based on the best scientific

information currently available, the

Service finds in this final rule that

critical habitat designation is ‘‘not

determinable’’ (see Critical Habitat

section).

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined

that the Klamath River and Columbia

River distinct population segments of

bull trout should be classified as

threatened. Procedures found at Section

4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50

CFR part 424) were followed. A species

may be determined to be an endangered

or threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Klamath River and

Columbia River population segments of

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are as

follows—

A. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of bull trout habitat or

range. Land and water management

activities that degrade and continue to

threaten bull trout and its habitat

include dams, forest management

practices, livestock grazing, agriculture

and agricultural diversions, roads, and

mining (Beschta et al. 1987;

Chamberlain et al. 1991; Furniss et al.

1991; Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991;

Sedell and Everest 1991; Craig and

Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)

1995; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et

al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; Light et

al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a–e, 1996a–h;

USDA and USDI 1996, 1997).

Dams

Dams affect bull trout by changing

various biological and physical

processes. Dams can alter habitats; flow,

sediment, and temperature regimes;

migration corridors; and interspecific

interactions, especially between bull

trout and introduced species (Rode

1990; Washington Department of

Wildlife (WDW) 1992; Craig and

Wissmar 1993; ODFW, in litt. 1993;

Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Wissmar et

al. 1994; T. Bodurtha, Service, in litt.

1995; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997).

Impassable dams have caused declines

of bull trout primarily by preventing

access of migratory fish to spawning and

rearing areas in headwaters and

precluding recolonization of areas

where bull trout have been extirpated

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Existing dams can be passage and

migratory barriers for bull trout and

these structures may isolate bull trout

subpopulations, eliminate individuals

from subpopulations, reduce or

eliminate genetic exchange, and

separate spawning areas from

productive overwintering and foraging

areas (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Rieman

and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995a,

1996b,c). Dams have fragmented bull

trout habitat and resulted in numerous

isolated subpopulations. Within the

Columbia River population segment, 66

percent of bull trout subpopulations are

isolated by dams or indirectly by dam

or water diversion operations that alter

habitat conditions. Individuals that pass

downstream over or through dams are

often lost from the upstream

subpopulations. Dams have converted

historic rearing habitats for migratory

fish in the larger river system to

reservoirs with conditions that

frequently are unsuitable for bull trout

(MBTSG 1996b), especially where nonnative salmonids occur.

Although the predominant effects of

dams affect the long term viability of

bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; Gilpin, in litt. 1997),

dams can benefit bull trout by

preventing introduced non-native

species access to upstream areas. For

example, dams on the Swan River and

South Fork Flathead River, Montana,

have prevented lake trout from moving

into these major river systems (MBTSG

1995e, 1996a). Dams may also increase

the potential forage base for bull trout

by creating reservoirs that support prey

species (Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992;

ODFW, in litt. 1993).

The extirpation of bull trout in the

McCloud River basin, California, has

been attributed primarily to

construction and operation of McCloud

Dam, which began operation in 1965

(Rode 1990). McCloud Dam inundated

bull trout spawning and rearing

habitats, and isolated these fish from

habitats used by migratory adults. The

dam also altered the stream flow regime

and elevated water temperature to levels

detrimental to bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

Dams are not known to affect bull

trout subpopulations in the Klamath

River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

Bull trout passage is prevented or

inhibited at hydroelectric, flood-control,

or irrigation dams in almost every major

river in the Columbia River basin except

the Salmon River in Idaho. For instance,

six dams were constructed without fish

passage in the Boise River, Idaho, and

of these, Arrowrock and Anderson

Ranch dams isolate bull trout

subpopulations. Historically, bull trout

in the Boise River likely functioned as

a single subpopulation with migratory

adults moving among areas that are now

isolated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Similarly, bull trout were thought to

have ranged throughout the Yakima

River, Washington, prior to construction

of several dams beginning in 1905

(WDFW 1997). Storage dams (Tieton,

Bumping Lake, Keechelus Lake, Kachess

Lake, and Cle Elum Lake dams) now

isolate five of eight bull trout

subpopulations in the Yakima River

basin, with agricultural diversion dams

isolating three additional bull trout

subpopulations (WDFW 1997).

Operation of irrigation diversion dams

also disrupts annual migrations of

fluvial bull trout in five of seven

spawning streams in the Methow River

basin, Washington (WDFW 1997). In the

mainstem Methow River, up to 79

percent of the average flow is removed

from a 64 km (40 mi) reach, occasionally

stranding and killing bull trout (Mullan

et al. 1992). Due primarily to

temperature constraints in partially

dewatered tributaries to the Methow

River, 60 percent of the total spawning

and rearing areas for bull trout has been

lost (Mullan et al. 1992; WDFW, in litt.

1995). Also in Washington, bull trout in

the North Fork Lewis River were

separated into two subpopulations by

the construction of Swift and Yale

reservoirs, and the Condit Dam on the

White Salmon River also isolated a

subpopulation (WDFW 1997). In

Oregon, bull trout were thought to have

historically occurred throughout the

Willamette River basin, but are

presently found only in the McKenzie

River basin. Dams in the basin

(Trailbridge and Carmen) isolate bull

trout into three subpopulations.

In the mainstem Clark Fork River,

Idaho and Montana, bull trout moved

and migrated freely from Lake Pend

Oreille upstream to the headwaters of

the Clark Fork and Flathead rivers prior

to construction of five dams (Pratt and

Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996b; Frissell

1997). The construction of Albeni Falls,

Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids,

Thompson Falls, and Milltown dams

isolated four bull trout subpopulations

in the mainstem Clark Fork-Pend Oreille

rivers. The uppermost dam, Milltown,

isolates downstream fish from those in

the upper Clark Fork River and prevents

fish downstream of the dam from
31658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

moving into the Blackfoot River, a major

tributary of the upper Clark Fork River.

Annually, some bull trout congregate

below Milltown Dam, attempting to

move upstream. Radio-tagged bull trout

collected below Milltown Dam and

released above the dam moved into

Rock Creek, a tributary to the upper

Clark Fork system (Swanberg 1996).

Movement of bull trout from the

mainstem Clark Fork River to the

Flathead Lake system is prevented by

Kerr Dam on the lower Flathead River.

Sport harvest of bull trout from Lake

Pend Orielle, Idaho, abruptly declined

more than 50 percent after Albeni Falls

and Cabinet Gorge dams blocked access

to historic spawning streams and

reduced adult numbers (Ellis 1940; Pratt

and Huston 1993).

Major tributaries of the Flathead River

basin, Montana, were historically

interconnected so that migratory bull

trout were widely distributed

throughout the drainage (MBTSG

1995d). Bull trout from the Flathead

River system had access to the South

Fork Flathead River drainage and the

Swan River drainage. However,

upstream passage from the Flathead

River has been blocked by dams on the

South Fork Flathead River (Hungry

Horse Dam) and the Swan River (Bigfork

Dam).

On the Kootenai River, Montana,

Libby Dam is an upstream passage

barrier to bull trout. The dam also has

altered the flow regime, water

temperature, and sediment load in the

Kootenai River (MBTSG 1996e). Dam

operation has typically reduced spring

flows, which has made upstream

passage over Kootenai Falls, located

downstream of Libby Dam, impossible.

Therefore, fish below the falls do not

have the opportunity to interbreed with

fish above (MBTSG 1996e).

An additional effect of dams on bull

trout is the loss of individuals from a

subpopulation. During a 7-month study

in the Boise River, bull trout were

marked in Arrowrock Reservoir and 5

percent of them were recaptured in

Lucky Peak Reservoir (USBR, in litt.

1997). Lucky Peak Dam is downstream

of the Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch

subpopulations, and neither Lucky Peak

Reservoir nor the reach downstream of

the dam provide any known spawning

habitat. Thus, fish entering Lucky Peak

Reservoir are lost from the upstream

subpopulations.

Forest Management Practices

Forest management activities,

including timber extraction and road

building, affect streams habitats by

altering recruitment of large woody

debris, erosion and sedimentation rates,

runoff patterns, the magnitude of peak

and low flows, and annual water yield

(Cacek 1989; Furniss et al. 1991;

Wissmar et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996).

Activities that promote excessive

substrate movement lower bull trout

production by increasing egg and

juvenile mortality, and reduce or

eliminate habitat important to later lifehistory stages, such as when pools are

filled with substrates (Shepard et al.

1984; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Brown

1992). The length and timing of bull

trout egg incubation and juvenile

development (typically more than 200

days during winter and spring) and the

strong association of juvenile fish with

stream substrate make bull trout

vulnerable to changes in peak flows and

timing that affect channels and substrate

(Shepard et al. 1984; Goetz 1989; Pratt

1992).

Logging and road building in riparian

zones reduce stream shading and widen

stream channels, allowing greater

sunlight penetration, surface water

warming, and winter anchor ice

formation (Beschta et al. 1987;

Chamberlain et al. 1991). Timber

extraction in riparian areas that results

in increased water temperatures in

spawning and rearing areas may cause

bull trout to decline (Goetz 1989; Pratt

1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Logging in riparian areas reduces

recruitment of large woody debris,

thereby reducing stream habitat

complexity. Loss of riparian vegetation

destabilizes streambanks and increases

erosion and sediment delivery to

streams. Road construction that involves

channelizing streams may cause

reduced habitat complexity and

increased sediment delivery.

Although bull trout occur in

watersheds affected by past timber

extraction, bull trout strongholds persist

in a greater percentage of watersheds

experiencing little or no past timber

harvest, such as the wilderness areas of

Central Idaho and the South Fork

Flathead River drainage in Montana

(Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995e;

USDA and USDI 1997; Rieman et al. in

press). One bull trout stronghold subject

to extensive logging and road

construction is in the Swan River basin

(Watson and Hillman 1997). It is

difficult to assess the overall effects of

forestry practices on bull trout in parts

of the basin because of the complex

geomorphology and geology of the

drainage (MBTSG 1996a). However, the

Swan River tributaries also drain large

areas of contiguous roadless lands that

provide important protected bull trout

habitat.

Timber harvest has occurred

throughout the Columbia River (Henjum

et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997)

and Klamath River basins (Light et al.

1996; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). The

effects of timber harvest on streams are

long lasting, and recovery is slow

(Furniss et al. 1991; Henjum et al. 1994).

The MBTSG ranked forestry, especially

the legacy left by past forestry practices,

as a limitation to bull trout restoration

in all major watersheds in Montana

(MBTSG 1995a–e, 1996a–f).

Klamath River Population Segment

Much of the forest in the Klamath

River basin has been managed for timber

production, with substantial activity

beginning in 1940. Extensive harvesting,

including partial cutting with overstory

removal, clearcutting, and selective

logging for old-growth pine occurred on

private lands, and low intensity harvest

occurred on some of the USFS lands.

Past forest management activities in the

Klamath River basin have temporarily

reduced riparian vegetative cover and

increased water temperature in some

streams, including Threemile Creek

(Light et al. 1996). Roads were built in

the basin for access to timber, causing

increased sedimentation and substrate

embeddedness. Sediment from existing

roads continues to degrade stream

habitat (Light et al. 1996). Weyerhauser

Timber Company began an improved

road maintenance program in 1994 to

reduce sediment inputs from roads on

its lands adjacent to occupied bull trout

stream reaches in the Klamath River

basin, and U.S. Timberlands is presently

continuing the practice (B. Johnson,

pers. comm. 1997). Two recent timber

harvest activities occurred on U.S.

Timberlands property along Boulder

Creek in 1994 and Long Creek in 1995

(Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, pers.

comm. 1997). A review of the activities

concluded that leaving buffer strips and

obliterating existing roads left the

riparian habitat in better condition than

before the timber harvest (B. Johnson,

pers. comm. 1997). No timber harvests

are currently planned for areas adjacent

to streams occupied by bull trout. Six of

the seven bull trout subpopulations

identified in the Klamath River basin

have been affected by past forest

management practices.

Columbia River Population Segment

Perhaps the greatest threat to bull

trout involving forest practices and

roads stems from the ongoing and latent

adverse effects caused by over a century

of logging. Latent threats are illustrated

by approximately 2,300 land slides

correlated with high logging road

density on national forest lands in the

Clearwater and Spokane rivers basins

during high runoff events in 1995 and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31659

1996 (L. McLaud, Idaho Conservation

League, in litt. 1997; R. Patten,

Panhandle National Forest, in litt. 1997).

The same runoff events also triggered an

estimated 2,000 land slides on adjacent

non-Federal timber lands in the

Clearwater River basin (McLaud, in litt.

1997). On over half of the nonwilderness lands within National

Forests across northern Idaho and

western Montana, the environmental

effects of past forest practices now

constrain forest management (USFS

map, in litt. 1994). For example, 70

percent of stream miles on the WallowaWhitman National Forest are degraded

beyond Land and Resource Management

Plan (LRMP) standards for fine sediment

and temperature parameters on the

forest (Wissmar et al. 1994). On the

Panhandle National Forest, Idaho, pool

volumes, quality and frequency in

managed watersheds (mainly

watersheds with past timber extraction

and road construction) were reduced

compared to non-managed watersheds.

