```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31693-31710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15318]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018--AF01

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To List 
the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River 
Population Segments of Bull Trout as Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list 
the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus) from the coastal drainages and Puget Sound in western 
Washington; the Jarbidge River population segment of bull trout from 
the Jarbidge River basin in southern Idaho and northern Nevada; and the 
St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout in the St. Mary 
and Belly rivers in northwestern Montana as threatened with a special 
rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). The 
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, composed of 35 subpopulations 
of ``native char'', is threatened by habitat degradation, dams and 
diversions, and interactions with non-native fishes. The Jarbidge River 
population segment, composed of a single subpopulation, is threatened 
by habitat degradation from past and ongoing land management activities 
such as mining, road construction and maintenance, and grazing. The St. 
Mary-Belly River population segment, composed of four subpopulations, 
is threatened by the effects of water management such as dewatering, 
entrainment, and passage barriers at diversion structures, and 
interactions with introduced non-native fishes. The special rule allows 
for take of bull trout within the three population segments if in 
accordance with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and 
wildlife conservation laws and regulations, and conservation plans. 
This proposal, if made final, would extend protection of the Act to 
these three bull trout population segments.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October 
8, 1998. Public hearings locations and dates are set forth in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin Field 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709. Comments and 
material received will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake 
River Basin Field Office, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243; 
facsimile 208/378-5262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearings locations and dates are:
    1. Tuesday, July 7, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00 
p.m. at the Norman Worthington Conference Center at St. Martin's 
College, 5300 Pacific Avenue SE, Lacey, Washington.
    2. Thursday, July 9, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00 
p.m. at the Best Western Cotton Tree Inn, Mt. Adams Room, 2401 
Riverside Dr, Mount Vernon, Washington.
    3. Tuesday, July 14, 1998, from 2:00-until 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-
8:00 p.m. at Glacier Park Lodge, East Glacier, Montana.
    4. Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00 
p.m. at Cactus Petes, 1385 US Highway 93, Jackpot, Nevada.

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 deg. N to 60 deg. 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; McPhail and Baxter 1996; 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 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 life cycles 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). Anadromy is the least studied life-history type in bull trout, 
and some biologists believe the existence of anadromous bull trout may 
be uncertain (McPhail and Baxter 1996).

[[Page 31694]]

However, historical accounts, collection records, and recent 
circumstantial evidence suggests an anadromous life-history form for 
bull trout (Suckley and Cooper 1860; Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 
1996). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and bull 
trout may 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 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 the necessary habitat requirements for bull 
trout spawning and rearing, and that the characteristics are not 
necessarily ubiquitous throughout watersheds in which bull trout occur. 
Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in undisturbed 
habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), fish would likely not 
simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. 1997).
    Bull trout are most often found in colder streams, although 
individual fish can occur throughout larger river systems. (Fraley and 
Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory 
1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Water temperature above 15 deg. C (59 deg. 
F) is believed to limit bull trout distribution, which partially 
explains the generally patchy distribution within a watershed (Fraley 
and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Spawning areas are often 
associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the 
coldest streams in a given watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 
1993; Rieman et al. 1997).
    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 populations 
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 deg. C (41 to 48 deg. F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz 
1989). Pratt (1992) reported that increases in fine sediments reduce 
egg survival and emergence. High juvenile densities were observed in 
Swan River, Montana, and tributaries characterized by diverse cobble 
substrate and a low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984). 
Juvenile bull trout in four streams in central Washington occupied 
slow-moving water less than 0.5 meters/second (m/sec) (1.6 feet/second 
(ft/sec)) over a variety of sand to boulder size substrates (Sexauer 
and James 1997).
    The size and age of maturity for bull trout is variable depending 
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 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 spawning migrations in response to increasing 
temperatures (Swanberg 1997). Temperatures during spawning generally 
range from 4 to 10 deg. C (39 to 51 deg. 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). 
Depending on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days 
(Pratt 1992), and juveniles remain in the substrate after hatching. 
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 life-history 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 (lb)) 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, macro-
zooplankton, amphipods, mysids, crayfish and small fish (Wyman 1975; 
Rieman and Lukens 1979 in Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Boag 1987; Goetz 
1989; Donald and Alger 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily 
piscivorous, known to feed on various trout (Salmo spp.) and salmon 
(Onchorynchus spp.), whitefish (Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Perca 
flavescens), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald 
and Alger 1993).
    Bull trout co-evolved with, and in most areas co-occur with native 
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.), resident (redband) and 
migratory rainbow trout (O. mykiss ssp.), chinook salmon (O. 
tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish (Prosopium 
williamsoni), pygmy whitefish (P. coulteri), and various sculpin 
(Cottus spp.), sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow (Cyprinidae) species 
(Mauser et al. 1988; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; R2 Resource Consultants, 
Inc. 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); Puget Sound chinook salmon

[[Page 31695]]

(March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11481); and westslope cutthroat trout (O. c. 
lewisi) (petitioned for listing in July 1997). Widespread introductions 
of non-native fishes, including brook trout (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 fishes are often associated with 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). East of 
the Continental Divide, bull trout co-evolved with lake trout and 
westslope cutthroat trout (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Under these 
conditions, bull trout and lake trout have apparently partitioned 
habitat with lake trout dominating lentic (standing waters, such as, 
lakes, ponds, and marshes) systems, relegating bull trout to the 
fluvial life-history form (Donald and Alger 1993).
    Bull trout habitat in the coterminous United States is found in a 
mosaic of land ownership, including Federal lands administered by the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National 
Park Service (NPS), and Department of Defense (DOD); Native American 
tribal lands; state land in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and 
Nevada; and private lands. As much as half of occupied bull trout 
habitat occurs on non-federal lands.
    Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-
history forms. 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. 1997). 
Migrations facilitate gene flow among local subpopulations because 
individuals from different subpopulations interbreed when some return 
to non-natal streams. Migratory fish can also reestablish extirpated 
local subpopulations.
    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 (Meffe and Carroll 1994). Local subpopulations may 
become extinct, but can be reestablisheded by individuals from other 
subpopulations. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for reducing risk 
because the simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely. 
Habitat alteration, primarily through construction of impoundments, 
dams, and water diversions, has fragmented habitats, eliminated 
migratory corridors, and isolated bull trout, often in the headwaters 
of tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997).

Distinct Population Segments

    The best available scientific and commercial information supports 
designating five distinct population segments (DPSs) of bull trout in 
the coterminous United States--(1) Klamath River, (2) Columbia River, 
(3) Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-Belly 
River. A final listing determination for the Klamath River and Columbia 
River bull trout DPSs, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, 
includes a detailed description of the rationale behind the DPS 
delineation. The approach is consistent with the joint National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Service policy for recognizing distinct 
vertebrate population segments under the Act (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 
4722). This proposed rule addresses only the Coastal-Puget Sound, 
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout DPSs.

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

    The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS encompasses all Pacific 
coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the 
Columbia River in Washington. This population segment is discrete 
because it is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by 
the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. The 
population segment is significant to the species as a whole because it 
is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the 
coterminous United States, thus, occurring in a unique (i.e., marine) 
ecological setting. In addition, the loss of this population segment 
would significantly reduce the overall range of the taxon.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

    The Jarbidge River, in southwest Idaho and northern Nevada, is a 
tributary in the Snake River basin and contains the southernmost 
habitat occupied by bull trout. This population segment is discrete 
because it is segregated from other bull trout in the Snake River basin 
by a large gap (greater than 240 km (150 mi)) in suitable habitat and 
several impassable dams on the mainstem Snake River. The occurrence of 
a species at the extremities of its range is not necessarily sufficient 
evidence of significance to the species as a whole. However, because 
the Jarbidge River possesses bull trout habitat that is disjunct from 
other patches of suitable habitat, the population segment is considered 
significant because it occupies a unique or unusual ecological setting 
and its loss would result in a substantial modification of the species' 
range.

St. Mary-Belly Rivers

    The St. Mary-Belly River DPS is located in northwest Montana east 
of the Continental Divide. Both the St. Mary and Belly rivers are 
tributaries in the Saskatchewan River basin in Alberta, Canada. The 
population segment is discrete because it is segregated from other bull 
trout by the Continental Divide and is the only bull trout population 
found east of the Continental Divide in the coterminous United States. 
The population segment is significant because its loss would result in 
a significant reduction in the range of the taxon. Bull trout in this 
population segment are believed to migrate into Canada where a 
substantial amount of habitat still remains.

Status and Distribution

    To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and 
abundance for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments, the Service analyzed data on a 
subpopulation basis within each segment because fragmentation and 
barriers have isolated bull trout. A subpopulation is considered a 
reproductively isolated bull trout group that spawns within a 
particular area(s) 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 may allow only downstream access 
(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); (3) 
characterized by low individual or spawner numbers; or (4) consisted 
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 it 
had low numbers of fish that spawn in a relatively restricted area. In 
such cases, a natural event such as a fire or flood could eliminate the 
subpopulation, and,

[[Page 31696]]

subsequently, 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 because of potential reestablishment by fish upstream. 
Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited downstream movement 
(Nelson 1996), the Service's estimate of subpopulations at risk of 
naturally occurring extirpation may be underestimated. The status of 
subpopulations was based on modified criteria of Rieman et al. (1997), 
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 
historically present 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.'' It is emphasized that the assignment of 
``unknown'' status implies only a deficiency of data to assign a 
subpopulation as ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' not a lack of information 
regarding the status or threats. Section 4 of the Act requires the 
Service to make a determination solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available. Although complete status and trend 
information is not available for all the subpopulations, bull trout are 
naturally rare and as discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
These Species'' there is sufficient information on threats to propose 
these population segments for listing.

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

    The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses 
all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. 
No bull trout exist in coastal drainages south of the Columbia River. 
Within this area, bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden. Because 
the two species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate, the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) currently manages 
bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char.'' The Coastal-
Puget Sound population segment contain 35 subpopulations of ``native 
char'' (bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species) (Service 1998a). The 
species can be differentiated by both genetic and morphological-
meristic analyses, of which one or both analyses have been conducted on 
15 of the 35 subpopulations. Bull trout were confirmed in 12 of 15 
subpopulations investigated (5 with only bull trout, 3 with only Dolly 
Varden, and 7 with both species), and it is likely that bull trout 
occur in the majority of the remaining 20 subpopulations (Service 
1998a). In order to identify trends that may be specific to certain 
geographic areas, the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations were grouped 
into five analysis areas-- Coastal, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, 
Puget Sound, and Transboundary.

Coastal Analysis Area

    Ten ``native char'' subpopulations occur in five river basins in 
the Coastal analysis area (number of subpopulations)-- Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor (1), Coastal Plains-Quinault River (5), Queets River (1), 
Hoh River-Goodman Creek (2), and Quillayute River (1). Recent efforts 
to determine species composition in three subpopulations have confirmed 
bull trout in two, the upper Quinault River and Queets River (Leary and 
Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in 
the upper Sol Duc River (Cavender 1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a).
    Subpopulations of ``native char'' in the southwestern portion of 
the coastal area appear to be in low abundance based on anecdotal 
information. Because this is the southern extent of coastal bull trout 
and Dolly Varden, abundance may be naturally low in systems like the 
Chehalis, Moclips, and Copalis rivers (WDFW 1997a). Although little 
historical and current information is known concerning bull trout in 
these river basins, habitat degradation in the past has adversely 
affected other salmonids (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 
1993; WDFW 1997a). Habitat degradation in these basins is assumed to 
have similarly affected bull trout. Although ``native char'' are 
believed to be relatively more abundant in the Quinault River, 
extensive portions of the basin have been degraded by past forest 
management (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a).
    Most ``native char'' subpopulations in the northwestern coastal 
area occur partially within Olympic National Park, which contains 
relatively undisturbed habitats. However, outside Olympic National 
Park, ``native char'' habitat has been severely degraded by past forest 
practices in the Queets River and Hoh River basins (Phinney and 
Bucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a). Non-native brook trout are also present in 
some park waters and threaten bull trout from competition and 
hybridization. The Hoh River may have the largest subpopulation of 
``native char'' on the Washington coast, although likely greatly 
reduced since 1982 (Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) 1992; WDFW 
1997a). Reasons for the decline are unknown, but overfishing is 
believed to be a contributing factor (WDFW 1997a; WDFW, in litt. 1997). 
The Service considers the Hoh River subpopulation ``depressed.'' The 
current status of the remaining nine ``native char'' subpopulations in 
the coastal analysis area is ``unknown'' because insufficient 
abundance, trend, and life-history information is available (Service 
1998a).

Strait of Juan de Fuca Analysis Area

    Five ``native char'' subpopulations occur in three river basins in 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca analysis area (number of subpopulations)--
Elwha River (2), Angeles basin (1), and Dungeness River (2). Recent 
efforts to determine species composition in three subpopulations have 
confirmed bull trout in the upper Elwha River and lower Dungeness 
River-Gray Wolf River (Leary and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Only 
Dolly Varden have been identified in the upper Dungeness River 
subpopulation (Cavender 1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a).
    The two subpopulations in the Dungeness River basin occur partially 
within Olympic National Park and Buckhorn Wilderness Area, and likely 
benefit from the relatively undisturbed habitats located there. 
However, non-native brook trout occur in some streams in the park. 
Large portions of the Dungeness River basin lie outside of Olympic 
National Park, and have been severely degraded by past forest and 
agricultural practices (Williams et al. 1975; WDFW 1997a). Within 
Olympic National Park, the lower and upper Elwha River subpopulations 
are isolated by dams. Although ``native char'' are widespread in some 
basins within the analysis area, such as the Dungeness and Gray Wolf 
rivers, fish abundance is thought to be ``greatly reduced in numbers'' 
(WDW 1992; WDFW 1997a). The Service considers subpopulations in the 
lower Elwha River and lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River 
``depressed.'' The remaining three ``native char'' subpopulations in 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca coastal analysis area are considered 
``unknown'' because

[[Page 31697]]

insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is 
available (Service 1998a).

Hood Canal Analysis Area

    Three ``native char'' subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River 
basin in the Hood Canal analysis area. Recent surveys have confirmed 
bull trout in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River (Leary 
and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a) and Cushman Reservoir (Brown 1992; 
Brenkman 1996 in WDFW 1997a). Bull trout in Cushman Reservoir have been 
isolated and restricted to an adfluvial life-history form due to 
Cushman Dam on the North Fork Skokomish River. Spawner surveys indicate 
a decline in adult bull trout through the 1970's, subsequent increases 
from 4 adults in 1985 to 412 adults in 1993, and relatively stable 
numbers of 250 to 300 adults in recent years (WDFW 1997a). The increase 
in adults from 1985 to 1993 is likely related to harvest closure on 
Cushman Reservoir and upper North Fork Skokomish River in 1986 (Brown 
1992). Recent surveys indicate low numbers of bull trout in tributaries 
of the South Fork Skokomish River such as Church, Pine, Cedar, LeBar, 
Brown, Rock, Flat, and Vance creeks, as well as in the mainstem (L. 
Oss, Olympia National Forest (ONF), in litt. 1997). Habitat in the 
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River has been degraded by past 
forest and agricultural practices and hydropower development (Williams 
et al. 1975; Hood Canal Coordination Council (HCCC) 1995; WDFW 1997a). 
The upper North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation occurs within 
Olympic National Park and habitat is likely relatively undisturbed. The 
Service considers the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River 
subpopulation ``depressed.'' The remaining two ``native char'' 
subpopulations in the Hood Canal analysis area are considered 
``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history 
information is available (Service 1998a).

Puget Sound Analysis Area

    Sixteen ``native char'' subpopulations occur in eight river basins 
in the Puget Sound analysis area (number of subpopulations)--Nisqually 
River (1), Puyallup River (3), Green River (1), Lake Washington basin 
(2), Snohomish River-Skykomish River (1), Stillaguamish River (1), 
Skagit River (4), and Nooksack River (3). Recent surveys of eight 
subpopulations have confirmed bull trout bull trout in six--Carbon 
River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir, Skykomish River-Snohomish 
River, lower Skagit River, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River (R2 
Resource consultants, Inc. 1993; Samora and Girdner 1993; Kraemer 1994; 
M. Barclay, Cascades Environmental Services, Inc., pers. comm. 1997; 
Leary and Allendorf 1997; E. Warner, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), 
pers. comm. 1997). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in the Canyon 
Creek (tributary to the Nooksack River) subpopulation (Leary and 
Allendorf 1997).
    The current abundance of ``native char'' in southern Puget Sound is 
likely lower than occurred historically and declining (T. Cropp, WDW, 
in litt. 1993; F. Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), pers. 
comm. 1994a,b). Historical accounts from southern Puget Sound indicate 
that anadromous char entered rivers there in ``vast numbers'' during 
the fall and were harvested until Christmas (Suckley and Cooper 1860). 
``Native char'' are now rarely collected in the southern drainages of 
the area (Cropp, in litt. 1993; Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b). There is 
only one record of a ``native char'' being collected in the Nisqually 
River. A juvenile char was collected during a stream survey for salmon 
in the mid-1980's (G. Walter, Nisqually Indian Tribe (NIT), pers. comm. 
1997; WDFW 1997a). In the Puyallup River, ``native char'' are 
occasionally caught by steelhead anglers (WDW 1992). In the Green 
River, ``native char'' are rarely observed (Cropp, in litt. 1993; 
Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b; Warner, pers. comm. 1997). Habitat in 
watersheds of the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Green rivers has been 
degraded by logging, agriculture, road construction, and urban 
development. In the Chester Morse Reservoir subpopulation, fewer than 
10 redds were observed in 1995 and 1996; and fry abundance was low in 
spring 1996 and 1997 (D. Paige, Seattle Water Department (SWD), in 
litt. 1997). Logging and extensive road construction have occurred 
within the basin (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW 1997a), and 
have likely affected ``native char'' in Chester Morse Reservoir. Only 
two ``native char'' have been observed during the past 10 years in the 
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sammamish 
River system. Habitat in the Sammamish River and Issaquah Creek 
drainages has been negatively affected by urbanization, road building 
and associated poor water quality (Williams et al. 1975, Washington 
Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1997a). The Service considers the 
Nisqually River, Puyallup River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir, 
and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek subpopulations ``depressed.''
    Drainages in the northern Puget Sound area appear to support larger 
subpopulations of ``native char'' than the southern portion (Goetz, 
pers. comm. 1994a,b; S. Fransen, Service, pers. comm. 1997). The WDFW 
conducts redd counts in two index reaches of the northern Puget Sound, 
the upper South Fork Sauk River in the Skagit River basin (lower Skagit 
River subpopulation) and the upper North Fork Skykomish River 
(Snohomish River-Skykomish River subpopulation), which have healthy 
habitats supporting stable numbers of ``native char'' (Kraemer 1994). 