Further, decreases in pool volume and

frequency were correlated with

decreases in the distribution and

abundance of bull trout (Cross and

Everest 1995). In the Lake Pend Oreille

and Priest River basins, 31 percent of

streams in National Forest lands are

degraded beyond LRMP standards, and

51 percent of streams are in the most

degraded category (B. Kasun, USFS, in

litt. 1993). Streams in the most degraded

category generally do not support bull

trout because of stream morphology

changes, increased cobble

embeddedness and high summer

temperatures. Jones and Espinosa (1992)

determined that 71 percent of the stream

or watershed areas in the managed

portion of the Clearwater National

Forest did not meet LRMP standards,

and that streams in poor condition

generally did not support bull trout.

Similarly, 67 percent of the nonwilderness portion of the Nez Perce

National Forest did not meet LRMP

standards, and streams in the most

degraded category increased 12 percent

over a five year period between 1987

and 1992 (Gloss and Gerhardt 1992).

In the Wenatchee National Forest,

Washington, bull trout spawning and

rearing is correlated with streams not

subject to past timber harvest (Brown

1992). Timber harvest activities were

responsible in the decline and isolation

of bull trout in Pataha Creek,

Washington (WDFW 1997), a tributary

in the Tucannon River drainage. In the

North Fork Boise River basin, Idaho, the

majority of bull trout spawning and

rearing habitat for the Arrowrock

Reservoir subpopulation exists in the

roadless headwaters of the Crooked,

Bear, and North Fork Boise rivers (Boise

National Forest, in litt. 1995).

The long-lasting effects of past timber

management activities on aquatic

habitats is illustrated by conditions in

the 3,289 km2 (1,270 mi2) South Fork

Salmon River watershed, Idaho. The

watershed was first logged in the 1940’s

and logging activity peaked in 1961

(Chapman et al. 1991). Sedimentation in

the South Fork Salmon River increased

approximately 350 percent above prelogging levels (Chapman et al. 1991).

Resident and anadromous salmonids,

including bull trout, declined after

timber extraction and associated road

building. Despite a 25-year logging

moratorium in the watershed, fish

habitat has not returned to pre-logging

quality, and salmon production has not

recovered (Chapman et al. 1991).

A relationship between forest

management, watershed conditions,

aquatic habitat degradation, and loss of

occupied bull trout range has been

documented in the Spokane River basin,

Idaho. Streambed aggradation and loss

of pool habitat are attributed to forest

management and associated roads in the

basin (G. Kappesser, Panhandle

National Forest, in litt. 1993). The loss

of pool habitat correlates to reductions

in bull trout range and abundance in

managed watersheds (Cross and Everest

1995). Sixty-one percent of the basin’s

managed watersheds do not meet forest

plan standards (B. Kasum, Panhandle

National Forest, in litt. 1992). The Nez

Perce National Forest, Idaho, provides

an example of the rate of watershed

degradation. Significantly degraded

watersheds with forest management

increased by 12 percent in only 5 years;

40 percent of all non-wilderness land

were in degraded condition (Gloss and

Gearhardt 1992).

The USFS classified watersheds in the

Bitterroot National Forest, Montana,

into three categories, ‘‘healthy,’’

‘‘sensitive,’’ and ‘‘high risk’’ based on

sediment yield from road construction

and increased water yield and peak flow

from timber harvest (Decker 1991 in

MBTSG 1995b). About one third of all

watersheds were assigned to each of the

three categories. Bull trout with

estimable numbers were found only in

watersheds rated as ‘‘healthy’’ or

‘‘sensitive drainages’’ (Clancy 1993).

The effects of past forest practices,

including road construction, continue to

affect Bitterroot tributaries (MBTSG

1995b). Generally, bull trout numbers

were higher where stream substrates

were larger, but numbers tended to be

lower in areas high in fine sediments

(Clancy 1993). In contrast, habitat where

brook trout were found were

characteristic of areas degraded by land

use activities (Rich 1996). Eighty-five

percent of the drainages classified as

‘‘high risk’’ supported brook trout

(Clancy 1993) (see Factor E).

Extensive logging activity has

impaired water quality in many

tributaries of the Blackfoot River,

Montana, including the North Fork

Blackfoot River (Montana Department of

Health and Environmental Sciences

(MDHES) 1994). Wide-spread canopy

removal, alterations to riparian

vegetation, and water irrigation returns

have increased the historic temperature

regime of the Blackfoot River (MBTSG

1995c; Pierce et al. 1997). Water

temperatures in the mainstem Blackfoot

frequently exceeded the bull trout

preferred range of 15°C (60°F) in 1994,

1995 and 1996, making coldwater

refuges during this time critical for bull

trout (Pierce et al. 1997). The effect of

forest practices was considered a

limitation to bull trout restoration in the

Blackfoot River drainage (MBTSG

1995c).

Timber management is the dominant

land use in the Kootenai River

watershed, Montana. Extensive road

construction to support forestry

activities exists throughout the

watershed. Many reaches of streams in

the Kootenai drainage have impaired

water quality as a result of silviculture

activities (MDHES 1994). As a result of

salvage logging in 1996, the number of

timber sales and clearcuts have

substantially increased over the past

three years (Kootenai National Forest

1997).

Past forest practices, including road

construction, log skidding, riparian tree

harvest, clearcutting, and splash dams,

are considered a cause in the historic

decline of bull trout and have limited

restoration opportunities in the Flathead

Lake basin (MBTSG 1995d). This basin

supports over 30 subpopulations in

wilderness, national park, national

forest, and private lands of Montana.

Because bull trout are sensitive to

habitat and water quality degradation,

Fraley and Shepard (1989) considered

timber harvest and road construction in

both the North and Middle Fork

Flathead River drainages to be threats to

bull trout spawning and rearing habitat.

Although forest practices have

improved, effects of past activities still

affect bull trout because the existing

road systems continue to erode, cause

sedimentation, and increase water yield

to streams. Silvicultural activities have

contributed to 323.2 km (202 mi) in 17

streams being classified as water quality

impaired in the Flathead basin (MDHES

1994). Existing roads in two National

Forests of Idaho (Boise and Payette)
31660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

created slides and slumps during 1997,

a high water year. In some areas of

Montana and Idaho, culverts, that are

passage barriers for bull trout, are being

replaced at road crossings (P. Batt,

Governor of Idaho, in litt. 1997, P.

Graham, Montana Fish and Wildlife and

Parks (MFWP), and B. Clinch, Montana

Department of Natural Resources and

Conservation (MDNRC), in litt. 1997).

Future proposed timber harvests also

threaten bull trout. For instance, in

Oregon, the Malheur National Forest

proposes to salvage trees and build

roads in a roadless area containing bull

trout, site of the 1996 Summit Fire in

the John Day River watershed, and a

designated riparian habitat conservation

area in the Environmental Assessment

for the Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995). The

project has not been completed, but it

would likely degrade bull trout habitat

if implemented as presently planned.

In summary, forestry activities that

adversely affect bull trout and its habitat

are primarily timber extraction and road

construction, especially when impacting

riparian areas. These activities, when

conducted without adequate protective

measures, alter bull trout habitat by

increasing sedimentation, reducing

habitat complexity, increasing water

temperature, and promoting channel

instability. Although certain forestry

practices have been prohibited or

altered in recent years to improve

protection of aquatic habitats, the

consequences of past activities continue

to affect bull trout and their habitat.

Within the Columbia River population

segment, approximately 74 percent of

bull trout subpopulations are threatened

by forestry management practices.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing degrades aquatic

habitat by removing riparian vegetation,

destabilizing streambanks, widening

stream channels, promoting incised

channels and lowering water tables,

reducing pool frequency, increasing soil

erosion, and altering water quality

(Platts 1981; Kauffman and Krueger

1984; Henjum et al. 1994; Overton et al.

1993). These effects increase summer

water temperatures, promote formation

of anchor ice in winter, and increase

sediment into spawning and rearing

habitats. Cover for bull trout is reduced.

Occupied bull trout habitat is also

negatively affected by livestock grazing

(Howell and Buchanan 1992; Mullan et

al. 1992; Platts et al. 1993; R. Uberuaga,

Payette National Forest, in litt. 1993;

Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995a,b,c;

USDA and USDI 1996,1997).

Livestock grazing impacts on bull

trout habitat maybe minimized if

grazing is managed appropriately for

conditions at a specific site. Practices

generally compatible with the

preservation and restoration of bull

trout habitat may include fences to

exclude livestock from riparian areas,

rotation schemes to avoid overuse of

areas, and stock tanks so that livestock

would concentrate outside of riparian

areas for water.

Klamath River Population Segment

Intensive livestock grazing

historically occurred throughout most of

the Klamath River basin, and continues

to be widespread (Light et al. 1996).

Livestock grazing is a major land use

within the Sprague River drainage,

mostly in the lowland meadows and to

a lesser extent in some forested areas.

Grazing has been eliminated along bull

trout streams on U.S. Timberlands

property (B. Johnson, U.S. Timberlands,

in litt. 1997) and adjacent National

Forest lands. However, documented

cattle trespass on Long and Deming

creeks indicates that livestock continue

to locally affect bull trout habitats (Light

et al. 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997). The

meadows in upper Long Creek exhibit

bank instability and diminished

availability of undercut banks caused by

livestock (Buchanan et al. 1997).

Channelization and intense grazing by

cattle degraded lower Sun Creek and an

adjoining stream in the Klamath River

basin and may have contributed to the

extirpation of migratory bull trout in

Sun Creek (Dambacher et al. 1992).

Columbia River Population Segment

Livestock grazing has caused habitat

degradation in stream reaches

supporting bull trout. On Squaw Creek,

a tributary of the Payette River, Idaho,

livestock grazing has damaged

streambank and riparian vegetation.

While fencing and grazing changes are

underway to reduce impacts in this

area, future damage from grazing will

not be eliminated (M. Huffman, Boise

National Forest (BNF), in litt. 1997).

Livestock grazing continues to affect

bull trout habitat for spawning, rearing,

and migration in Bear Valley Creek and

its tributaries in the BNF, Idaho (T.

Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997).

Livestock grazing was a factor in the

decline of bull trout habitat in Pataha

Creek, Washington (WDFW 1997). In

Montana, severe overgrazing occurs in

the Bitterroot River valley bottom

streams and along the mainstem Clark

Fork River in the Deerlodge valley, Flint

Creek valley, and parts of Rock Creek,

and limits bull trout restoration in these

drainages (MBTSG 1995a,b; Maxell

1996). Overall, livestock grazing in

portions of the Wieser, Grande Ronde,

Imnaha, and Malheur rivers has

degraded streamside habitat (Adams

1994; Buchanan et al. 1997). Of the 141

subpopulations the Service identified in

the Columbia River population segment,

approximately 50 percent were

threatened by ongoing livestock grazing.

Agricultural Practices

Agricultural practices, such as

cultivation, irrigation, and chemical

application can affect bull trout.

Agriculture has been identified a source

of nonpoint source pollution in some

areas within the range of bull trout

(Idaho Department of Health and

Welfare (IDHW) 1991; Washington

Department of Ecology (WDE) 1992;

MDHES 1994). These practices can

release sediment, nutrients, pesticides

and herbicides into streams, increase

temperature, reduce riparian vegetation,

and alter the hydrologic regime,

typically with low flows in the spring

and summer. Irrigation diversions also

affect bull trout by altering stream flow

and through entrainment. Bull trout

may enter unscreened irrigation

diversions and become stranded in

ditches and agricultural fields.

Diversion dams, without proper passage

facilities, prevent bull trout from

migrating and may isolate

subpopulations (Dorratcaque 1986;

Light et al. 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

Historical agricultural use in the

Klamath River basin has had a profound

effect on bull trout habitat in the larger

tributaries and mainstem rivers

(Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization,

water diversions, removal of streamside

vegetarian, and disturbances have

altered the aquatic environment by

elevating water temperature, reducing

water quantity and quality, and

increasing sedimentation (Light et al.

1996). Deming, Long, Threemile, and

Sun creeks have diversions immediately

downstream of occupied bull trout

habitat (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt.

1997). Unscreened diversions result in

the transport of fish into irrigation

canals (e.g., Deming and Sun creeks),

often resulting in mortality (Light et al.

1996).

Columbia River Population Segment

In 1988, the Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality (IDEQ)

conducted an assessment of nonpoint

source pollution of the Salmon River

basin. Of 4,080 km (2,550 mi) of streams

assessed, an estimated 2,059 km (1,287
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31661

mi) were affected by nonpoint sources,

of which 1,374 km (859 mi) were

affected by agricultural practices (IDHW

1991). Dewatering of stream reaches due

to irrigation has restricted bull trout

migration and isolated bull trout into

subpopulations. Examples include the

Powder, Malheur, Grande Ronde,

Umatilla, and John Day rivers in Oregon

(Buchanan et al. 1997); the Tucannon,

Snake, Yakima, Methow, and Walla

Walla rivers in Washington (WDW 1992;

WDFW 1997); the upper Salmon and

Lemhi rivers in Idaho (Dorratcaque

1986; Chapman et al. 1991); and the

Clark Fork, Blackfoot, and Bitterroot

rivers in Montana (Clancy 1993; MBTSG

1995a,b,c; 1996b,c; Swanberg 1996).

The mainstem Umatilla River is

frequently dry during the irrigation

season, effectively isolating bull trout

(M. Northrop, Umatilla National Forest,

pers. comm. 1997). Moreover, two

diversion facilities in the Umatilla River

inhibit migration during portions of the

year (Buchanan et al. 1997). Walla Walla

River basin bull trout subpopulations

are segregated in the Touchet River, Mill

Creek, and South Fork and North Fork

of the Walla Walla River by four

irrigation diversion dams (Buchanan et

al 1997; WDFW 1997). Streams are also

channelized in agricultural areas,

reducing stream length and area of

aquatic habitat, altering stream channel

morphology, and diminishing aquatic

habitat complexity.

In Idaho, Dorratcaque (1986)

documented chronic flow and passage

problems on the Lemhi River, where the

stream has been dewatered during the

irrigation season. An irrigation

diversion dewaters the upper Salmon

River in Idaho from mid-July to the end

of the irrigation season, preventing

chinook salmon access to spawning

areas. Juvenile chinook salmon, which

are used as prey by bull trout, are,

thereby, no longer available (Chapman

et al. 1991). Streamflows in the Umatilla

River basin in Oregon have been fully

appropriated during the irrigation

season since 1920 (Oregon Water

Resources Division (OWRD), in litt.

1988). Over-appropriations have

resulted in dewatered stream reaches

that limit bull trout distribution within

the basin. Similarly, the Oregon State

Game Commission (OSGC) first

recognized the negative effects of

irrigation diversions on fisheries

resources in the Deschutes River as

early as 1950 (OSGC, in litt. 1950). In

Washington, over 80 percent of the

annual stream flow in the Yakima River

basin is seasonally diverted for

irrigation (WDW 1992). Bull trout in the

basin are isolated into eight

subpopulations in upper watershed

tributaries by reduced summer flows

and dams (WDW 1992). The lower

reaches of the Walla Walla River in

Washington are often dewatered during

the irrigation season, isolating three bull

trout subpopulations in perennial

headwater reaches (Martin et al. 1992).

In 1991, MFWP listed Montana

streams that support or contribute to

important fisheries and are substantially

dewatered from diversions and

appropriated streamflows (MFWP, in

litt. 1991). Within the range of bull

trout, 101 stream reaches totaling 958.4

km (599 mi) were listed as chronically

dewatered due to irrigation withdrawals

and an additional 220.8 km (138 mi)

were listed as periodically dewatered.

Although bull trout do not occur in all

streams cited, all are within the range of

bull trout and dewatering likely affects

fish migration and connectivity among

subpopulations.

The extirpation of bull trout in the

mainstem Bitterroot River, Montana,

and the loss of migratory fish are

attributed to chronic dewatering of the

mainstem Bitterroot and the lower

reaches of most of its tributaries (Clancy

1993, 1996; MBTSG 1995b). Some

diversions on the mainstem Bitterroot

are fish passage barriers or entrain

downstream migrants into irrigation

ditches (MBTSG 1995b). Nearly 104 km

(65 mi) of 18 tributary streams are

chronically dewatered in the Bitterroot

River basin (MBTSG 1995b). Dewatering

of tributary streams is a limitation to

restoration of bull trout in the Bitterroot

River basin (MBTSG 1995b) and the

cause of habitat fragmentation isolating

27 subpopulations.

In the Clark Fork River basin,

Montana, irrigation diversions, canals,

and dams in the Jocko and lower

Flathead rivers eliminated bull trout

access to spawning and rearing areas;

however, some of these structures are in

the process of being modified (MBTSG

1996c; Hansen and DosSantos 1997;

MBTRT 1997). The lower reaches of the

Jocko River are severely affected by

grazing and irrigated agriculture

(Hansen and DosSantos 1997). Because

migratory bull trout can no longer

ascend Grant Creek from the mainstem

Clark Fork River due to irrigation

diversions, only resident bull trout exist

upstream (MBTSG 1996c; R. Berg,

MFWP, pers. comm. 1997). Dewatering,

irrigation return flows, and denuded

riparian areas have increased water

temperatures in the Blackfoot River and

Clark Fork River basins, Montana

(MBTSG 1995a,c). Water temperatures

in the mainstem upper Clark Fork River

frequently exceed 20°C (68° F) and

temperatures in tributaries, including

the Little Blackfoot and Flint Creek, may

exceed bull trout tolerance limits

(MBTSG 1995a). In the Blackfoot River

basin, irrigation returns have

contributed to the warming of this

historic coldwater river (MBTSG 1995c;

Pierce et al. 1997). Irrigation diversions,

particularly in the Little Blackfoot River

and in Flint Creek of the upper Clark

Fork River, are physical and thermal

passage barriers to bull trout (MBTSG

1995a). Diversion for irrigation is the

primary cause of 622 km (389 mi) of

streams in the upper Clark Fork basin

being chronically dewatered (MDHES

1994). Irrigation diversions also

continue to limit restoration of

migratory bull trout in the Blackfoot

River basin (MBTSG 1995c). Recently,

several diversions have been renovated

to provide passage and eliminate ditch

entrainment (MBTRT 1997).

Unscreened irrigation diversions in

eastern Washington are known to trap or

divert bull trout in Ahtanan Creek

(Yakima River basin), Ingalls and

Peshastin creeks (Wenatchee River

basin), Roaring Creek (Entiat River

basin), and Buttermilk, Little Bridge,

Eagle, and Wolf Creeks (Methow River

basin) (J. Easterbrooks, WDFW, pers.

comm. 1997). Channelization has

altered 56 km (35 mi) of the Methow

River (Mullan et al. 1992).

Approximately 72 km (45 mi) of the

lower Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe, and St.

Maries rivers of the Spokane River basin

have been channelized. These streams

were once considered important rearing

areas and migratory corridors for

migratory (fluvial) bull trout.

Approximately 47 percent of the bull

trout subpopulations in the Columbia

River population segment are affected

by the past and ongoing effects from

agricultural practices, including

diversions.

Road Construction and Maintenance

Non-forest roads degrade salmonid

habitat by creating flow constraints in

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial

channels; increasing erosion and

sedimentation; creating passage barriers;

channelization; and reducing riparian

vegetation (Furniss et al. 1991;

Ketcheson and Megahan 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

Streamside roads may have multiple

locations of elevated sediment delivery.

Some level of sedimentation is normal,

and can be documented along parts of

Boulder, Deming, Threemile,

Brownsworth, and Leonard creeks. In

contrast, Long and Sun creeks have

relatively little sediment delivery from

roads in reaches occupied by bull trout

(Light et al. 1996). Streamside roads

inadequately constructed with
31662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

misplaced water bars and culverts still

discharge sediment laden waters

directly into streams. Over-road flow

can lead to gullying and direct sediment

delivery, as found in parts of Deming

Creek (Light et al. 1996). Streamside

roads can also reduce large woody

debris recruitment and vegetation shade

by occupying the growing space next to

streams. In addition, road construction

may require stream straightening or

channel reconfiguration next to roads,

resulting in channelization as along

Boulder and Deming creeks (Light et al.

1996; Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt.

1997). Habitat degradation from

channelization includes decreased pool

habitat, decreased sediment transport,

increased embeddedness, and reduced

interstitial space in substrates

(Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

Construction and improvement of

Interstate 90 is a contributing factor to

the decline and suppression of bull

trout in Gold Creek, a tributary of the

Yakima River, Washington (Craig and

Wissmar 1993). In Montana, Interstate

90 and a railroad system parallel to the

Clark Fork and St. Regis rivers has

contributed to channelization and

increased the risk of hazardous spills

(MBTSG 1996b,c). Approximately 18

percent of the bull trout subpopulations

in the Columbia River basin are affected

by road construction and ongoing

maintenance.

Mining

Mining can degrade aquatic habitat by

altering water acidity or alkalinity,

changing stream morphology and flow,

and causing sediment, fuel, and heavy

metals to enter streams (Martin and

Platts 1981; Spence et al. 1996). The

types of mining that occur within the

range of bull trout include extraction of

hard rock minerals, coal, gas, oil, and

nonminerals. Past and present mining

activities have adversely affected bull

trout and bull trout habitats in Idaho,

Oregon, Montana, and Washington

(Martin and Platts 1981; Johnson and

Schmidt 1988; Moore et al. 1991; WDW

1992; Platts et al. 1993; MBTSG 1995a,c,

1996b,c).

Klamath River Population Segment

Mining effects are not known to be a

factor affecting bull trout

subpopulations in the Klamath River

basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

Mining severely impacts large

portions of the Spokane River basin.

Effects include roading, stream

diversion and alteration, watershed

degradation from airborne emissions,

and the discharge of massive quantities

of waste materials, including the release

into the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River

of 72 million tons of hazardous mine

wastes laden with heavy metals such as

lead, zinc, and cadmium (Coeur d’Alene

tribe of Idaho et al. 1991). During the

early 1930s, the South Fork Coeur

d’Alene River and about 20 miles of the

lower Coeur d’Alene River were

considered devoid of aquatic life due to

mining waste discharge (Ellis 1940).

Although some aquatic species have

returned to the river, bull trout are not

among them. In Montana, bull trout

have not recolonized the upper

mainstem Clark Fork River where

mining-related stream degradation

extirpated all fish prior to the turn of the

century (MBTSG 1995a; Titan

Environmental Corp. 1997). The

lingering effects of mining done over the

past century in the Butte and Anaconda

reaches of the upper Clark Fork River

has resulted in four Superfund sites

being designated. Mining continues to

impair water quality in 558 km (349 mi)

of stream in these reaches (MDHES

1994). Eleven fish kills documented

between 1959 and 1991 were attributed

to mining contamination of the river

(Titan Environmental Corporation

1997).

Numerous abandoned mines, such as

the Blackbird and Cinnabar mines in the

Salmon River drainage, Idaho, degrade

water quality where toxic heavy metals

continue to leach from mine sites into

streams or groundwater. Old mine

tailings in the floodplains of Newsome

Creek, American River, and Crooked

River, tributaries to the Clearwater River

in Idaho, continue to prevent recovery

of riparian areas (N. Gearhardt, Nez

Perce National Forest, pers. comm.

1997). In Idaho, mine tailings

abandoned decades ago contaminated a

tributary of the Middle Fork Boise River

with heavy metals, including arsenic,

during flood flows in 1997 when

migrating bull trout were present (R.

Barker, Idaho Statesman, in litt. 1997: S.

West, IDEQ, in litt. 1997). In Montana,

historic mining in many tributaries of

the Middle Clark Fork River has

impaired water quality in 245 km (153

mi) of stream (MDHES 1994). The

MBTSG (1995c) ranked mining in the

Blackfoot River drainage as a limitation

to bull trout restoration. Many mines

exist in the western and southern

portions of the Blackfoot River basin

causing direct loss of bull trout habitat

and contamination of waters from mine

effluents (MBTSG 1995c). Fishes in the

upper Blackfoot River are still affected

by the washout of the Mike Horse

tailings dam in 1975, which spilled

contaminated tailings into the Blackfoot

River (MBTSG 1995c). Research in the

Blackfoot drainage demonstrated that

heavy metal contaminants released in

the headwaters affect chemical trends,

metal concentrations, metal

bioavailabilty, and fish for 25 km (15.6

mi) from the contaminant source (Moore

et al. 1991).

New open-pit mines using cyanide

leach pads are planned for watersheds

currently occupied by bull trout in the

Middle Fork Boise River basin, Idaho,

and in the Stibnite area of the East Fork

South Fork Salmon River, Idaho (G.

Visconty, Boise National Forest, in litt.

1996; Payette National Forest (PNF), in

litt. 1996). In Montana, a large

underground copper-silver mine

proposed for Rock Creek in the lower

Clark Fork River basin is currently in

the permitting process. Tailings would

be stored at the confluence of Rock

Creek and the Clark Fork River (MBTSG

1996b; R. Stewart, USDI, in litt. 1995).

Rock Creek is one of only two bull trout

‘‘core’’ areas in this subpopulation

(MBTSG 1996b). A proposal for a large

open-pit gold mine using cyanide heap

leach processing is proposed for the

upper Blackfoot River basin, Montana.

Much of the ore body occurs below the

water table, requiring pumping of

groundwater. Thus, the hydrology of the

upper Blackfoot River system could be

affected and an increase in

contamination risks could result (S.

Cody, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), in litt. 1997; K. McMaster,

Service, in litt. 1997).

The North Fork Flathead River

headwaters in Canada contain a large

coal deposit that could be developed

(MBTSG 1995d). Mining this deposit

could destroy spawning habitat and

degrade water quality in the Montana

portion of the Flathead River system

(MBTSG 1995d).

Approximately 20 percent of the bull

trout subpopulations in the Columbia

River population segment are threatened

by past, ongoing, or potential future

mining activities.

Residential Development

Residential development is rapidly

increasing within portions of the range

of bull trout. Development increases

threaten to alter stream and riparian

habitats through streambank

modification and destabilization,

increased nutrient loads, and increased

water temperatures (MBTSG 1995b).

Indirectly, urbanization within

floodplains alters groundwater recharge

by routing water into streams through

drains rather than through more gradual

subsurface flow (Booth 1991).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31663

Klamath River Population Segment

Residential development is not

known to be factor affecting existing

bull trout subpopulations in the

Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

In Montana, rural residential

development is rapidly increasing,

particularly in drainages of the

Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Flathead

rivers (MBTSG 1995b,c,d). The lower

Bitterroot River is a major non-point

source of nutrient pollution, primarily

from sewage effluent and land

development (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 in

MBTSG 1995b). Efforts to mitigate

effects of rural development in the

Blackfoot River basin have been

encouraged by an active local group, the

Blackfoot Challenge, which has been

working to acquire conservation

easements, among other projects.

Residential development in the Flathead

Lake system is considered a limitation

for restoration of bull trout because of

the threat to water quality from

domestic sewage and changes to stream

morphology (MBTSG 1995d).