Redd surveys have been conducted since 1988 in both index reaches. In 
the upper Sauk River, a substantial increase in redds was observed in 
1991, a year after a minimum 508-mm (20-in) harvest restriction was 
implemented; and redd numbers have remained relatively stable (WDFW 
1997a). Harvest restrictions were implemented in the Skagit River and 
its tributaries in 1990. ``Native char'' in the lower Skagit River 
subpopulation have access to at least 38 documented or suspected 
spawning tributaries in the basin (WDFW et al. 1997) and the number of 
adults is estimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish (C. Kraemer, WDFW, pers. 
comm. 1998). The number of redds in the upper North Fork Skykomish 
River index reach have averaged 78 redds (range--21 to 159) during 1988 
through 1993, with 75 or fewer redds observed since 1993. Within the 
Puget Sound analysis area, the Service considers the lower Skagit River 
subpopulation ``strong'' and five subpopulations ``depressed.'' The 
remaining 10 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Puget Sound analysis 
area are considered ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, 
and life-history information is available (Service 1998a).

Transboundary Analysis Area

    One ``native char'' subpopulation occurs in the Chilliwack River 
basin in the Transboundary analysis area. The Chilliwack River is a 
transboundary system flowing into British Columbia, Canada. The species 
composition of the subpopulation has not been determined. In 
Washington, portions of the Chilliwack River are within the North 
Cascades National Park and a tributary, Selesia Creek, are within the 
Mount Baker Wilderness where the habitat is relatively undisturbed 
(WDFW 1997a). Little information is available for ``native char'' in 
the Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek subpopulation (Service 1998a). The 
current status of the ``native

[[Page 31698]]

char'' subpopulations in the Transboundary analysis area is ``unknown'' 
because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is 
available (Service 1998a).

Jarbidge River Population Segment

    The Jarbidge River DPS consists of one bull trout subpopulation 
occurring primarily in Nevada (Service 1998b). Resident fish inhabit 
the headwaters of the East Fork and West Fork of the Jarbidge River and 
several tributary streams, and low numbers of migratory (fluvial) fish 
are present (Zoellick et al. 1996; L. McLelland, Nevada Division of 
Wildlife (NDOW), in litt. 1998; K. Ramsey, Humboldt National Forest 
(HNF), in litt. 1997). Bull trout were not observed during surveys in 
the Idaho portion of the Jarbidge River basin in 1992 and 1995 (Warren 
and Partridge 1993; Allen et al. 1997), however, a single, small bull 
trout was captured when traps were operated on the lower East Fork and 
West Fork Jarbidge River during August through October 1997 (F. 
Partridge, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), pers. comm. 1998). 
A loss of range likely has occurred for migratory bull trout (fluvial) 
in the lower Jarbidge and Bruneau rivers and perhaps downstream to the 
Snake River (Johnson and Weller 1994; Zoellick et al. 1996). Low 
numbers of migratory (fluvial) bull trout have been documented in the 
West Fork Jarbidge River from the 1970's through the mid-1980's 
(Johnson and Weller 1994).
    The distribution of bull trout in Nevada includes at least six 
headwater streams above 2,200 m (7,200 ft), primarily in wilderness 
areas--East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River and Slide, Dave, Pine, 
and Jack creeks (Johnson and Weller 1994). Zoellick et al. (1996) 
compiled data from 1954 through 1993 and estimated bull trout 
population size in the middle and upper headwater areas of the West 
Fork and East Fork of the Jarbidge River. In each stream, sampled areas 
were located at elevations above 1,792 m (5,880 ft), and population 
estimates were less than 150 fish/km (240 fish/mi) (Zoellick et al. 
1996).
    In general, bull trout represent a minor proportion of the fish 
fauna downstream of the headwater reaches; native redband trout are the 
most abundant salmonid and sculpin the most abundant fish (Johnson and 
Weller 1994). Although accounts of bull trout distribution in the 
Jarbidge River basin date to the 1930's, historic abundance is not well 
documented. In 1934, bull trout were collected in the East Fork 
Jarbidge River drainage downstream of the Idaho-Nevada border (Miller 
and Morton 1952). In 1985, 292 bull trout ranging from 73 to 266 mm 
(2.9 to 10.5 in) in total length, were estimated to reside in the West 
Fork Jarbidge River (Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1992, the abundance 
of bull trout in the East Fork Jarbidge River was estimated to be 314 
fish ranging from 115 to 165 mm (4.5 to 6.5 in) in total length 
(Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1993, bull trout numbers in Slide and 
Dave creeks were estimated at 361 and 251 fish, respectively (Johnson 
and Weller 1994). During snorkel surveys conducted in October 1997, no 
bull trout were observed in 40 pools of the West Fork Jarbidge River or 
in four 30-m (100-ft) transects in Jack Creek (G. Johnson, NDOW, pers. 
comm. 1998). Only one bull trout had been observed at the four 
transects in 1992 (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However, it is premature 
to consider bull trout extirpated in Jack Creek (Service 1998b). There 
is no information on whether bull trout have been extirpated from other 
Jarbidge River headwater tributaries.
    It is estimated that between 50 and 125 bull trout spawn throughout 
the Jarbidge River basin annually (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However, 
exact spawning sites and timing are uncertain (Johnson, pers. comm. 
1998) and only two redds have been observed in the basin (Ramsey, in 
litt. 1997; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). Presumed spawning streams have 
been identified by records of one or more small bull trout (about 76 mm 
(3 in)).
    Population trend information for bull trout in the Jarbidge River 
subpopulation is not available, although the current characteristics of 
bull trout in the basin (i.e., low numbers and disjunct distribution) 
have been described as similar to that observed in the 1950's (Johnson 
and Weller 1994). Based on recent surveys, the subpopulation is 
considered ``depressed.'' Past and present activities within the basin 
are likely restricting bull trout migration in the Jarbidge River, thus 
reducing opportunities for bull trout reestablishment in areas where 
the fish are no longer found (Service 1998b).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

    Much of the historical information regarding bull trout in the St. 
Mary-Belly River DPS is anecdotal and abundance information is limited. 
Bull trout probably entered the system via postglacial dispersal routes 
from the Columbia River through either the Kootenai River or Flathead 
River systems (Fredenberg et al. 1996). The St. Mary River system 
historically contained native bull trout, lake trout, and westslope 
cutthroat trout. Although abundance of these fishes is unknown, the 
presence of lake trout suggests that migratory bull trout were 
primarily fluvial and not adfluvial (Donald and Alger 1993). Within the 
St. Mary River system, historic accounts of bull trout date to the 
1930's (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Historic distribution of bull trout in 
the Belly River basin is limited but migratory bull trout from Canada 
likely spawned in the North Fork and mainstem Belly Rivers.
    Both migratory (fluvial) and resident life-history forms are 
present (Fredenberg et al. 1996), but bull trout within the St. Mary-
Belly River DPS are isolated and fragmented by irrigation dams and 
diversions (Fredenberg et al. 1996; R. Wagner, Service, pers. comm. 
1998). Bull trout that migrate across the international border are 
dependent upon the relatively undisturbed water quality and spawning 
habitat located in the upper St. Mary and Belly rivers and their 
tributaries (Fredenberg et al. 1996).
    Based on natural and artificial barriers to fish passage within the 
St. Mary-Belly River DPS, the Service identified four bull trout 
subpopulations-- (1) upper St. Mary River (from the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation (USBR) diversion structure on lower St. Mary Lake upstream 
to St. Mary Falls, including Swiftcurrent and Boulder creeks below Lake 
Sherburne, and Red Eagle and Divide creeks); (2) Swiftcurrent Creek 
(including tributaries and Lake Sherburne and Cracker Lake); (3) lower 
St. Mary River (St. Mary River downstream of the USBR diversion 
structure including Kennedy, Otatso, and Lee creeks); and (4) Belly 
River (mainstem and North Fork Belly River) (Service 1998c). The 
current status of the bull trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly 
River DPS is ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and 
life-history information is available (Service 1998c).
    In summary, little information is available on the abundance, 
trends in abundance, and distribution of bull trout in the Coastal-
Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSs. The 
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment includes the only anadromous 
bull trout found in the coterminous United States. The population 
segment is composed of 35 ``native char'' subpopulations of which bull 
trout have been confirmed in 12 of 15 subpopulations examined. The 
remaining 20 subpopulations consist of ``native char'' that may include 
bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species. At this time, Dolly Varden 
only have been confirmed in three subpopulations. The

[[Page 31699]]

status of the lower Skagit River subpopulation is considered ``strong'' 
and nine additional subpopulations ``depressed.'' The Jarbidge River 
population segment consists of one subpopulation found in the East Fork 
and West Fork Jarbidge River and headwater tributaries in Nevada. The 
population segment is isolated from other bull trout by a large expanse 
of unsuitable habitat. Migratory fish (fluvial) may be present in low 
abundance, but resident fish are the predominant life-history form. The 
total population size is low, with spawner abundance throughout the 
basin estimated to be from 50 to 125 fish. The status of the Jarbidge 
River population segment of bull trout is considered ``depressed.'' The 
St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout is composed of 
four subpopulations and represents the only area of bull trout range 
east of the Continental Divide within the coterminous United States. 