Approximately 26 percent of the bull

trout subpopulations in the Columbia

River population segment are threatened

by the effects of residential

development.

B. Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. Declines in bull trout have

prompted states to institute restrictive

fishing regulations on all waters

throughout bull trout range. Recent

observations of increased numbers of

adult bull trout in some areas have been

attributed to more restrictive

regulations. However, illegal harvest

and incidental harvest still continue to

threaten bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

Legal harvest of bull trout in the

Klamath River basin was eliminated in

1992 when ODFW imposed a fishing

closure. Because recreational fishing for

other trout species continues in the

basin, incidental fishing mortality of

bull trout likely occurs (OCAFS 1993).

During recent ODFW angler surveys in

the Klamath River basin, all anglers

contacted were aware of the no harvest

regulation for bull trout (D. Bertram,

ODFW, in litt. 1995; Light et al. 1996).

Incidental bull trout mortality due to

angling is unknown, but is not

suspected to be suppressing bull trout

subpopulations in the Klamath River

basin (Light et al. 1996). However,

Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997)

consider angling to be a factor

negatively affecting bull trout,

especially subpopulations with low

numbers and proximity to highway

access, such as Threemile Creek.

Columbia River Population Segment

Overharvest of bull trout in the

Columbia River basin, historically,

likely contributed to their decline. In

the past, harvest included legal

recreational angling, poaching, and

State-sponsored eradication programs

(Thomas 1992). Bull trout were often

targeted for removal by anglers and

government agencies because bull trout

preyed on salmon and other desirable

species (Simpson and Wallace 1982;

Bond 1992). As recently as 1990, State

and Federal agencies instituted

programs to eradicate bull trout through

bounties and poisoning of waterways

(Ratliff and Howell 1992; ODFW 1993;

Newton and Pribyl 1994; Palmisano and

Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). For instance,

during the 1940’s and 1950’s in Oregon,

several hundred bull trout migrating

from Wallowa Lake to spawn in

Wallowa River were trapped in a weir

and exterminated (B. Smith, WDFW, in

litt. 1997). Bull trout were recently reintroduced to Wallowa Lake in summer

1997 in an effort to re-establish the fish.

In recognition of the decline of bull

trout, State management agencies in

Idaho, Montana, Washington, and

Oregon suspended harvest in the

Columbia River basin except in Lake

Billy Chinook (Oregon) and Swan Lake

(Montana). State regulations still allow

catch and release fishing for bull trout,

and the harvest of other salmonid

species is allowed in most bull trout

waters. However, in Montana, (MFWP

1996), the revised regulations are

believed to be partially responsible for

increasing bull trout numbers in the

Swan River basin where the taking or

intentional fishing for bull trout is

prohibited (MBTSG 1996a). Mortality

from incidental catch and release

angling of bull trout and harvest as a

result of misidentification still

continues under existing fishing

regulations. For example, about half or

fewer of anglers surveyed were able to

correctly identify bull trout from other

salmonids in west-central Montana

(Kelly et al. 1996; M. Long and S.P.

Whalen, MFWP, in litt. 1997). In 1997,

the day after two radio tagged bull trout

were released into Wallowa Lake,

Oregon, one of the fish was

unintentionally, but illegally harvested

by a young angler. The MBTSG (1995d)

is concerned with the catch and release

mortality of bull trout as a result of

intense fishing pressure on lake trout in

Flathead Lake and the Flathead River.

Legal and illegal harvest can seriously

affect declining subpopulations already

subjected to other factors such as

competition, degraded habitat, and

isolation (WDW 1992; Donald and Alger

1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Swanberg

and Burns 1997).

Poaching of bull trout likely

continues, and can be especially

detrimental to small, isolated

subpopulations of migratory fish

(WDFW 1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993;

Pratt and Huston 1993; Long 1997). A

study in the Metolius River suggested

that 2 of 22 radio-tagged adult bull trout

were illegally harvested (Ratliff et al.

1996). Illegal harvest of bull trout in

northwest Montana has been a recurring

problem for over 50 years, especially in

drainages of the Blackfoot, Kootenai,

South Fork Flathead, and Clark Fork

rivers (MBTSG 1995e; Swanberg 1996;

Long 1997). In response, the MFWP

instituted a program in 1994 funded by

the Bonneville Power Administration to

reduce the illegal harvest of bull trout,

disperse information to improve anglers’

fish identification skills, and increase

understanding of the importance of

native species (Long 1994).

Additionally, the Montana legislature

increased the penalties for bull trout

poaching, and the Bonneville Power

Administration, until recently, funded

increased enforcement (M. Racicot,

Governor of Montana, in litt. 1995).

Approximately 21 percent of the bull

trout subpopulations in the Columbia

River population segment are threatened

by the effects of poaching.

C. Disease or predation. Although

diseases affecting salmonids are likely

present in both the Klamath River and

Columbia River basins, they are not

thought to be a major factor affecting

bull trout. However, interspecific

interactions, including predation, are

thought to negatively affect bull trout

where non-native salmonids have been

introduced (Palmisano and Kaczynski,

in litt. 1997).

Klamath River Population Segment

Diseases have not been documented

affecting bull trout in the Klamath River

basin. However, brook trout and brown

trout have been introduced in the basin,

and either one or both species co-exist

with bull trout in all subpopulations

except Deming Creek (Buchanan et al.

1997). Brown trout predation on bull

trout is evidenced by a direct

observation in Boulder Creek (Light et

al. 1996). Overall, bull trout co-occur

with brown trout and brook trout in

about half of the occupied habitat.

Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that

bull trout occupy approximately 34.1

km (20.5 mi) of streams. However,

allopatric (occurring in different
31664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

geographic areas or in isolation) bull

trout have been estimated to occupy

only 13.4 to 15.7 km (8.3 to 9.8 mi)

within the basin (Buchanan et al. 1997;

Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

Health samples from 207 juvenile bull

trout collected from 8 streams in the

Flathead River basin in 1992 and 1993

were negative in tests for furunculus,

enteric redmouth, bacterial kidney

disease, and viral hemorrhagic

septicemia (VHS) or infectious

pancreatic necrosis (IPN) (Fredenberg

1993). Bull trout are susceptible to

whirling disease, caused by a protozoan

parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis), and

recently detected in bull trout waters in

Montana (Montana Whirling Disease

Task Force 1996). However, bull trout

are less susceptible to whirling disease

than rainbow trout (McDowell et al.

1997). Whirling disease is currently

untreatable in the wild, and the parasite

appears to be rapidly spreading into

previously uninfected waters. The

consequences of whirling disease on

bull trout may not be apparent for years.

Bull trout are most vulnerable to

predation as juveniles. Several nonnative fishes, such as lake trout, brown

trout, brook trout and northern pike

(Esox lucius) are considered potential

predators (and competitors, see Factor E

below) of many bull trout

subpopulations in the Columbia River

basin (Donald and Alger 1992; Pratt and

Huston 1993; Rieman and McIntyre

1993; MBTSG 1995d, 1996a; MFWP

1997).

Dramatic declines in the Priest Lake,

Idaho, bull trout harvest began about 20

years ago. Between 1956 and 1970, an

annual average of 1,200 fish were

harvested. In 1978, a record 2,320 were

harvested, declining in 1983 to 159

(Mauser et al. 1988). There has been no

legal harvest of bull trout since 1984.

Bull trout were extirpated from Priest

Lake through interactions with

introduced lake trout (Pratt and Huston

1993). Mauser et al. (1988) described

bull trout in Priest Lake as ‘‘functionally

extinct as long as lake trout abundance

is high.’’ Similarly, lake trout

introduced into Flathead Lake feed on

juvenile bull trout entering the lake

from the Flathead River, and are thought

to be a factor in recent declines of the

bull trout subpopulation (MBTSG

1995d). Introduced non-native fishes

limit bull trout restoration in all the

major drainages in Montana (MBTSG

1995a-e, 1996a-f).

For bull trout in the Columbia River

population segment, disease is not

considered a listing factor; however,

approximately 62 percent of the

subpopulations are threatened by

introduced non-native fishes, including

the effects of predation.

D. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. Although

efforts are underway to conserve bull

trout (e.g., Batt, in litt. 1997; Joslin, in

litt. 1997; Thomas, in litt. 1997), the

implementation and enforcement of

existing Federal and State laws designed

to conserve fishery resources, maintain

water quality, and protect aquatic

habitat have not prevented past and

ongoing habitat degradation. This

inadequacy has led to bull trout

declines and isolation and is a factor in

the determination to list bull trout

population segments. Regulatory

mechanisms, including the National

Forest Management Act, the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act, the

Public Rangelands Improvement Act,

the Clean Water Act, the National

Environmental Policy Act, the Federal

Power Act, State Endangered Species

Acts and numerous State laws and

regulations govern an array of land and

water management activities that affect

bull trout and their habitat.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act

(NFMA) and the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act (FLPMA) require

the USFS and BLM to develop and

implement land and resource

management plans (LRMPs) and

Resource Management Plans (RMPs),

respectively) to protect fish and wildlife

resources and produce forest and range

products. However, reviews by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) of

LRMP monitoring and evaluation

reports for 28 national forests indicate

that many watersheds do not meet

NFMA Forest Plan standards.

Compliance with LRMPs and

effectiveness of best management

practices on current projects is

improving, but, a majority of streams

that had been affected by past practices

were not healing as fast as anticipated

(USDA 1995).

Reviews of existing LRMPs

implemented outside the range of the

northern spotted owl, even as amended

by the Environmental Assessment for

the Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995),

have inadequately protected salmonid

habitat on BLM and national forest

lands (Henjum et al. 1994; R. Schmitten,

NMFS, in litt. 1995; Espinosa et al.

1997). While the severe resource

damage from forest management that

occurred in the 1950s through the 1970s

has ceased, the current LRMPs have not

fully taken into account the habitat

needs of salmonids and recovery of

degraded habitats has not occurred as

predicted. For example, most LRMPs

were developed prior to listing the

Snake River salmon stocks, and,

consequently, the biological

requirements of these fish are not fully

considered under the parameters of the

LRMPs. The NMFS noted that even

though PACFISH provided some

improvements in many standards and

guidelines of the LRMPs,

comprehensive, landscape-scale

conservation strategies for salmonid

survival and recovery are still lacking

(Schmitten, NMFS, in litt, 1995).

Espinosa et al. (1997) listed several

reasons why the Clearwater National

Forest Plan adopted in 1987 has failed

to adequately protect salmonid habitats

in forest watersheds. Reasons included

for this failure were— projected timber

harvests and levels of associated road

construction too high to achieve fish

habitat quality standards; inaccurate

riparian habitat inventories; watershed

recovery following disturbance was

slower than expected; and inaccurate

inventories of the timber resources.

Under the NFMA and the FLPMA,

livestock grazing occurs on over 70

percent of federally-administered

western rangeland, or about 108.5

million ha (268 million acres (ac)) of

land in 16 western states (General

Accounting Office (GAO) 1988).

Ongoing livestock grazing on lands

administered by the BLM and USFS

continues to occur in watersheds

occupied by bull trout (Henjum et al.

1994; McIntosh et al. 1994; USDA and

USDI 1997). Technical solutions to

improving riparian areas damaged by

livestock grazing were available as early

as 1988 (GAO 1988). However, the GAO

(1988) noted that correcting damage

from grazing was not readily solvable

due to funding and political pressure to

maintain the status quo grazing systems.

Within the Interior Columbia River

Basin, the BLM and USFS have had

difficulty correcting practices that cause

grazing damage to streams due to lack

of funding, conflicting requirements of

different laws, or budget allocations

(USDA and USDI 1997). However, in

some areas supporting federally listed

fish or designated critical habitat, the

BLM and the USFS have been able to

improve livestock management in

riparian areas, including habitat for

shortnose sucker (Chasmistes

brevirostris) and Lost River sucker

(Deltistes luxatus) in the Klamath River

basin, and the Lohontan cutthroat trout
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31665

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawii) of the

Great Basin.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

The USFS, BLM, EPA, NMFS, and

Service are cooperating in development

of the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEMP), a large-scale land

management plan for lands

administered by these agencies in

eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho

and western Montana. The alternatives

described in the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) do not

specifically address bull trout

conservation in ‘‘depressed’’ areas

outside the range of steelhead and

chinook salmon; the preferred

alternative depends on subbasin review

and ecosystem analysis at the watershed

scale as the basis for decision-making

within the Interior Columbia Basin

(USDA and USDI 1997). The ICBEMP is

in draft, and possible outcomes from

implementing future bull trout

conservation actions as part of an

unapproved management alternative are

not predictable. Funding and staffing to

implement those components are also

not secured.

Streamlined Consultation Procedures

On March 8, 1995, the USFS, Service,

BLM, and NMFS, issued a

memorandum directing the agencies to

participate in ‘‘streamlined’’

consultation procedures. These

procedures were initiated to address

forest health and salvage projects (T.

Dwyer, Service, in litt. 1995). By May

31, 1995, these procedures were

extended indefinitely to include all

consultation efforts (Dwyer, in litt.

1995). These procedures apply to

Federal land management activities in

Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana

and California (California lands

managed by BLM are subject to

streamlined procedures only when

forest ecosystem activities are involved).

The purpose of the streamlined

procedures is to improve the efficiency

of the section 7 consultation process (C.

Dunn, Service, in litt. 1997).

Conservation and protection of bull

trout habitat has been inconsistent due

in part to the USFS and BLM

discretionary option to review nonlisted, candidate species or species of

concern (R. Vizgirdas, Service, in litt.

1997; R. Strach, Service, in litt. 1997; P.

Zenone, Service, in litt. 1997). In Idaho

and eastern Oregon, Federal land

management agencies have often not

considered the effects of projects on bull

trout through the streamlining process.

Endangered Species Act

In the Klamath River basin, the

Service listed the shortnose sucker and

Lost River sucker under the Act as

endangered on August 26, 1987 (52 FR

32145), and proposed critical habitat for

the species on December 1, 1994 (50

CFR 61744). Bull trout likely used

portions of the proposed critical habitat

in the past, including tributaries in the

upper Klamath River, Crooked Creek,

Sevenmile Creek, and Wood River.

Although some of the earliest records of

bull trout in the basin are from Fort

Creek, a tributary of the Wood River

(Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997), bull

trout do not presently occur within the

habitat occupied by the two suckers.

Therefore, conservation and recovery

actions undertaken for the listed suckers

will not directly benefit bull trout.

In the Columbia River basin, three

species of salmon in the Snake River are

listed—sockeye salmon (endangered),

spring/summer chinook salmon

(threatened) and fall chinook salmon

(threatened). Critical habitat for all three

salmon was designated, including the

Columbia River migration corridor, and

historically accessible streams in the

Snake River basin upstream of Hell’s

Canyon Dam in Idaho, Oregon and

Washington (58 FR 68543–68554).

Downstream of Hell’s Canyon and

Dworshak Dam, the designation extends

to reaches historically accessible to

salmon, below historically impassible

barriers (58 FR 68543–68554). The

designation extends protection to bull

trout habitat in areas where they cooccur with the salmon. However, in

many areas bull trout tend to spawn and

rear upstream of listed salmon habitats.

For instance, Fall Creek, a tributary of

the Salmon River, Idaho, has an

impassible waterfall near its mouth, and

habitat for the listed salmon ends at the

impassible falls (58 FR 68543–68554),

but bull trout spawn and rear above the

falls. In this example, bull trout

spawning and rearing habitat does not

overlap with the listed salmon; thus,

bull trout would not receive indirect

protection under the Act.

On August 18, 1997, five

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)

of steelhead were listed as threatened—

three in California, one in Washington

(Columbia River from the Yakima River

to Grand Coulee Dam), and one in the

Snake River basin in Oregon,

Washington, and Idaho (62 FR 43937).

Although protection for bull trout under

the Act would be afforded where they

co-occur with steelhead, measures to

protect steelhead may be insufficient for

bull trout due to differences in the life

history between the species and lack of

complete habitat overlap.

Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)

addresses management of USFS and

BLM lands within the range of the

northern spotted owl, and

implementation began in April 1994

(Tuchmann et al. 1996). The NWFP

includes an aquatic conservation

strategy, consisting of four inter-related

elements. The first element is riparian

reserves, which is the system of lands

along streams allocated toward the

conservation and restoration of aquatic

and riparian dependent species. The

second is key watersheds, which are

watersheds with special values and

appropriate management standards. The

third element is watershed analysis,

which is required to help land managers

understand the processes that maintain

habitats and to manage to preserve these

processes. The fourth element is

watershed restoration projects, which

are funded to move watersheds toward

recovery. For instance, in 1994 through

1996, 1675 watershed restoration

projects (or groups of projects) were

funded under the NWFP (Tuchmann et

al. 1996). The conservation strategy

generally addresses the maintenance of

the four elements. Although the strategy

does not specifically address bull trout

needs, it contains objectives for riparian

and stream conservation and

maintenance that may facilitate

conservation of bull trout habitat (W.

Cole, Service, in litt, 1997).

Additionally, the implementation of the

NWFP is dependent on interagency

collaboration to achieve resource

conservation and a sampling of projects

unaffected by the 1995 Salvage Rider

(see below) indicates that bull trout are

generally protected by the NWFP.

However, the NWFP covers only a

minor portion of bull trout habitat for

the Columbia River population segment.

PACFISH and INfish

The USFS and BLM developed the

Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho and Portions of

California, known as PACFISH.

PACFISH is intended to be an

ecosystem-based, aquatic habitat and

riparian-area management strategy for

Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run

cutthroat trout habitat on lands

administered by the two agencies and

outside the area subject to

implementation of the NWFP (USDA

and USDI 1995). PACFISH amended

Regional Guides, forest plans and land

use plans by applying management
31666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

measures for all ongoing and proposed

or new projects that pose an

unacceptable risk to anadromous fish

involving the management of timber,

roads, grazing, and other land uses. The

Service is participating with NMFS, the

USFS, and the BLM in reviewing actionagency PACFISH screening efforts for

anadromous fish. Within the area of

PACFISH where the habitats of salmon

and bull trout overlap, the screening

effort is to protect both anadromous fish

and bull trout from major effects.

However, efforts to include bull trout in

the PACFISH review are not always

successful (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997;

Strach, in litt. 1997; Zenone, in litt.

1997).

The Inland Native Fish Strategy

(INfish) was developed by the USFS to

provide an interim strategy for inland

native fish in eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, western Montana

and portions of Nevada (USDA and

USDI 1995). It has not been determined

whether INfish is an effective strategy

for removing the threats for bull trout.

In Idaho, the USFS does not place a

priority on application of INfish and

generally has determined that

anadromous watersheds have a higher

priority than bull trout watersheds

(Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach in litt.

1997; Zenone, in litt. 1997).

Clean Water Act

Under sections 303 and 304 of the

Clean Water Act (CWA), States or EPA

set water quality standards, which

combine designated beneficial uses and

criteria established to protect those uses.

Water bodies that are identified as

failing water quality standards are

designated by States under section

303(d) as water quality limited (MDHES

1994; EPA 1994; ODEQ 1996), and

subject to development of management

plans to restore water quality and

protect designated uses. These

management plans, or total maximum

daily loads (TMDLs), address both point

and non-point sources of pollutants

within a watershed. Best Management

Practices (BMPs) are used with TMDLs

to address non-point sources of

pollution, such as mining, forestry, and

agriculture; however, regulatory

authority to enforce the BMPs varies

among the states. It is estimated that 10

percent of total length of streams within

the ICBEMP assessment area, including

the Klamath River and Columbia River

basins, are listed as water quality

limited. This may underestimate the

true extent and distribution of streams

with impaired water quality potentially

affecting bull trout (USDA and USDI

1997). In the Klamath River basin,

stream reaches designated as water

quality limited (i.e., cited on the 303(d)

list of Oregon for various water quality

standards (ODEQ 1996)) are estimated to

apply to six of the seven bull trout

subpopulations. In the Columbia River

basin, water bodies designated as water

quality limited by Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, and Montana are estimated to

apply to at least 64 of the 141 bull trout

subpopulations.

Relative to water temperature, Oregon

established a water quality criterion of

10° C (50° F) as a weekly average based

on daily maximum temperatures in bull

trout spawning and rearing waters (OAR

340–41–685 and OAR 340–41–026);

however, water bodies where these

criteria would apply have not been

identified. In Washington, temperature

criteria for waters vary among the

different classifications that are assigned

to each waterbody, and range from 16 to

22° C (60.8 to 71.6° F) (Chapter 173–201

WAC). Washington is reviewing these

standards with the intent of creating

more appropriate water quality

standards; however, whether the criteria

specifically are for bull trout is

unknown. In Idaho, EPA disapproved

the state’s temperature criteria

applications within the geographic

range of bull trout (EPA 1997). The EPA

determined that the criteria did not

provide adequate protection for bull

trout relative to two designated uses—

cold water biota and salmonid spawning

(maximum daily average of 13° C (55.5°

F) and 9° C (48.2° F) for each respective

use). In July 1997, EPA promulgated a

temperature criterion of 10° C (50° F)

during June through September in

designated stream areas, as a weekly

average based on daily maximum

temperatures for spawning and rearing

of bull trout (EPA 1997). To date, the

State has not adopted EPA’s

promulgated criterion, but has adopted

12° C as a daily average during JuneAugust for juvenile rearing and 9° C for

September and October for spawning.

Additionally, Idaho has established a

geographical area where these criteria

would apply. It is unknown whether

EPA will approve the State’s criteria and

withdraw the promulgated rule. In

Montana, the temperature criterion

applied to waters with bull trout is 19°

C (66° F); temperature can be raised 0.6°

C (1° F) by discharges, but water

temperature may not exceed 19.5°C

(67°F) (Administrative Rules of Montana

1996).

In accordance with Section 319 of the

CWA, States also develop programs to

address non-point sources of pollution

such as agriculture, forestry, and

mining. The effectiveness of controlling

water pollution from these activities has

been mixed. The State of Washington

monitored the effectiveness in meeting

water quality criteria for temperature in

riparian areas on forest lands and

concluded that regulations for stream

shading were inadequate to meet criteria

(Sullivan et al. 1990).

In summary, it is uncertain whether

the CWA can provide sufficient

protective measures for conservation of

bull trout. Temperature regime is one of

the most important factors affecting bull

trout distribution (Adams and Bjornn

1997, Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Given the known temperature

requirements of bull trout (Buchanan

and Gregory 1997), criteria developed

by the four States may not be conducive

to either spawning, incubation, rearing,

migration, or combinations of these lifehistory stages.

State Regulations and Conservation

Planning Efforts

All four States within the range of the

Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments of bull trout have

regulations affecting bull trout and their

habitat. Idaho, Montana, and local or

county organizations have recently

developed or are developing

conservation plans to maintain and

restore bull trout, primarily through

stream habitat protection.

In 1995, Idaho Governor Phil Batt

initiated a conservation plan to restore

bull trout populations in Idaho. The

mission of the Governor’s Plan,

approved in July 1996, is to ‘‘. . .

maintain and/or restore complex

interacting groups of bull trout

populations throughout their native

range in Idaho’’ (Batt, in litt. 1997). A

recent status report of implementation

of the Plan stated that advisory groups,

which will develop water quality and

bull trout conservation measures, have

formed only in some areas. Although

the harvest of bull trout is closed

throughout Idaho and State-sponsored

survey and monitoring has increased (S.

Mealey, IDFG, in litt. 1997), few on-theground recovery actions for bull trout

have been implemented to date.

Other efforts include a 1994

conservation agreement (CA) between

the Idaho Department of Transportation

(IDOT) and the Service to protect bull

trout (USDI and IDOT, in litt. 1994), and

recent conservation activities by the

IDFG that were funded by Section 6 of

the Act. The IDOT finished only one

passage restoration project under the

CA, and recently declined to renew the

CA (R. Howard, Service, pers. comm.

1997). Since 1994, IDFG has used

Section 6 funds to begin several habitat

restoration actions in northern and

southwestern Idaho. Aside from

enacting restrictive fishing regulations,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31667

few protective or restoration projects

have been completed that substantially

reduce threats to bull trout throughout

the Columbia River.

Beginning in 1992 and 1993, several

interagency bull trout working groups

were formed in Oregon (R. Rosen,

ODFW, in litt. 1995). These working

groups have been instrumental in

gathering additional status information

and developing preliminary

conservation strategies for bull trout in

their respective basins. These efforts are

encouraging for bull trout conservation

in the future, but the outcome has not

yet been demonstrated.

In March 1997, Oregon also adopted

the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative (OCSRI 1997) (Oregon Plan).

The Oregon Plan is designed to ‘‘. . .

restore salmon to a level at which they

can once again be part of people’s lives

. . .’’ in coastal Oregon. The Oregon

Plan’s initial focus is on areas within

the range of Oregon coastal coho

salmon, and does not overlap with

presently occupied bull trout habitat.

Oregon recently acknowledged support

for developing future bull trout

conservation measures by including bull

trout in the Oregon Plan (J. Kitzhaber,

Governor of Oregon, in litt, 1997),

although no conservation measures

specific to bull trout have been

completed to date.

The Upper Klamath Basin Bull Trout

Conservation Strategy (Light et al. 1996)

was developed by the Klamath Basin

Bull Trout Working Group in response

to the limited and shrinking distribution

and number of bull trout. The Working

Group, formed in 1993, is composed of

representatives from the Service,

ODFW, Fremont and Winema National

Forests, Crater Lake National Park,

PacifiCorp, USBR, Sprague River Water

Users Association, Klamath Basin Water

Users Protective Association, U.S.

Timberlands, and Klamath Tribes. The

defined goals of this group as identified

in the Conservation Strategy are—(1)

secure existing bull trout populations

and (2) restore populations to some of

their former distribution (Light et al.

1996). Phase 1 has concentrated on

addressing threats to bull trout from

non-native salmonids, including

eradication of brook trout and brown

trout above barriers where isolated

subpopulations of bull trout are found.

Stream temperatures and sedimentation

problems are being addressed

concurrent with eradication of exotic

species. Phase 2 will involve expanding

the number of subpopulations by

reestablishing bull trout in high quality

headwater habitats, effectively

increasing the size of the Klamath River

metapopulation and making it more

resilient to natural disturbance,

variation in breeding success, disease

outbreaks, and other environmental

factors (Light et al. 1996). Future

objectives likely will include

establishing natural movement corridors

between adjacent headwater streams.

All habitats currently occupied by

bull trout in the Klamath River basin are

managed by Working Group members.