Migratory fish occur in three of the subpopulations and the life-
history form in the fourth subpopulation is unknown. The status of bull 
trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS is ``unknown.''

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. At 
that time, a category 2 species was one for which conclusive data on 
biological vulnerability and threats was not available to support a 
proposed rule. 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's category 2 status. The Service 
discontinued using category designations upon publication of a February 
28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596) and now maintains a list of 
candidate species. Candidate species are those for which the Service 
has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and 
threats to support a proposal to list the species as threatened or 
endangered. The Service elevated the bull trout in the coterminous 
United States to candidate status on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).
    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 indicates 
that the species is 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 range-
wide 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 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 bull trout in the coterminous United States, 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 consisting 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 population segment of bull trout 
in the coterminous United States 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 to list 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 plaintiffs then challenged the Service's determination that 
listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, 
and Saskatchewan River population segments of bull trout. On December 
4, 1997, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider its designation of 
five distinct bull trout population segments, as well as its 
determination that listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget 
Sound population. In compliance with the Court's order, the Service 
reviewed the original 1994 administrative record, as well as a 
substantial body of new information on the status of bull trout. In 
light of that review, the Service has reached two conclusions. First, 
the Service determined that its designation of five distinct population 
segments remains valid, but has modified the boundraries of two to 
those segments-- the Coastal-Puget Sound segment and the Saskatchewan 
River segment-- to include only those portions within the coterminous 
United States. The Service now refers to the portion of the 
Saskatchewan River segment that is in the United States as the St. 
Mary-Belly River segment. Second, the Service has determined that the 
listing is warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge

[[Page 31700]]

River, and St. Mary-Belly River distinct population segments.
    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 Factors Affecting These Species

    Procedures found in section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) promulgated to implement the Act set forth the procedures for 
adding species to the Federal lists. 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 Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 
are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Land and water management activities that degrade and continue to 
threaten all of the bull trout distinct population segments in the 
coterminous United States 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; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et al. 
1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) 1995, 1996, 1997; Light et al. 
1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-h).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
    Bull trout are often migratory (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 
1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW) 1995; McPhail and Baxter 1996). In the Coastal-Puget Sound 
population segment, migratory ``native char'' exhibit both anadromous 
and fluvial strategies. Flood control structures, hydroelectric 
projects, water diversion structures including irrigation withdrawals, 
forest practices, agricultural cultivation, grazing, urbanization, and 
industrial development have all contributed to degradation of migratory 
corridors used by bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence et al. 
1996; WDFW 1997a).
    In the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, eight subpopulations (four 
currently determined solely as bull trout based on genetic samples) are 
currently known to be isolated or fragmented as a result of man-made 
barriers. These are the lower Elwha River, upper Elwha River, South 
Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Cushman Reservoir, Gorge 
Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork 
Nooksack River (Service 1998a).
    Past forest management activities have contributed to degraded 
watershed conditions, including increased sedimentation of bull trout 
habitat (Salo and Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Bisson et al. 1992; USDA et 
al. 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). These activities 
continue to negatively affect ``native char'' in the Coastal-Puget 
Sound population segment. Timber harvest and road building in riparian 
areas reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, large woody 
debris recruitment, and increase sedimentation and peak stream flows 
(Chamberlin et al. 1991). These can alternatively lead to increased 
stream temperatures and bank erosion, and decreased long-term stream 
productivity.
    Strict cold water temperature requirements make bull trout 
particularly vulnerable to activities that warm spawning and rearing 
waters (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Increased 
temperature reduces habitat suitability, which can exacerbate 
fragmentation within and between subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 
1993). Of the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget 
Sound population segment, 11 are likely affected by elevated stream 
temperatures as a result of past forest practices (lower Nooksack 
River, Stillaguamish River, Skykomish-Snohomish River, Green River, 
White River, Nisqually River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish 
River, Goodman Creek, Copalis River, Moclips River, and Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor) (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Williams et al. 1975; Hiss 
and Knudsen 1993; WDFW 1997a; WDOE 1997a). Bull trout have been 
confirmed in 3 of these ``native char'' subpopulations (Green River, 
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Skykomish-Snohomish 
River).
    Road construction and maintenance account for a majority of man-
induced sediment loads to streams in forested areas (Shepard et al. 
1984; Cederholm and Reid 1987; Furniss et al. 1991). Sedimentation 
affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering substrate composition, 
reducing interstitial space, and causing braiding of channels (Rieman 
and McIntyre 1993), which reduce carrying capacity. Sedimentation 
negatively affects bull trout embryo survival and juvenile bull trout 
rearing densities (Shepard et al. 1984; Pratt 1992). In National 
Forests in Washington, large deep pools have been reduced 58 percent 
due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as 
boulders and large wood (USDA et al. 1993). The effects of 
sedimentation from roads and logging are prevalent in basins containing 
10 ``native char'' subpopulations (Nooksack, Skykomish, Stillaguamish, 
Puyallup, upper Cedar, Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, and Coastal 
Plain-Quinault basins) (HCCC 1995; ONF 1995a,b; S. Noble and S. 
Spalding, Service, in litt. 1995; WDFW 1997a, WDOE 1997a). Bull trout 
have been confirmed in six of these subpopulations (upper Cedar, 
Skokomish, Dungeness, Queets, Quinault, and Skykomish basins).
    A recent assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem 
revealed that increasing road densities and associated effects caused 
declines in four non-anadromous salmonid species (bull trout, 
Yellowstone cutthrout trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband 
trout) within the basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Bull trout were 
less likely to use highly roaded basins for spawning and rearing, and 
if present, were likely to be at lower population levels (Quigley and 
Arbelbide 1997). Quigley et al. (1996) demonstrated that when average 
road densities were between 0.4 to 1.1 km/km2 (0.7 and 1.7 
mi/mi2) on USFS lands, the proportion of subwatersheds 
supporting ``strong'' populations of key salmonids dropped 
substantially. Higher road densities caused further declines. When USFS 
lands were compared to lands administered by all other entities at a 
given road density, the proportion of lands supporting ``strong'' bull 
trout populations was lower on lands administered by other entities. 
Although this assessment was conducted east of the Cascade Mountain 
Range, effects

[[Page 31701]]

from high road densities may be more severe in western Washington. 
Higher precipitation west of the Cascade Mountains increases the 
frequency of surface erosion and mass wasting (USDI et al. 1996b). 
Limited data concerning road densities are available for the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS; however, two bull trout subpopulations (lower 
Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River and Chester Morse Reservoir) occur in 
basins with road densities greater than 1.1 km/km2 (1.7 mi/
mi2). The effects of relatively high road density on aquatic 
habitat may contribute to the ``depressed'' status of these two 
``native char'' subpopulations. Other basins containing ``native char'' 
subpopulations also have relatively high road densities, ranging from 
1.5 to 3.0 km/km2 (2.4 to 4.8 mi/mi2), in 
portions of the Queets River basin (ONF 1995a; Cederholm and Reid 
1987). ``Native char'' in these areas are likely negatively affected by 
the presence of roads.
    Approximately 65 percent of the ``native char'' subpopulations 
within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS are affected by past or present 
forest management activities. Areas not affected by such activities 
occur primarily within National Parks or Wilderness Areas. Five 
``native char'' subpopulations lie completely within National Parks and 
Wilderness Areas withdrawn from timber harvest. These are the upper 
Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, 
and Ross Reservoir. The status of these ``native char'' subpopulations 
is ``unknown'' at this time. However, all but the upper Quinault River 
subpopulation are threatened by non-native brook trout (see Factor D). 
Of these five ``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has 
been examined in two, and only the upper Quinault River subpopulation 
is known to contain bull trout. Eleven ``native char'' subpopulations 
(lower Quinault River, Queets River, Hoh River, upper Elwha River, 
lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, upper Dungeness River, upper 
North Fork Skokomish River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish 
River, lower Skagit River, and Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek) lie 
partially within withdrawn Federal areas. Species composition has been 
examined in seven subpopulations, and bull trout were confirmed in six 
(Queets River, upper Elwha River, Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, 
Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish River, and lower Skagit River).
    Agricultural practices and associated activities can affect bull 
trout and their habitat. Irrigation withdrawals including diversions 
can dewater spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and 
migration, and cause entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms 
suspended in water are pulled through a pump or other device). 
Discharging pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals, 
animal waste and sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also 
detrimental (Spence et al. 1996). Agricultural practices regularly 
include stream channelization and diking, large woody debris and 
riparian vegetation removal, and bank armoring (Spence et al. 1996). 
Improper livestock grazing can promote streambank erosion and 
sedimentation, and limit the growth of riparian vegetation important 
for temperature control, streambank stability, fish cover, and detrital 
input. In addition, grazing can increase input of organic nutrients 
into streams (Platts 1991). Ten ``native char'' subpopulations in the 
Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (Carbon River, White River, Puyallup River, 
Stillaguamish River, lower Skagit River, lower Nooksack River, Green 
River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Dungeness River-
Gray Wolf River, and Chehalis River-Grays Harbor) are negatively 
affected by past or ongoing agricultural or livestock grazing practices 
(Williams et al. 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993; Washington Department of 
Fisheries (WDF) et al. 1993; HCCC 1995; ONF 1995b; WDFW 1997a). Species 
composition has been examined in five of these subpopulations, and bull 
trout were confirmed in four (Green River, Carbon River, South Fork-
lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River).
    Dams constructed with poorly designed fish passage or without fish 
passage create barriers to migratory bull trout, precluding access to 
former spawning, rearing, and migration habitats. Dams disrupt the 
connectivity within and between watersheds essential for maintaining 
aquatic ecosystem function (Naiman et al. 1992; Spence et al. 1996) and 
bull trout subpopulation interaction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 
Natural recolonization of historically occupied sites can be precluded 
by migration barriers (e.g., McCloud Dam in California (Rode 1990)). 
Within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, there are at least 41 existing or 
proposed hydroelectric projects regulated by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC) that are within watersheds supporting bull 
trout (G. Stagner, Service, in litt. 1997). Of the 41 projects or 
proposals, 17 are currently operating and most are run-of-the-river 
small hydroelectric projects. Negotiated instream flows for these 
projects have been primarily based on resident cutthroat or rainbow 
trout flow requirements, and may not meet the needs of species with 
different life-history strategies, such as bull trout (T. Bodurtha, 
Service, in litt. 1995). Of the 41 existing or proposed projects, fish 
passage has not been addressed for 28 (Stagner, in litt. 1997). In 
addition, the Service is aware of 10 water diversions or other dams, 
not regulated by FERC, currently operating in watersheds with ``native 
char''. None of these 10 facilities provide for upstream fish passage. 
Dams on the Middle Fork Nooksack, Skagit, Baker (Skagit tributary), 
Green, Puyallup, White, Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha rivers are 
barriers to upstream fish migration and have fragmented populations of 
``native char'' within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. A draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been published for three 
proposed hydroelectric projects on Skagit River tributaries, and a 
final EIS recommends two proposed hydroelectric projects on the lower 
Nooksack River. This illustrates that FERC is close to licensing 
decisions on these projects.
    Urbanization has led to decreased habitat complexity (uniform 
stream channels and simple nonfunctional riparian areas), impediments 
and blockages to fish passage, increased surface runoff (more frequent 
and severe flooding), and decreased water quality and quantity (Spence 
et al. 1996). In the Puget Sound area, human population growth is 
predicted to increase by 20 percent between 1987 and 2000, requiring a 
62 percent increase in land area developed (Puget Sound Water Quality 
Authority (PSWQA) 1988 in Spence et al. 1996). The effects of 
urbanization, concentrated at the lower most reaches of rivers within 
Puget Sound, primarily affect ``native char'' migratory corridors and 
rearing habitats. Six ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, Puyallup River, 
White River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, and 
Stillaguamish River) are known to be negatively affected by 
urbanization (Williams et al. 1975; WDFW 1997a).
    Mining can degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy 
metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream 
channels and flow (Martin and Platts 1981). Although not currently 
active, mining in the Nooksack River basin, where ``native char'' 
occur, has adversely affected streams. For example, the Excelsior Mine 
on the upper North Fork Nooksack River was active at the turn of the

[[Page 31702]]

century and mining spoils were placed directly into Wells Creek (Mt. 
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) 1995), a known spawning stream 
for ``native char.'' Spoils in and adjacent to the stream may continue 
to be sources of sediment and heavy metals.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
    Although timber was historically removed from the Jarbidge River 
basin, forest management is not thought to be a major factor currently 
affecting bull trout habitat. The steep terrain of the Jarbidge River 
basin has been a deterrent to grazing (J. Frederick, HNF, in litt. 
1998a); and grazing does not occur in approximately 60 percent of the 
watershed. Although much of the remaining 40 percent of public and 
private lands are grazed, the effects are localized and considered of 
relatively minor importance to bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge River 
basin. For example, livestock grazing is affecting about 3.2 km (2 mi) 
of the East Fork Jarbidge River and portions of Dave Creek and Jack 
Creek (Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998).
    Ongoing threats affecting bull trout habitat have maintained 
degraded conditions in the West Fork Jarbidge River (McNeill et al. 
1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). At least 
11.2 km (7 mi) of the West Fork Jarbidge River has been affected by 
over a century of human activities such as road development and 
maintenance, historic mining and adit (horizontal passage from the 
surface in a mine) drainage, channelization and removal of large woody 
debris, residential development, and road and campground development on 
USFS lands (McNeill et al. 1997). As a result of these activities, the 
riparian canopy and much of the upland forest has been removed, 
recruitment of large woody debris has been reduced, and channel 
stability has decreased (McNeill et al. 1997; Ramsey, in litt. 1997; 
Frederick, in litt. 1998a). These activities reduce habitat complexity 
and likely elevate water temperatures seasonally. For example, water 
temperatures recorded near Bluster Bridge were 15 to 17 deg.C (59 to 
63 deg.F) for 24 days in 1997.
    Culverts installed at road crossings may act as barriers to bull 
trout movement in the Jarbidge River basin. For example, an Elko County 
road culvert had prevented upstream movement of bull trout in Jack 
Creek, a West Fork Jarbidge River tributary, for approximately 17 
years. Private and public funding was used to replace the culvert with 
a bridge in the fall of 1997 (Frederick, in litt. 1998b); however, a 
rock structure approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) upstream from the bridge 
in Jack Creek may still impede bull trout movement, at least seasonally 
during low flows.
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
    Forest management practices, livestock grazing, and mining are not 
thought to be major factors affecting bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly 
River DPS. However, bull trout subpopulations are fragmented and 
isolated by dams and diversions (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Specifically, 
the USBR diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary Lake is an 
unscreened trans-basin diversion (i.e., transferring water to the 
Missouri River drainage via the Milk River) that threatens bull trout. 
This diversion restricts upstream bull trout passage into the upper St. 
Mary River. Consequently, migratory (fluvial) bull trout are prevented 
from reaching suitable spawning habitat in Divide and Red Eagle creeks 
(Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly, the 
irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne) physically blocks 
bull trout passage into the upper watershed (Fredenberg et al. 1996; 
Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).
    In addition to the dams physically isolating subpopulations, the 
associated diversions seasonally dewater the streams, effectively 
decreasing available habitat for migratory and resident bull trout 
(Fredenberg et al. 1996). The diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary 
Lake may result in a reduction (up to 50 percent) of instream flow, 
possibly affecting juvenile and adult bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm. 
1998). The diversion is unscreened and recent information suggests 
downstream loss through entrainment of bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm. 
1998). Similarly, the irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake 
Sherburne) seasonally dewaters the creek downstream, effectively 
eliminating habitat (Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Declines in bull trout have prompted states to institute 
restrictive fishing regulations and eliminate the harvest of bull trout 
in most waters in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Montana. 
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 threaten bull trout in 
some areas.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
    Fishing for ``native char'' is currently closed in most of the 
waters within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment. Most of these 
closures were implemented in 1994. Areas where harvest of ``native 
char'' is still allowed are the mainstem Skagit River and several of 
its tributaries (Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck and Sauk rivers) (508-mm 
(20-in) minimum size limit); the Snohomish River mainstem and the 
Skykomish River below the forks (508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit and 
2 fish daily bag limit) (WDFW 1997a); and portions of the Quinault and 
Queets rivers that are within the Quinault Indian Reservation (QIN) 
boundary (4 fish daily bag limit with no minimum size restriction) (S. 
Chitwood, Quinault Indian Nation, pers. comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a). 
Olympic National Park has catch-and-release regulations for ``native 
char'' in all park waters. Fishing for bull trout in Mount Rainier 
National Park is prohibited. There is likely some mortality from 
incidental hook and release of ``native char'' in fisheries targeting 
other species, especially in streams where restrictive angling 
regulations (i.e., artificial flies or lures with barbless single hook, 
bait prohibited) have not been established.
    The objective of the 508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit is to allow 
most females to spawn at least once before harvest (WDFW 1997a), 
however, there is concern that this size limit will have minimal 
effects in conserving bull trout (J. Johnston, WDFW, pers. comm. 1995). 
The regulation protects smaller fish, but older, larger fish are more 
fecund and able to use a greater range of substrates for spawning 
(Johnston, pers. comm. 1995). Regulations on the Quinault Indian 
Reservation in the lower Quinault River and Queets River systems offer 
less bull trout conservation opportunity because there is no minimum 
size limit to allow most females to reach maturity before being subject 
to harvest. Areas of the lower Quinault and Queets rivers outside of 
the Quinault Indian Reservation have been closed to harvest for 
``native char'' (WDFW 1997a).
    In 1993, WDFW increased the catch limit for brook trout in order to 
reduce interactions with bull trout (WDFW 1995). The liberalization of 
the brook trout catch has the potential to increase harvest of bull 
trout due to misidentification by anglers. In a Montana study, only 40 
percent of the anglers surveyed correctly identified bull trout out of 
six species of salmonids found locally (M. Long and S. Whalen,

[[Page 31703]]

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), in litt. 1997).
    Poaching is considered a factor negatively affecting ``native 
char'' in nine drainages within the Coastal-Puget Sound population 
segment. These are the South Fork Nooksack River, North Fork Nooksack 
River (above and below the falls), Sauk River and tributaries, North 
Fork Skykomish River, Chester Morse Reservoir, lower Dungeness River-
Gray Wolf River, Hoh River, Goodman Creek, and Morse Creek (WDW 1992; 
Mongillo 1993; WDFW 1997a).
Jarbidge River Population Segment
    Overutilization by angling was a concern in the past for the 
Jarbidge River DPS of bull trout. Although Idaho prohibited harvest of 
bull trout beginning in 1995, Nevada, until recently, allowed harvest 
of up to 10 trout per day, including bull trout, in the Jarbidge River 
basin. An estimated 100 to 400 bull trout were harvested annually in 
the Jarbidge River basin (Johnson 1990; P. Coffin, Service, pers. comm. 