From 1993 through 1996, conservation

actions (phase 1) were implemented by

the Working Group, including—

watershed assessments; fish

distribution, abundance, and spawning

surveys; collection of stream

temperature and sediment data to help

identify limiting factors; brook trout

eradication efforts in Long, Sun, and

Threemile creeks; reduction or

elimination of grazing along bull trout

habitat owned by U.S. Timberlands;

road system improvements, closures,

and rehabilitation; and barrier

management to prevent access of nonnative fishes (Johnson in litt. 1997;

Buchanan et al. 1997). Habitat

improvement projects have also been

implemented in areas historically

occupied by bull trout, such as the 9,700

ha (24,000 ac) Nature Conservancy

preserve at Sycan Marsh ( P. Rexroat,

The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1997)

and the Sun Pass State Forest on lower

Sun Creek. These ongoing conservation

efforts have been complicated by recent

private land ownership changes and

lack of an approved recovery plan that

identifies specific conservation tasks

and actions.

In addition to the Klamath Basin Bull

Trout Working Group, a federallyauthorized, interagency and entity

group, the Upper Klamath Basin

Working Group, was established in

1994. This group, composed of Federal,

State, county, city, tribal,

environmental, local business,

agricultural-ranching, and local

community members, works on a

consensus-based approach to Klamath

basin ecosystem issues. The group

focuses on ecosystem restoration

projects and has funded bull trout

conservation efforts, a high group

priority, such as riparian fencing and

road maintenance and obliteration

projects.

Other State regulations and policies

affect bull trout and their habitat in

Oregon. For instance, Oregon has a

policy ‘‘to prevent the serious depletion

of any indigenous species’’ (ORS

496.012). As such, the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s

Wildlife Diversity Plan (OAR 635–100)

provides for a Sensitive Species List.

The Sensitive Species List (OAR–635–

100–040) is maintained by ODFW, and

is updated biennially. The Sensitive

Species List is intended as a ‘‘watch

list’’ of species potentially eligible for

listing as endangered or threatened, and

constitutes an early warning system for

land managers and the public (ODFW

1996). There are no regulatory

protections for species listed as

sensitive, nor is the habitat on which

they depend protected under OAR 635–

100.

The Sensitive Species List has four

categories—‘‘critical’’ (species for which

listing is appropriate or pending);

‘‘vulnerable’’ (species for which listing

is not imminent and can be avoided via

adequate protective measures);

‘‘peripheral or naturally rare’’ (occurring

in Oregon at the edge of their range, in

naturally low numbers due to limited

in-state distribution); and

‘‘undetermined’’ status (species for

which status is unclear). Bull trout is

listed in the ‘‘critical’’ category (ODFW

1993).

The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife released the final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

proposed Wild Salmonid Policy in

September 1997 (WDFW 1997).

Although the environmental impact

statement (IS) focused on salmon and

steelhead, referring to bull trout and

other wild salmonids in an ancillary

manner, it described problems and

challenges facing the recovery of

anadromous and resident salmonids

throughout Washington. The IS

presented five alternatives ranging from

continuation of current management

(i.e., policy generally based on

maximum sustainable yield) to

alternatives providing more protection

for wild salmonids. Each alternative

addressed harvest, hatcheries, and

habitat relative to wild salmonids, and

presented obstacles to recovery and

possible actions to facilitate recovery.

Regardless of the alternative ultimately

selected by the Washington State Fish

and Wildlife Commission as the Wild

Salmonid Policy, implementation of the

policy will suggest guidelines for

actions taken by the WDFW and will not

be binding on other State, tribal, and

private entities. Because of uncertainties

concerning implementation of the

policy, the effect of the policy on bull

trout conservation in Washington is

unknown.

In Montana, Governor Marc Racicot

appointed the Bull Trout Restoration

Team in 1994 to produce a plan that

maintains, protects, and increases bull

trout populations. The team appointed a

scientific group that has subsequently

prepared eleven basin-specific status

reports and two technical, peerreviewed papers. A third technical
31668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

paper is presently undergoing peer

review. A Montana Bull Trout Recovery

Plan, including a recovery goal, is also

nearing completion. Watershed groups

are being established in some areas to

lead local bull trout restoration efforts.

As of October 1997, some localized

habitat restoration projects, such as

removal of fish passage barriers,

screening irrigation diversions, riparian

fencing, stream restoration projects, and

habitat monitoring, had been completed

or were underway (Graham and Clinch,

in litt. 1997). Because of uncertainties

concerning implementation of the

restoration plan, the effect of the plan

on future bull trout conservation in

Montana is unknown.

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and

Montana each have adopted a Forest

Practice Act (FPA) or other legislation

consisting of rules and regulations

addressing forest management on State,

Federal, and private lands. In general,

the legislation establishes best

management practices (BMPs) to be

implemented on forests, such as

streamside management zones (Montana

Department of State Lands 1994),

activities allowed in riparian areas,

restrictions on harvest adjacent to

streams, and location of road

construction. The application of BMPs

is voluntary in some States. Although

audits show that compliance with BMPs

is high in Idaho (H. Malany, Idaho

Forest Practice Act Advisory Committee

Member, in litt. 1997) and Montana

(Mathieus 1996), the Service is not

aware of evaluations of various States’

BMPs relative to the protection of bull

trout habitat and processes affecting

water quality, such as sediment

delivery, water temperature, recruitment

of woody debris, and bank stability. In

Idaho, half of timber sales audited

resulted in contributions of sediment to

streams, largely from inadequately

maintained roads (Zaroban et al. 1996).

Even with high implementation rates,

Idaho’s forestry BMPs have been

ineffective at maintaining beneficial

uses, including cold water biota

(McIntyre 1993). In Montana, McGreer

(1994) noted that the Montana

legislation may adequately provide for

woody debris and bank stability, but it

may be inadequate for temperature

control and sedimentation. The MDNRC

has discontinued timber harvest and

grazing in areas directly adjacent to

streams containing bull trout (P.

Flowers, MDNRC, in litt. 1996). Based

on current information, the Service is

unable to conclude that State FPAs and

related legislation are adequate to

protect bull trout habitat.

E. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting their continued existence.

Natural and manmade factors affecting

the continued existence of bull trout

include—previous introductions of nonnative species that compete or hybridize

with bull trout; fragmentation and

isolation of bull trout subpopulations

from habitat changes caused by human

activities, and subpopulation

extirpations due to naturally occurring

events such as droughts and floods.

Introduced Non-native Species

Introductions of non-native species by

the Federal government, State fish and

game departments, and private parties,

across the range of bull trout has

resulted in declines in abundance, local

extirpations, and hybridization of bull

trout (Bond 1992; Howell and Buchanan

1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and

Alger 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993;

MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al

1995; Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt.

1997). Non-native species may

exacerbate stresses on bull trout from

habitat degradation, fragmentation, and

isolation (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Introduced species, such as rainbow

trout, may benefit large adult bull trout

by providing supplemental forage (Faler

and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt.

1993). However, introductions of nonnative game fish can be detrimental due

to increased angling and subsequent

incidental catch and illegal harvest of

bull trout (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; WDW

1992; MBTSG 1995d).

Non-native fish also threaten bull

trout in relatively secure and physically

unaltered habitats, including roadless

areas, wilderness, and national parks.

For instance, brook trout occur in

tributaries of the Middle Fork Salmon

River within the Frank Church-River of

No Return Wilderness, including Elk,

Camas, Loon, and Big creeks (Thurow

1985; S. Achord, National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), in litt. 1994)

and Sun Creek in Crater Lake National

Park (Light et al. 1996). Glacier National

Park has self-sustaining populations of

introduced non-native species,

including lake trout, brook trout,

rainbow trout, Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, lake whitefish (Coregonus

clupeaformis), and northern pike

(MBTSG 1995d). Although stocking in

Glacier National Park was terminated in

1971, only a few headwaters lakes

contain exclusively native species,

including bull trout. The introduction

and expansion of lake trout into the

relatively pristine habitats of Kintla

Lake and Lake McDonald in Glacier

National Park nearly extirpated the bull

trout subpopulation from predation and

competition (L. Marnell, NPS, in litt.

1995; MBTSG 1995d).

Introduced brook trout threaten bull

trout through hybridization,

competition, and possibly predation

(Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992; WDW

1992; Clancy 1993; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996).

Hybridization between brook trout and

bull trout has been reported in Montana

(MBTSG 1995a,b, 1996a,c,e; Hansen and

DosSantos 1997), Oregon (Markle 1992;

Ratliff and Howell 1992), Washington

(WDFW 1997), and Idaho (Adams 1996;

T. Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997).

Hybridization results in offspring that

are frequently sterile (Leary et al. 1993),

but some hybrids show gonadal

development (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in

litt. 1997), raising concern of potential

introgression. Hybrids may be

significant competitors; Dunsmoor and

Bienz (in litt. 1997) noted that hybrids

are aggressive and larger than resident

bull trout, suggesting that hybrids may

have a competitive advantage. Brook

trout mature faster and have a higher

reproductive rate than bull trout. This

difference may favor brook trout over

bull trout when they occur together,

often leading to replacement of bull

trout with brook trout (Leary et al. 1993;

Clancy 1993; MBTSG 1995b). The threat

of hybridization and replacement is

likely exacerbated where larger, more

fecund migratory forms of bull trout

have been eliminated (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). The magnitude of

threats from non-native fishes is highest

for subpopulations supporting only

resident fish because resident bull trout

typically are small in number and

isolated where the effects of

interspecific interactions are likely more

intense.

Brook trout apparently adapt better to

degraded habitats than bull trout

(Clancy 1993; Rich 1996). Brook trout

likely have higher survival-toemergence than bull trout in areas with

elevated sediment (MBTSG 1996h), and

brook trout also tend to occur in streams

with higher water temperatures (Adams

1994; MBTSG 1996h). Because elevated

water temperatures and sediments are

often indicative of degraded habitat,

bull trout may be subject to stresses

from both interactions with brook trout

and degraded habitat (MBTSG 1996h).

Watson and Hillman (1997) found an

inverse relationship between bull trout

occurrence and the presence of brook

trout. Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997)

noted that brook trout have a high

probability of displacing bull trout in

the Klamath River basin due to

degraded bull trout habitat.

Introduced brown trout are

established in several areas within the

range of bull trout and likely compete

with bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992;
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31669

Platts et al. 1993; Pratt and Huston

1993). Brown trout tend to spawn in the

same areas as bull trout, though later in

the season, and may compete for

spawning and rearing areas and

superimpose redds on bull trout redds

(Pratt & Huston 1993; Light et al. 1996;

MBTSG 1996h). Additionally, brown

trout are typically more aggressive than

native trout, and can displace brook

trout and other native trout species

(Fausch and White 1981; Wang and

White 1994). Bull trout and brown trout

rear in similar areas and may compete

for food and space. Elevated water

temperatures may favor brown trout

over bull trout in competitive

interactions (MBTSG 1996h). Brown

trout are thought to have been a

secondary factor in the decline and

eventual extirpation of bull trout in the

McCloud River, California, after dam

construction altered bull trout habitat

(Rode 1990).

Non-native lake trout also negatively

affect bull trout (Donald and Alger 1993;

MBTSG 1996h). A study of 34 lakes in

Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia

found lake trout likely limit foraging

opportunities and reduce the

distribution and abundance of migratory

bull trout in mountain lakes (Donald

and Alger 1993). Illegal introductions of

lake trout and other species have

occurred in more than 50 northwest

Montana waters in recent years (J.

Vashro, MFWP, in litt. 1995). The

potential for illegal introduction of lake

trout into the Swan River basin and

Hungry Horse Reservoir on the South

Fork Flathead River, both in Montana, is

considered a threat to bull trout

(MBTSG 1995e, 1996a), potentially

affecting up to six subpopulations. In

Idaho, lake trout and habitat

degradation were factors in the decline

of bull trout from Priest Lake (Mauser et

al. 1988; Pratt and Huston 1993).

Juvenile lake trout are also using river

habitats in Montana, possibly competing

with bull trout (MBTSG 1996h). State

plans to manage lake trout to reduce

interactions with bull trout are

unknown.

Non-native northern pike (Esox

lucius), bass (Micropterus spp.), and

opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) are also

thought to negatively affect bull trout.

Northern pike were illegally introduced

into Swan Lake in the 1970s (MFWP

1997), and predation on juvenile bull

trout has been documented (S. Rumsey,

MFWP, pers comm. in MBTSG 1996a).

Management of Swan Lake emphasizes

protection of native salmonids,

particularly bull trout, and control of

northern pike to minimize effects on

native species (MFWP 1997). Northern

pike were also illegally introduced into

Salmon, Inez, Seeley, and Alva lakes in

the Clearwater River basin, a tributary to

the Blackfoot River, Montana (MFWP

1997). Northern pike numbers have

increased in Salmon Lake and Lake

Inez, having a negative effect on bull

trout (Berg, pers. comm. 1997). Northern

pike in Seeley Lake and Lake Alva are

also expected to increase in numbers

(Berg, pers. comm. 1997).

Introduced bass may negatively affect

bull trout where the species co-occur

(MFWP 1997). In the Clark Fork River,

Montana, Noxon Rapids Reservoir

supports fisheries for both smallmouth

bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and

largemouth bass. Both are high priority

species in current management of

Noxon Rapids Reservoir unless more

suitable bull trout habitat is created as

a result of dam relicensing. The fishery

management objective for Cabinet Gorge

Reservoir, downstream of Noxon Rapids

Reservoir, is to enhance bull trout while

managing the existing bass fishery

(MFWP 1997).