1994; Coffin, in litt. 1995). Nevada State regulations were recently 
amended to allow only catch-and-release of bull trout starting March 1, 
1998 (G. Weller, NDOW, in litt. 1997; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). We 
anticipate that this change in the regulations will have a positive 
effect on conservation of bull trout, however, the effects of the new 
harvest regulations may require five years to evaluate (Johnson, pers. 
comm. 1998).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
    Historically, the harvest of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River 
DPS was considered ``extensive'' (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Currently, 
legal angler harvest in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS only occurs on the 
Blackfeet Indian Reservation, which has a five fish per day limit 
(Fredenberg et al. 1996).
    In 1994, at least 19 adult and subadult bull trout were harvested 
in gill nets set for a commercial fishery for lake whitefish (Coregonus 
clupeaformis) in lower St. Mary Lake (Blackfeet Tribe, in litt. 1998). 
Given the apparent low abundance of adult bull trout in the upper St. 
Mary Lake subpopulation, and restricted migration opportunities over 
the USBR diversion on lower St. Mary Lake, any harvest of bull trout 
from this subpopulation represents a threat. Record-keeping by the two 
commercial fishers is a requirement of the Blackfeet Tribal Fish and 
Game Commission, but not strictly enforced.

C. Disease and Predation

    Diseases affecting salmonids are present or likely present in the 
Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly DPSs, but are 
not thought to be a factor threatening bull trout. However, 
interspecific interactions, including predation, likely negatively 
affect bull trout where non-native salmonids have been introduced (J. 
Palmisano and V. Kaczynski, Northwest Forestry Resources Council 
(NFRC), in litt. 1997).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
    Disease is not believed to be a factor in the decline of bull trout 
in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. Outbreaks of the parasite 
Dermocystidium salmonis in the lower Elwha River may negatively affect 
``native char'' in years of high chinook salmon returns (K. Amos, WDFW, 
pers. comm. 1997). The susceptibility of bull trout to the parasite is 
unknown. There is concern about whirling disease (Myxobolus 
cerebralis), which occurs in wild trout waters of western states, but 
it has not been documented in Washington (Bergersen and Anderson 1997). 
Apparently, most species of salmonids are susceptible to the organism, 
and it has been diagnosed in Dolly Varden (Post 1987). However, 
laboratory testing indicates that bull trout may be one of the least 
susceptible salmonids (McDowell et al. 1997). It is not currently 
treatable in the wild.
    Predation is not considered a primary factor in the decline of 
Coastal-Puget Sound ``native char'' and bull trout. However, the recent 
discovery of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Cushman 
Reservoir on the Skokomish River may potentially affect the bull trout 
subpopulation (S. Brenkman, Oregon State University, pers. comm. 1997; 
WDFW 1997a). Warm-water species (centrarchids and percids), which may 
prey on ``native char,'' are also established in portions of the 
Sammamish River system and Lake Washington.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
    Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the 
survival of bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
    Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the 
survival of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River basin. However, non-
native brook trout are present and may prey on juvenile bull trout. 
Whirling disease has also been documented in numerous Missouri River 
watersheds in central Montana.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Although efforts are underway to assist in conserving bull trout 
throughout the coterminous U.S. (e.g., Batt 1996; R. Joslin, USFS, in 
litt. 1997; A. Thomas, BLM, 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 been sufficient to prevent past and ongoing habitat 
degradation leading to bull trout declines and isolation. 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, Federal 
Power Act, State Endangered Species Acts and numerous State laws and 
regulations oversee an array of land and water management activities 
that affect bull trout and their habitat.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
    In April 1994, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior adopted 
the Northwest Forest Plan for management of late-successional forests 
within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 
caurina) (USDA and USDI 1994a). This plan set forth objectives, 
standards, and guidelines to provide for a functional late-successional 
and old-growth forest ecosystem. Included in the plan is an aquatic 
conservation strategy involving riparian reserves, key watersheds, 
watershed analysis, and habitat restoration. Approximately 22 percent 
of the total acreage within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment 
lies within USFS jurisdiction, and would thus be subject to Northwest 
Forest Plan standards and guidelines (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 
litt. 1996). An assessment panel determined that the proposed standards 
and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan would result in an 85 
percent future likelihood of attaining sufficient aquatic habitat to 
support well-distributed populations of bull trout on Federal lands 
(USDA and USDI 1994b). Almost all projects developed under the 
Northwest Forest Plan in this DPS have been determined to have ``no 
effect'' on bull trout. However, existing habitat conditions are 
severely degraded in many subbasins. Effects from past land management 
activities can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future in 
the form of increased stream

[[Page 31704]]

temperatures, altered stream flows, sedimentation, and lack of instream 
cover. These effects can be exacerbated due to future slides, road 
failures, and debris torrents. Many of these aquatic systems will 
require decades to fully recover (USDA et al.1993). Until then, future 
habitat losses can be expected due to past activities, potentially 
resulting in local extirpations, migratory barriers, and reduced 
reproductive success (Spence et al. 1996).
    Washington State Forest Practice Rules (WFPR) apply to all State, 
city, county, and private lands not currently covered under a Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) or other conservation agreement in Washington. 
Approximately 45 percent of the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment 
is held under private ownership and 1.5 percent under city or county 
ownership. Bull trout face threats from ongoing and future timber 
harvest activities on these lands that are in forest production. The 
WFPR set forth timber harvest regulations for non-Federal and non-
Tribal forested lands in the State of Washington. These rules set 
standards for timber harvest activities in and around riparian areas, 
in an effort to protect aquatic resources. These riparian management 
zone widths, as specified by the WFPR, do not ensure protection of the 
riparian components, because the minimum widths are insufficient to 
fully protect riparian ecosystems (USDI et al. 1996a). Thus, bull trout 
will continue to be negatively affected by forest practices on lands 
guided by the WFPR.
    In January 1997, the Washington State Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) entered into a multispecies HCP with the Service, 
covering all WDNR-owned lands within the range of the northern spotted 
owl. The WDNR HCP was initiated primarily to address the conservation 
needs for old-growth forest dependent species, northern spotted owl, 
and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), while 
allowing WDNR to meet its trust responsibilities to the State. The HCP 
also addresses the conservation needs of other terrestrial and aquatic 
species on WDNR lands. Approximately 10 percent of the Coastal-Puget 
Sound population segment is in State ownership and is managed under the 
HCP. The HCP specifically provides Riparian Conservation Strategies 
designed to maintain the integrity and function of freshwater stream 
habitat necessary for the health and persistence of aquatic species, 
especially salmonids. Road maintenance and network planning strategies 
included in the HCP also play important roles in protecting aquatic 
habitats, but are often reliant on the Riparian Conservation Strategy 
stream buffers for complete protection.
    If fully and properly implemented, the HCP should aid in the 
restoration and protection of freshwater salmonid habitat on the 
Olympic Peninsula and the areas on the west slope of the Cascades. 
There are still continued threats to bull trout subpopulations on State 
lands even with the HCP in place. For example, the HCP states, 
``Adverse impacts to salmonid habitat will continue to occur because 
past forest practices have left a legacy of degraded riparian 
ecosystems, deforested unstable hillslopes, and a poorly planned and 
maintained road network'' (WDNR 1997). Areas that have been logged in 
the past will take decades to fully recover. In addition, ``Some 
components of the riparian conservation strategy require on-site 
management decisions, and adverse impacts to salmonid habitat may occur 
inadvertently. For example, timber harvesting in the riparian buffer 
must ``maintain or restore salmonid habitat'', but, at present, the 
amount of timber harvesting in riparian ecosystems compatible with high 
quality salmonid habitat is unknown'' (WDNR 1997).
    In 1992, the Washington Department of Wildlife (now the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife) developed a draft bull trout-Dolly 
Varden management and recovery plan. In 1995, WDFW released a draft EIS 
for the management plan. The plan establishes a goal of restoring and 
maintaining the health and diversity of ``native char'' stocks and 
their habitats in the State of Washington (WDFW 1995). At this time, 
the management plan has not been finalized and implemented. The Wild 
Salmonid Policy has been described as an umbrella document to the 
management plan, and in an effort to avoid contradicting documents, 
WDFW has postponed finalizing the plan.
    Since 1994, WDFW has been in the process of developing a Wild 
Salmonid Policy (WSP) to address management of all native salmonids in 
the State. In September 1997, WDFW released the final EIS for the WSP. 
The policy establishes a goal to protect, restore, and enhance the 
productivity, production, and diversity of wild salmonids and their 
ecosystems to sustain ceremonial, subsistence, commercial, and 
recreational fisheries; non-consumptive fish benefits; and related 
cultural and ecological values well into the future (WDFW 1997b). The 
WSP, in its current form, may not adequately protect sensitive salmonid 
species such as bull trout because the primary focus is wild salmon and 
steelhead. Although other wild salmonids, including bull trout, are 
referred to in an ancillary manner in the document, the proposed policy 
does not address the unique requirements of bull trout. As a result, 
proposed habitat and water quality standards (current State surface 
water quality standards), originally developed with a focus on salmon, 
may fall short in protection for bull trout. The final EIS is not 
considered a policy document to direct WDFW. The EIS describes a set of 
alternatives presented to the Washington State Fish and Wildlife 
Commission (Commission). The Commission has the final responsibility 
for taking action on the preferred alternative and recommending policy 
direction. When implemented, the policy would present guidelines for 
actions that WDFW must follow, but would not be binding on other state, 
tribal, or private entities. The publication of a WSP will likely occur 
in the near future, but the format and exact content of the document is 
unknown. Given the uncertainties surrounding implementation of the plan 
and lack of specificity concerning bull trout, possible benefits to 
bull trout can not be evaluated.