Opossum shrimp, a crustacean native

to the Canadian Shield area, was widely

introduced in the 1970s as

supplemental forage for kokanee and

other salmonids in several lakes and

reservoirs across the northwest (Nesler

and Bergerson 1991). The introduction

of opossum shrimp in Flathead Lake

changed the lake’s trophic dynamics,

and is widely believed to have been

partially responsible for the expanding

the lake trout population, resulting in

increased competition and predation on

bull trout (T. Weaver, MFWP, in litt.

1993) Thus, opossum shrimp have had

an indirect, negative effect on bull trout.

Conversely, in Swan Lake, Montana,

opossum shrimp and kokanee have

become established and increased the

availability of forage for bull trout,

contributing to the significant increase

in bull trout numbers in the Swan River

basin (MBTSG 1996a). Thus, the effects

of introduced species on bull trout

involve complex interactions that are

dependent on several factors.

Klamath River Population Segment

Bull trout have been displaced by

brook trout in portions of the Klamath

River basin (Light et al. 1996), and

hybrids of the two species have been

verified in several of the streams (Ratliff

and Howell 1992). Either brook trout,

brown trout, or both species occur with

bull trout in six of seven

subpopulations. Where brook trout or

brown trout co-occur with bull trout, the

distribution of bull trout has contracted

and that of introduced salmonids

expanded (e.g., Brownsworth, Leonard,

and Long creeks) (Buchanan et al. 1997).

Only four subpopulations exist in the

absence of brook trout, and these are the

most abundant (Ratliff and Howell 1992;

Ziller 1992). In 1992, chemical

eradication of brook trout was initiated

in Sun Creek (Buktenica 1997). The

chemical treatment apparently killed a

number of bull trout due to the

difficulty of removing fish prior to

treatment (Buktenica 1997). Other

eradication programs relying on

chemical treatments would likely have

similar effects on bull trout. Ongoing

management actions in Threemile and

Long creeks focus on brook trout

eradication via selective electrofishing,

snorkel-spearing, trapping, and

chemical treatments with the objective

of expanding bull trout range. Brook

trout have declined in Threemile Creek,

but there has been no measurable

change in brook trout numbers in Long

Creek (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt.

1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

Within the upper Columbia River

basin in Montana, brook trout are found

in approximately 65 percent of the

stream reaches where bull trout occur (J.

Hutten, MFWP, in litt. 1993). Brook

trout are found in all major basins in

Montana that support bull trout except

the South Fork of the Flathead River.

Brook trout and bull trout hybridization

was first documented in the early 1980s

in South Fork Lolo Creek in the

Bitterroot River basin, Montana (Clancy

1993; MBTSG 1996h). Bull trout have

largely been replaced by brook trout.

Introduced brook, brown, and

rainbow trout are present in the

Bitterroot drainage in Montana (Clancy

1996). The presence of non-native fish

may have been a factor causing the

fragmentation of bull trout range in the

Bitterroot drainage by restricting

migratory movements by bull trout

(Rich 1996). Brook trout appeared to be

replacing bull trout in some streams in

the Bitterroot. Bull trout-brook trout

hybrids have been documented in at

least nine tributaries (MBTSG 1995b).

Rich (1996) found a strong negative

correlation between the presence of bull

trout and brook trout in tributaries of

the Bitterroot River.

The MBTSG concluded that

introduced species, particularly in the

lower Clark Fork River pose a high

threat to bull trout (MBTSG 1996b).

Non-native fishes have been introduced

throughout the Clark Fork River system

and brook trout are found throughout.

Bull trout-brook trout hybrids exist in

the Middle and upper Clark Fork

systems (MBTSG 1995a; Hansen and

DosSantos 1997).

In Idaho, bull trout densities in Mica

Creek, Spokane River basin, during 1972
31670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ranged from 0.03 to 0.23 fish/100 m2

(0.003 to 0.023 fish/100 ft2) (Mauser et

al. 1972 in Platts et al. 1993). Extensive

electrofishing surveys in Mica Creek

during 1993 did not find bull trout, but

brook trout were numerous at one

transect (Martin 1994). Brook trout are

present or accessible to most of the

Clearwater River basin in Idaho, with

hybridization and competition the

primary threat to bull trout (A.

Espinosa, Clearwater National Forest,

pers. comm. 1993; D. Johnson, Nez

Perce Tribe, pers. comm. 1995). For

example, Meadow Creek, a tributary to

the North Fork Clearwater River,

contained numerous bull trout in 1987

and 1988, but, currently, high numbers

of brook trout occur and bull trout

numbers have been sharply reduced

(Johnson, pers. comm., 1995).

Negative effects of interactions with

introduced non-native species may be

the most pervasive threat to bull trout

throughout the Columbia River basin. Of

the 141 subpopulations of bull trout in

the Columbia River population segment,

approximately 62 percent were

threatened by competition, predation, or

displacement by non-native species.

Often one or more non-native species

have been introduced into bull trout

habitats; interactions with bull trout are

likely exacerbated by factors such as

habitat conditions, water temperature,

and isolation. The MBTSG concluded

that non-native species pose a limitation

to bull trout restoration (MBTSG 1995ae, 1996a-f). The MBTSG is reviewing

recommendations for removing or

suppressing non-native fishes to benefit

bull trout, but success of such an effort

on a large scale is questionable (MBTSG

1996h).

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation

Bull trout are widely distributed over

a large geographic area, and exhibit a

patchy distribution due, in part, to

specific habitat requirements (Rieman

and McIntyre 1993). However, the

effects of human activities over the past

100 years have resulted in reductions in

the overall distribution of bull trout. In

general, habitat fragmentation results in

reduction in available habitat and

increased isolation from conspecifics

(Saunders et al. 1991). In studies of

extinction in fragmented landscapes,

Burkey (1989) concluded that when

species are isolated by fragmented

habitats, low rates of population growth

are typical in each local population (i.e.,

subpopulations) and their probability of

extirpation is directly related to the

degree of isolation and fragmentation.

Without sufficient immigration, overall

growth for subpopulations may be low

and the overall probability of

extirpation for subpopulations is high

(Burkey 1989, 1995). Moreover, habitat

fragmentation that isolates

subpopulations may increase a species’

susceptibility to both demographic and

naturally occurring events (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993).

Metapopulation concepts of

conservation biology theory are

applicable to the bull trout (Reiman and

McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an

interacting network of local populations

with varying frequencies of migration

and gene flow among them (Meffe and

Carroll 1994). Subpopulations may be

extirpated, but can be reestablished by

individuals from other subpopulations.

Metapopulations are thought to provide

a mechanism for spreading risk because

the simultaneous loss of all

subpopulations is unlikely. Migratory

corridors can also allow individuals

access to unoccupied but suitable

habitats, foraging areas, and refuges

from perturbations (Saunders et al.

1990). Relative to bull trout,

maintenance of migratory corridors is

essential to provide connectivity among

subpopulations thought to be sources

and sinks, and enables the

reestablishment of extirpated

subpopulations. Where migratory bull

trout are not present, disjunct

subpopulations cannot be replenished

when a disturbance makes local habitats

unsuitable (Rieman and McIntyre 1993;

USDA and USDI 1997). Moreover,

limited downstream movement was

observed for resident bull trout in the

Bitterroot River basin (Nelson 1996)

suggesting low probability that

extirpated bull trout would be

reestablished by resident fish residing

nearby. Of the 141 subpopulations in

the Columbia River population segment,

approximately 79 percent are unlikely

to be reestablished if extirpated; and 50

percent are at risk of extirpation from

naturally occurring events.

Passage barriers, degraded habitat,

absence of migratory fish, and

intensified stream perturbations, such as

forest fires, floods, and droughts, reduce

the ability of isolated bull trout

subpopulations to persist following

disturbances to streams (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; USDA and USDI 1997).

Bull trout evolved with habitat

perturbations to streams that were likely

factors in shaping bull trout life history

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Historically, areas suitable for bull trout

spawning were likely distributed in a

disjunct pattern (Fraley and Shepard

1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995; USDA

and USDI 1997) maintained by natural

perturbations. Although the amount and

distribution of spawning areas vary

through time, sufficient spawning areas

were accessible to bull trout to maintain

the species (Rieman and McIntyre 1995;

USDA and USDI 1997). Migratory bull

trout tend to show fidelity to spawning

streams, but they have been

documented to spawn in different

tributaries from one year to the next,

including tributaries not previously

known to have recent spawning (Ratliff

et al. 1996). Thus, migratory bull trout

have the ability to reestablish an area

where extirpated previously as long as

suitable migratory corridors exist

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Today, bull trout exhibiting migratory

life histories have declined or are absent

in many river systems (Bond, 1992;

Schill 1992; Ziller 1992; Pratt and

Huston 1993; Rieman and McIntyre

1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; MBTSG

1995a,b; 1996b,c,e; USDA and USDI

1997). Passage barriers (e.g., dams and

diversions) and other habitat alterations

prevent bull trout migration from

following historical patterns.

Additionally, suitable spawning areas

are more fragmented across the

landscape than historically (USDA and

USDI 1997). With fewer and more

compressed spawning and rearing areas

available, bull trout increasingly persist

as small, isolated resident populations

instead of few, large connected

subpopulations (Bond, 1992; Schill

1992; Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman

and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996

Newton and Pribyl 1994; MBTSG

1995a,b; 1996b,c,d,e; USDA and USDI

1997).

As discussed in Factor A, evidence

suggests that landscape disturbances,

such as floods and fires, have increased

in frequency and magnitude of effects

within the range of bull trout (Henjum

et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1997).

Where recolonization is prevented by

passage barriers and suitable habitat,

bull trout subpopulations may be

extirpated by perturbations (USDA and

USDI 1997). Also, isolated

subpopulations are typically small, and

more likely to be extirpated by local

events than larger populations (Rieman

and McIntyre 1995). Small populations

may be at risk of impaired genetic

fitness, as in Gold Creek, Washington

(Craig and Wissmar 1993).

An example of the effects of naturally

occurring events, such as fire, on bull

trout habitat is the Entiat River basin of

central Washington. ‘‘Historical and

current influences have been significant

and include: localized compaction from

sheep grazing and trailing; fire

exclusion; timber salvage/road building

from the early 1970’s to present; and

recreation. A portion of this (transitional

or bull trout) zone has recently been

impacted by a large, moderate high
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31671

intensity fire’’ (Wenatchee National

Forest, in litt. 1996). This transitional or

bull trout zone in the mainstem Entiat

River has had a 30 to 60 percent loss of

pools since initially surveyed by the

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries during 1935

through 1937 (Wenatchee National

Forest, in litt. 1996). Both bull trout

densities and recruitment are depressed

in the mainstem Entiat in response to

habitat degradation.

Conversely, most bull trout

recruitment in the Entiat River basin is

now occurring in the transitional zone

in the Mad River. Pool frequencies have

increased dramatically, 85 percent in

one reach surveyed, 1,000 percent in the

other, since the 1935 through 1937

surveys (Wenatchee National Forest, in

litt. 1996). A large fire occurred in the

Mad River basin in 1888, and the basin

had splash dams and log drives early in

this century. It has taken 60 years for the

habitat to recover.

Floods or high flows have also been

altered by land management (USDA and

USDI 1997). Roads and clear cutting

forested areas tend to magnify the

effects of floods, leading to higher flows,

erosion and bedload that scour channels

(Furniss et al. 1991; McIntosh et al.

1994; USDA and USDI 1997), and

degrade bull trout habitat (Henjum et al.

1994). Erosion from road landslides

increases bedload to high stream flows

over bedload levels without roads

(Furniss et al. 1991). Increased bedload

increases the scouring effect of the high

water, increasing channel instability,

leading to a loss of habitat diversity,

especially pools (Henjum et al. 1994;

McIntosh et al. 1994). Bull trout eggs

and fry in the gravels during the

scouring likely survive at lower rates

(Henjum et al. 1994). For instance,

hundreds of landslides associated with

roads on the Clearwater National Forest

and Panhandle National Forests (R.

Patten and J. Pengkover, Panhandle

National Forests, in litt. 1996) resulted

from high water in 1995, and the effects

of flooding on isolated bull trout

populations is unknown. Habitat

degradation has reduced the number

and size of bull trout spawning areas

(USDA and USDI 1997).

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats to bull trout

in the Klamath River and Columbia

River distinct population segments of

bull trout in developing this final rule.

Based on this evaluation the preferred

action is to list the Klamath River and

the Columbia River population

segments of bull trout as threatened.

Klamath River Population Segment

Bull trout are currently limited to

seven geographically isolated

subpopulations that occupy only a

fraction of the historical habitat. The

species distribution and numbers have

declined due to habitat degradation,

isolation, loss of migratory corridors,

poor water quality, and the introduction

of non-native species. Six of seven bull

trout subpopulations are small in

number, and unlikely to persist over the

next 100 years unless conservation and

other corrective actions are taken.

Remaining Klamath River bull trout

subpopulations are threatened by the

effects of past, present and future land

and water management practices. Most

subpopulations also face more than one

threat.

Despite the bull trout’s current status,

the Service is encouraged that recent

conservation and recovery actions are

being initiated at Federal, State and

local levels to begin to reverse the longterm declining trend for bull trout in the

Klamath River basin. Progress has

already been made toward improving

habitat conditions for bull trout.

Although the Service proposed the

Klamath River population segment as

endangered based on the 1994

administrative record, new information

indicates that interagency conservation

programs are being implemented and

have begun to reduce threats to bull

trout. Included are efforts of the

Klamath Basin Working Group to

eradicate brook trout in Long, Sun and

Threemile Creeks, reduce livestock

grazing along bull trout streams, and

monitor watershed conditions and bull

trout status. Moreover, bull trout

conservation in the Klamath Basin has

benefitted from habitat restoration

activities of the Upper Klamath Basin

Working Group which began in 1994.

Habitat improvements derived from

these two programs have just begun to

be realized. Thus the final

determination is to list the Klamath

River population of bull trout as

threatened because it is no longer in

danger of extinction in the foreseeable

future and threats have been reduced.

Columbia River Population Segment

Bull trout in the Columbia River

basin, despite their relatively

widespread distribution, have declined

in both their overall range and numbers.

Numerous extirpations of local

subpopulations have been reported,

with bull trout eliminated from areas

ranging in size from relatively small

tributaries of currently occupied, though

fragmented habitat, to large river

systems comprising a substantial

portion of the species’ previous range.

Bull trout in the Columbia River

population segment are currently

limited to 141 isolated subpopulations,

which indicates habitat fragmentation

and geographic isolation. Many

remaining bull trout occur as isolated

subpopulations in headwater lakes or

tributaries with migratory life histories

lost or restricted. Few bull trout

subpopulations are considered ‘‘strong’’

in terms of relative abundance and

subpopulation stability. These

remaining important strongholds tend to

be found in large areas of contiguous

habitats in the Snake River basin of

central Idaho Mountains, upper Clark

Fork and Flathead rivers in Montana,

and the Blue Mountains in Washington

and Oregon. The decline of bull trout is

due to habitat degradation and

fragmentation, blockage of migratory

corridors, poor water quality, past

fisheries management practices and the

introduction of non-native species. Most

bull trout subpopulations are affected by

one or more threats.

Recent activities to address threats

and reverse the long-term decline of bull

trout are being initiated at Federal, State

and local levels (e.g., restrictive angling

regulations, adoption of various land

management rules, and development of

conservation strategies and plans).

While these efforts are important to the

long term conservation and recovery of

bull trout, threats continue and

subpopulation improvement throughout

the Columbia River has yet to be

demonstrated. Because bull trout in the

Columbia River basin are still a wideranging species, with some

‘‘strongholds’’ in relatively protected

areas, the Columbia River population

segment is not in immediate danger of

extinction. Therefore the Service’s final

determination is to list the Columbia

River population segment of bull trout

as threatened.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as—(i) the specific area

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those biological features (I)

essential to the conservation of the

species and (II) that may require special

management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at
31672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Service regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is

not determinable if information

sufficient to perform required analysis

of impacts of the designation is lacking

or if the biological needs of the species

are not sufficiently well known to

permit identification of an area as

critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the

Act requires the Service to consider

economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical

habitat on the basis of the best scientific

data available. The Secretary may

exclude any area from critical habitat if

he determines that the benefits of such

exclusion outweigh the conservation

benefits, unless to do such would result

in the extinction of the species.

The Service finds that the designation

of critical habitat is not determinable for

these distinct population segments

based on the best available information.

When a ‘‘not determinable’’ finding is

made, the Service must, within 2 years

of the publication date of the original

proposed rule, designate critical habitat,

unless the designation is found to be not

prudent. The Service reached a ‘‘not

determinable’’ critical habitat finding

for the proposed rule based on the 1994

administrative record. In the proposed

rule the Service specifically requested

comments on this issue. While the

Service received a number of comments

advocating critical habitat designation,

none of these comments provided

information that added to the Service’s

ability to determine critical habitat.

Additionally, no new information

regarding specific physical and

biological features essential for bull

trout in the Klamath River and

Columbia River bull trout population

segments was obtained during the open

comment period including the five

public hearings. The biological needs of

bull trout in the two population

segments are not sufficiently well

known to permit identification of areas

as critical habitat. Insufficient

information is available on the number

of individuals or spawning reaches

required to support viable

subpopulations throughout the distinct

population segment. In addition, the

extent of habitat required and specific

management measures needed for

recovery of these fish have not been

identified. This information is

considered essential for determining

critical habitat for these population

segments. Therefore, the Service finds

that designation of critical habitat for

the Klamath River and the Columbia

River population segments is not

determinable at this time. Protection of

bull trout habitat will be addressed

through the recovery process and

through section 7 consultations to

determine whether Federal actions are

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition

through listing encourages and results

in conservation actions by Federal,

State, and private agencies, groups, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the states and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part

402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal

agencies to insure that activities they

authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with the

Service.

The Klamath River and Columbia

River bull trout population segments

occur on lands administered by the

USFS and BLM; various State-owned

properties in Oregon, Washington,

Idaho and Montana; and private lands.

Federal agency actions that may require

consultation as described in the

preceding paragraph include Army

Corps of Engineers (Corps) involvement

in projects such as the construction of

roads and bridges, and the permitting of

wetland filling and dredging projects

subject to section 404 of the Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission licensed

hydropower projects authorized under

the Federal Power Act; USFS and BLM

timber and grazing management

activities; EPA authorized discharges

under the National Pollutant Discharge

System of the Clean Water Act; and U.S.

Housing and Urban Development

projects.

On January 27, 1998, an interagency

memorandum between the USFS, BLM

and the Service outlined a process for

bull trout section 7 conferencing/

consultation in recognition of the

possibility of an impending listing. The

process considers both programmatic

actions (e.g., land management plans)

and site-specific actions (e.g., timber

sales and livestock grazing allotments)

and incorporates conferencing/

consultation at the watershed level. The

process uses a matrix to determine the

environmental baseline and the effects

of projects on the environmental

baseline of bull trout. The goal of this

strategy is to complete conferences for

all ongoing actions and proposed

actions by the effective date of listing

through a system of batching and

aggregating of projects to the watershed

level. A programmatic LRMP/RMP

biological assessment would be used to

assess ongoing projects for up to 9

months post-listing that result from

implementation of Forest Plans/

Resource Management Plans as

amended in INFISH, PACFISH and the

Northwest Forest Plan. The Service

would determine in a programmatic

biological opinion whether these issues

would jeopardize the continued

existence of bull trout, and would

authorize incidental take. Part of the

project description and evaluation

process would stipulate that an ongoing

project would be completed by May 10,

1999. For projects that are proposed

after the initial 9 month post-listing

period, the watershed approach, using

the bull trout matrix incorporating local

watershed biological data, would be

project-specific applied in the section 7

process.

The Act and its implementing

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and

17.31 set forth a series of general trade

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all threatened wildlife. These

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to take (includes

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt

any of these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It is also illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31673

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits, authorized under section

10(a)(1) of the Act, may be issued to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered and threatened

wildlife under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are at 50

CFR 17.22, 17.23 and 17.32. Such

permits are available for scientific

purposes, to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species, and/or for

incidental take in connection with

otherwise lawful activities. For

threatened species, permits are also

available for zoological exhibition,

educational purposes, or special

purposes consistent with the purpose of

the Act. Private landowners seeking

permits under section 10 of the Act for

incidental take are a means of protecting

bull trout habitat through the voluntary

development of habitat conservation

plans. Information collections

associated with these permits are

approved under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

and assigned Office of Management and

Budget clearance number 1018–0094.

For additional information concerning

these permits and associated

requirements, see 50 CFR 17.32.

It is the policy of the Service

published in the Federal Register on

July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify

to the maximum extent practicable at

the time a species is listed those

activities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of the

Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect

of this listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within the species’ range. The

Service believes the following actions

would not be likely to result in a

violation of section 9, provided the

activities are carried out in accordance

with any existing regulations and permit

requirements—

(1) Actions that may affect bull trout

in the Klamath and Columbia River

basins and are authorized, funded or

carried out by a Federal agency when

the action is conducted in accordance

with an incidental take statement issued

by the Service pursuant to section 7 of

the Act;

(2) Possession of Columbia River

basin bull trout caught legally in

accordance with authorized State

fishing regulations (see Special Rule

section);

(3) State, local and other activities

that have been approved by the Service

through development of Conservation

Plans and special rules under section

4(d) and section 6(c)(1) of the Act.

With respect to both the Klamath

River and Columbia River bull trout

population segments, the following

actions likely would be considered a

violation of section 9—

(1) Take of bull trout without a

permit, which includes harassing,

harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting,

wounding, killing, trapping, capturing,

or collecting, or attempting any of these

actions, except in accordance with

applicable State fish and wildlife

conservation laws and regulations

within the Columbia River bull trout

population segment;

(2) To possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship illegally taken bull

trout;

(3) Unauthorized interstate and

foreign commerce (commerce across

State and international boundaries) and

import/export of bull trout (as discussed

in the prohibition discussion earlier in

this section);

(4) Introduction of non-native fish

species that compete or hybridize with,

or prey on bull trout;

(5) Destruction or alteration of bull

trout habitat by dredging,

channelization, diversion, in-stream

vehicle operation or rock removal, or

other activities that result in the

destruction or significant degradation of

cover, channel stability, substrate

composition, temperature, and

migratory corridors used by the species

for foraging, cover, migration, and

spawning;

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants into

waters supporting bull trout that result

in death or injury of the species; and

(7) Destruction or alteration of

riparian or lakeshore habitat and

adjoining uplands of waters supporting

bull trout by timber harvest, grazing,

mining, hydropower development, or

other developmental activities that

result in destruction or significant

degradation of cover, channel stability,

substrate composition, temperature, and

migratory corridors used by the species

for foraging, cover, migration, and

spawning.

Other activities not identified above

will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

to determine if a violation of section 9

of the Act may be likely to result from

such activity. The Service does not

consider these lists to be exhaustive and

provides them as information to the

public.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities may constitute a violation of

section 9 should be directed to the

Supervisor of the Service’s Snake River

Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations

concerning listed species and inquiries

regarding prohibitions and permits may

be addressed to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species

Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97232–4181 (telephone 503

231–6241; facsimile 503 231–6243).

Special Rule

Section 4(d) of the Act provides

authority for the Service to promulgate

special rules for threatened species that

would relax the prohibition against

taking. The Service finds that statewide

angling regulations have become more

restrictive in an attempt to protect bull

trout throughout Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and

are adequate to protect the species from

excessive taking. The Service intends to

continue to work with the States and

Tribes in developing management plans

and agreements with the objective of

recovery and eventual delisting of the

Klamath River and Columbia River

distinct population segments. This

special rule allows for take of bull trout

within the Klamath River and Columbia

River distinct population segments

when it is in accordance with applicable

State and Native American Tribal fish

and wildlife conservation laws and

regulations, as constituted in all

respects relevant to protection of bull

trout. The Service believes that this

special rule will allow for more efficient

management of the species, thereby

facilitating its conservation.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an

Environmental Assessment, as defined

under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need

not be prepared in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as

amended. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain any new

collections of information other than

those already approved under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and assigned Office of

Management and Budget clearance

number 1018–0094. For additional

information concerning permit and

associated requirements for threatened

species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Snake River Basin Office (see

Addresses section).
31674 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Author(s)

The primary authors of this final rule

are: John Bowerman, Klamath Basin

Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls,

OR; Timothy Cummings, Columbia

River Fisheries Office, Vancouver, WA;

Stephen Duke, Snake River Basin Office,

Boise, ID; Michael Faler, Idaho Fisheries

Resource Office, Ahsahka, ID; Robert

Hallock, Upper Columbia River Basin

Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr,

Snake River Basin Office, Boise, Idaho;

Lori Nordstrom, Helena Field Office,

Helena, MT; and Ron Rhew, Oregon

State Office, Portland, OR.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

PART 17—[AMENDED]

Accordingly, the Service amends part

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set

forth below—

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

FISHES, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When

listed

Critical

habitat Special rules

Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

FISHES

* * * * * * *

Trout, bull ............... Salvelinus

confluentus.

U.S.A. (Pacific NW),

Canada (NW Territories).

Klamath R. (U.S.A.-

OR)

T 637 NA 17.44 (v)

Do...... ............. do...... ................. do ....................... Columbia R.

(U.S.A.—ID, MT,

OR, WA) mainstem

and its tributaries,

excluding Jarbidge

R., NV, and east of

Continental Divide,

MT.)

T 637 NA Do.

* * * * * * *

3. Amend § 17.44 by adding

paragraph (v) to read as follows:

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes.

* * * * *

(v) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),

Columbia River and Klamath River

population segments.

(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in

paragraph (v)(2) of this section, all

prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and

exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 shall apply

to the bull trout Columbia River and

Klamath River population segments

within the contiguous United States.

(2) Exceptions. No person shall take

this species, except in accordance with

applicable State and Native American

Tribal fish and wildlife conservation

laws and regulations, as constituted in

all respects relevant to protection of bull

trout in effect on June 10, 1998.

(3) Any violation of applicable State

and Native American Tribal fish and

wildlife conservation laws or

regulations with respect to the taking of

this species is also a violation of the

Endangered Species Act.

(4) No person shall possess, sell,

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or

export, any means whatsoever, any such

species taken in violation of this section

or in violation of applicable State and

Native American Tribal fish and game

laws and regulations.

(5) It is unlawful for any person to

attempt to commit, solicit another to

commit, or cause to be committed, any

offense defined in paragraphs (v) (2)

through (4) of this section.

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15319 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P