    Section 305(b) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires states 
to identify water bodies biennially that are not expected to meet State 
surface water quality standards (WDOE 1996). These waters are reported 
in the Section 303(d) list of water quality limited streams. The 
Washington State 303(d) list (WDOE 1997a) reflects the poor condition 
of lower stream reaches of some systems containing bull trout and Dolly 
Varden. At least 30 stream reaches, occupied by 14 subpopulations of 
``native char'', are listed on the Washington State proposed 1998 
303(d) list of water quality impaired streams (WDOE 1997a). Waters on 
the 303(d) list that inhibit these subpopulations because of 
temperature exceedances are--Chehalis River-Grays Harbor, lower 
Quinault River, Hoh River, lower Elwha River, Nisqually River, White 
River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, Stillaguamish 
River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout have been identified in one 
of these subpopulations (Green River). The State temperature standards 
are likely inadequate for bull trout because temperatures in excess of 
15 deg.C (59 deg.F) are thought to limit bull trout distribution 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993) and the State temperature standard for the 
highest class of waters is 16 deg.C (61 deg.F).
    Waters on the 303(d) list that do not meet instream flow standards 
and

[[Page 31705]]

contain ``native char'' subpopulation include--Dungeness River-Gray 
Wolf River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Puyallup 
River, lower Skagit River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout are 
known to occur in three of these subpopulations (Dungeness River-Gray 
Wolf River; South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River; and lower 
Skagit River). Although minimum instream flow requirements for bull 
trout have not been determined, variable stream flows and low winter 
flows are thought to negatively influence the embryos and alevins (a 
young fish which has not yet absorbed its yolk sac) of bull trout 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
    Subpopulations in waters that occur on the 303(d) list for not 
meeting the standards for dissolved oxygen are--Chehalis River-Grays 
Harbor and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek (WDOE 1997a). Although no 
dissolved oxygen standards have been developed for bull trout, poor 
water quality and highly degraded migratory corridors may hinder or 
interrupt migration (Spence et al. 1996), leading to the further 
fragmentation of habitat and isolation of bull trout.
    Surface waters are assigned to one of five classes under the Water 
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (WAC 
173-201A-130). These classes are AA (extraordinary), A (excellent), B 
(good), C (fair) and Lake class. For each of these classes a set of 
criteria have been established for water quality parameters such as 
temperature, fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and toxic 
deleterious material concentrations. With the exception of dissolved 
oxygen, parameters are not to exceed the maximum levels specified for 
each class. Maximum water temperature criteria range from 16 deg. C 
(60.8 deg.F) (Class AA), 18 deg.C (64.4 deg.F) (Class A), 21 deg.C 
(69.8 deg.F) (Class B), to 22 deg.C (71.6 deg.F) (Class C). Bull trout 
streams within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment have stream 
segments that fall in classes AA, A, and B. Given the low temperature 
requirements of bull trout, these temperature standards are inadequate 
to protect bull trout spawning, rearing or migration (Rieman and 
McIntyre 1993). Segments of the Quinault, Queets, Elwha, Skokomish, 
Nisqually, White, Green, and Snohomish rivers do not meet existing 
State standards for their respective classes. It is unknown whether the 
current standards established for other water quality parameters (fecal 
coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, toxic deleterious material 
concentrations) within the various classes, are adequate to protect 
bull trout. See Factor A for additional discussion of water quality.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
    Regulatory mechanisms addressing alterations to stream channels, 
riparian areas, and floodplains from road construction and maintenance, 
and the effects associated with roads and past mining on water quality, 
have been inadequate to protect bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge 
River basin. For example, the Jarbidge Canyon Road parallels the West 
Fork Jarbidge River for much of its length and includes at least seven 
undersized bridges for the stream and floodplain. Maintenance of the 
road and bridges requires frequent channel and floodplain modifications 
that affect bull trout habitat, such as channelization; removal of 
riparian trees and beaver dams; and placement of rock, sediment, and 
concrete (McNeill et al. 1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Frederick, 
in litt. 1998a). In 1995, debris torrents washed out a portion of the 
upper Jarbidge Canyon Road above Pine Creek, and plans to reestablish 
the road include channelizing the river (McNeill et al. 1997). The 
Service has recommended that this road segment be closed to vehicular 
traffic and that a trail be maintained to reduce the effects of the 
road and its maintenance on the river (R. Williams, Service, in litt. 
1998). Periodic channelization in the Jarbidge River by unknown parties 
has occurred without the oversight provided by the COE Clean Water Act 
section 404 regulatory program (M. Elpers, Service, pers. comm. 1998), 
and the HNF has been unable to control trespass (unauthorized road 
openings) on Federal lands. Several old mines (adits) are releasing 
small quantities of warm water and other contaminants into the West 
Fork Jarbidge River.
    The Nevada water temperature standards throughout the Jarbidge 
River are 21 deg.C (67 deg.F) for May through October, and 7 deg.C 
(45 deg.F) for November through April, with less than 1 deg.C (2 deg.F) 
change for beneficial uses (Nevada Department of Environmental 
Protection (NDEP), in litt. 1998). Water temperature standards for May 
through October exceed temperatures conducive to bull trout spawning, 
incubation, and rearing (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Buchanan and Gregory 
1997). There is no Clean Water Act section 303(d) designation in the 
destabilized seven mile reach of the West Fork Jarbidge River (J. 
Heggeness, NDEP, pers. comm. 1998).
    In 1994, a local Bull Trout Task Force was formed to gather and 
share information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River. The task force 
is open to any representative from Elko and Owyhee counties, the towns 
of Jarbidge (Nevada) and Murphy Hot Springs (Idaho), road districts, 
private land owners, NDOW, IDFG, the Boise District of BLM, HNF, and 
the Service. The task force was successful in 1997 in obtaining nearly 
$150,000 for replacing the Jack Creek culvert with a concrete bridge to 
facilitate bull trout passage into Jack Creek. However, the task force 
has not yet developed a comprehensive conservation plan addressing all 
threats to bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.
    In 1995, the Humbolt National Forest plan was amended to include 
the Inland Native Fish Strategy. This fish and wildlife habitat policy 
sets a no net loss objective and is currently guiding possible 
reconstruction of a portion of the Jarbidge Canyon Road (Ramsey 1997).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
    Two USBR structures likely affect bull trout by dewatering stream 
reaches, acting as passage barriers, or exposing fish to entrainment 
(Service 1998c). The Service is not aware that the effects of the 
structures were considered in their construction (1902 and 1921) or 
operation. Currently, operators attempt to minimize passage and 
entrainment problems by staging the fall dewatering of the canal and 
removing boards in the dam during winter. The effectiveness of the 
operations has not been evaluated.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence of 
bull trout include--previous introductions of non-native species that 
compete, hybridize, and prey on 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, floods and other environmental events.
    Previous introductions of non-native species by the Federal 
government, State fish and game departments and unauthorized 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, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman and McIntyre 
1993). In some

[[Page 31706]]

lakes and rivers, introduced species, such as rainbow trout or kokanee, 
may benefit large adult bull trout by providing supplemental forage 
(Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993; MBTSG 1996a). 
However, the same introductions of game fish can negatively affect bull 
trout due to increased angling and subsequent incidental catch, illegal 
harvest of bull trout, and competition for space (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; 
WDW 1992; MBTSG 1995d).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
    Competition and hybridization with introduced brook trout threatens 
the persistence of some ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS. Brook trout have been introduced into headwater areas 
occupied by bull trout and ``native char''; however, the distribution 
of brook trout within many of these areas appears to be limited. Brook 
trout can threaten bull trout even in areas with undisturbed habitats 
(e.g., National Parks). Brook trout may have a reproductive advantage 
(earlier maturation) over resident bull trout, which can lead to 
species replacement (Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992). At present, 
portions of 14 ``native char'' subpopulations overlap with brook trout 
(Sol Duc River, upper Elwha River, lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf 
River, upper North Fork Skokomish River, South Fork-lower North Fork 
Skokomish River, Green River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish 
River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, Lower Skagit 
River, upper Middle Fork Nooksack River, and Canyon Creek) (R. Glesne, 
North Cascades National Park (NCNP), in litt. 1993; Mongillo and 
Hallock 1993; J. Meyer, ONP, pers. comm. 1995; Morrill and McHenry 
1995; Brenkman, pers. comm. 1997; B. Green, MBSNF, pers. comm. 1997). 
Of the 14 subpopulations, species composition has been examined in 10 
and bull trout have been confirmed in 8 (Service 1998a).
    ``Native char'' subpopulations that have become geographically 
isolated may no longer have access to migratory corridors. ``First-, 
and second-order streams in steep headwaters tend to be hydrologically 
and geomorphically more unstable than large, low-gradient streams. 
Thus, salmonids are being restricted to habitats where the likelihood 
of extirpation because of random environmental events is greatest'' 
(Spence et al. 1996). ``Native char'' subpopulations likely more prone 
to naturally occurring events as a result isolation are Cushman 
Reservoir, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Gorge 
Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, upper Middle Fork Nooksack 
River, upper Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, upper Dungeness 
River, and Chester Morse Reservoir (Service 1998a). Of these 10 
``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has been examined 
in 7 and bull trout have been confirmed in 5 (Cushman Reservoir, South 
Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, upper Quinault River, Chester 
Morse Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River) (Service 1998a).
Jarbidge River Populations Segment
    ``The smaller and more isolated parts of the range [such as the 
bull trout remaining in the Owyhee Uplands ecological reporting units 
or Jarbidge River basin] likely face a higher risk'' of naturally 
occurring extirpation relative to other bull trout populations (Rieman 
et al. 1997). One such risk is fire. In 1992, a 4,900 hectare (ha) 
(12,000 acre (ac)) fire (Coffeepot Fire) occurred at lower elevations, 
up to 2,286 m (7,500 ft), in areas adjacent to the Bruneau River basin 
and a small portion of the Jarbidge River basin. Although the Coffeepot 
Fire did not affect areas currently occupied by bull trout, similar 
conditions likely exist in nearby areas where bull trout occur. Adverse 
effects of fire on bull trout habitat may include loss of riparian 
canopy, increased water temperature and sediment, loss of pools, mass 
wasting of soils, altered hydrologic regime and debris torrents. Fires 
large enough to eliminate one or two suspected spawning streams are 
more likely at higher elevations where bull trout are usually found in 
the Jarbidge River basin (Frederick, in litt. 1998a; Ramsey, pers. 
comm. 1998b).
    Hybridization with introduced brook trout is also a potential 
threat. In the West Fork Jarbidge River, approximately one percent of 
the harvest from the 1960's through the 1980's was brook trout (Johnson 
1990). Some brook trout may spill out of Emerald Lake into the East 
Fork Jarbidge River during peak runoff events, but the lake lacks a 
defined outlet so that the event appears unlikely (Johnson, pers. comm. 
1994). Although low numbers of brook trout persist in the Jarbidge 
River basin, conditions are apparently not conducive to the expansion 
of a brook trout population.
    Other naturally occurring risks have been recently documented. The 
Jarbidge River Watershed Analysis (McNeill et al. 1997) indicates that 
65 percent of the upper West Fork Jarbidge River basin has a 45 percent 
or greater slope. Debris from high spring runoff flows in the various 
high gradient side drainages such as Snowslide, Gorge, and Bonanza 
gulches provide the West Fork Jarbidge River with large volumes of 
angular rock material. This material has moved down the gulches at 
regular intervals, altering the river channel and damaging the Jarbidge 
River Canyon road, culverts, and bridge crossings. Most of the river 
flows are derived from winter snowpack in the high mountain watershed, 
with peak flows corresponding with spring snowmelt, typically in May 
and June (McNeill et al. 1997). Rain on snow events earlier in the year 
(January and February) can cause extensive flooding problems and has 
the potential for mass-wasting, debris torrents, and earth slumps, 
which could threaten the existence of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge 
River and tributary streams. In June, 1995, a rain on snow event 
triggered debris torrents from three of the high gradient tributaries 
to the Jarbidge River in the upper watershed (McNeill et al. 1997). The 
relationship between these catastrophic events and the history of 
intensive livestock grazing, burning to promote livestock forage, 
timber harvest and recent fire control in the Jarbidge River basin is 
unclear. However, debris torrents may potentially affect the long-term 
viability of the Jarbidge River bull trout subpopulation.
St. Mary-Belly Population Segment
    Non-native species are pervasive throughout the St. Mary and Belly 
rivers (Fitch 1994; Fredenberg et al. 1996; Clayton 1997). Brook, 
brown, and rainbow trout have been widely introduced in the area. The 
Service is not aware of any studies conducted in the DPS evaluating the 
effects of introduced non-native fishes on bull trout. However, because 
brook trout occur in the four bull trout subpopulations, competition 
and hybridization are threats in the St. Mary and Belly rivers (Service 
1998c), especially on resident bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and 
St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout in determining 
to propose this rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is 
to list the bull trout as threatened in each of the three population 
segments. Determinations by distinct population segment follow:
    Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull trout and ``native char'' in the Coastal-
Puget

[[Page 31707]]

Sound population segment, despite their relative widespread 
distribution, have declined in abundance and distribution within many 
individual river basins. Bull trout and ``native char'' currently occur 
as 35 isolated subpopulations, which indicates the level of habitat 
fragmentation and geographic isolation. Eight subpopulations are 
isolated by dams or other diversion structures, with at least 17 dams 
proposed in streams inhabited by other bull trout or ``native char'' 
subpopulations. Bull trout and ``native char'' continue to be 
threatened by the effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation, 
blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, harvest, and 
introduced non-native species.
    Jarbidge River. This population segment is composed of a single 
subpopulation, characterized by low numbers of resident fish. 
Activities, such as mining and grazing, threaten bull trout in the 
Jarbidge River basin. Although some of these activities have been 
modified or discontinued in recent years, the lingering effects 
continue to alter water quality, contribute to channel and bank 
instability, and inhibit habitat recovery. Ongoing threats include 
channel and bank alterations associated with road construction and 
maintenance, a proposed stream rechannelization project, recreational 
fishing (intentional and unintentional harvest), and competition with 
brook trout.
    St. Mary-Belly River This population segment is composed of four 
subpopulations primarily isolated by dams and unsuitable habitat 
conditions created by irrigation diversions. The primary threat to bull 
trout are effects of introduced non-native fishes. Three of the four 
subpopulations are threatened by dams and irrigation diversions.
    Based on this evaluation, the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, 
and St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout are likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future, and thus, these 
population segments fit the definition of threatened as defined in the 
Act.

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 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 determination 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 this conclusion because 
the biological needs of the species in the three population segments 
are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of areas as 
critical habitat. No information is available on the number of 
individuals required for a viable population throughout the distinct 
population segment and the extent of habitat required for recovery of 
these fish has not been identified. In addition, within the Coastal-
Puget Sound bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden. These two 
species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate and genetic 
and morphological-meristic analyses to determine the presence or 
absence of bull trout and Dolly Varden have only been conducted on 15 
of the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations. The presence of bull trout in 
the remaining 20 subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget Sound along with 
the information noted above is considered essential for determining 
critical habitat for these population segments. Therefore, the Service 
finds that designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the 
Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River distinct 
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 State 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)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
insure that activities that 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 three bull trout population segments occur on lands 
administered by the USFS, NPS, and BLM; various State-owned properties 
in Washington (Coastal-Puget Sound population segment), Idaho and 
Nevada (Jarbidge population segment), and Montana (St. Mary-Belly River 
population segment); Blackfeet Tribal lands in Montana and various 
Tribal lands in Washington; and

[[Page 31708]]

private lands. Federal agency actions that may require conference or 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include COE 
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 et seq.); FERC 
licensed hydropower projects authorized under the Federal Power Act; 
USFS and BLM timber, recreational, mining, and grazing management 
activities; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) land management activities; 
Environmental Protection Agency authorized discharges under the 
National Pollutant Discharge System of the Clean Water Act; NPS 
activities such as construction on park lands; and U.S. Housing and 
Urban Development projects.
    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 taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are at 50 CFR 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:
    (1) Actions that may affect bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound, 
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments that 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 Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. 
Mary-Belly River population segments bull trout caught legally in 
accordance with state fishing regulations (see Special Rule section).
    With respect to the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. 
Mary-Belly 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 Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. 
Mary-Belly River bull trout population segments;
    (2) Possession, sale, delivery, carriage, transportation, or 
shipment of illegally taken bull trout;
    (3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across 
state and international boundaries) and import/export of bull trout (as 
discussed 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 recreational 
activities, 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 Field 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. In this case, the Service proposes a 
special rule for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River bull trout distinct population segments (see ``Proposed 
Regulations Promulgation'' section). The Service recognizes that 
statewide angling regulations have become more restrictive in an 
attempt to protect bull trout throughout Washington, Idaho, Montana, 
and Nevada. The Service intends to continue to work with the States in 
developing management plans and agreements with the objective of 
recovery and eventual delisting (in the event that they are listed) of 
the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull 
trout distinct population segments. Further, the Service, acting under 
the June, 1997, Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trust 
responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, will work with Tribal 
governments who manage bull trout streams to restore ecosystems and

[[Page 31709]]

enhance Tribal management plans affecting the species. The Service is 
consequently proposing a special rule under section 4(d) that offers 
additional management flexibility for these population segments. The 
special rule would allow for take of bull trout within the Coastal-
Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout 
distinct population segments when it is in accordance with applicable 
State and Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations, 
and conservation plans approved by the Service. The Service believes 
that this special rule will allow for more efficient management of the 
species, thereby facilitating its conservation. The Service also feels 
that this special rule is consistent with the Secretarial Order 
designed to enhance Native American participation under the Act and 
will allow more efficient management of the species on Tribal lands.

Similarity of Appearance

    Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes listing based on similarity of 
appearance if--(A) The species so closely resembles in appearance an 
endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have 
substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and 
unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an 
additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such 
treatment will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the 
policy of the Act.
    Within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, bull trout occur 
sympatrically within the range of Dolly Varden. These two species so 
closely resemble one another in external appearance, that it is 
virtually impossible for the general public to visually differentiate 
the two. Currently, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char''. 
Fishing for bull trout and Dolly Varden is open in four subpopulations 
within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, two under WDFW 
regulations and two under Native American Tribal regulations. These 
``native char'' fisheries may adversely affect these subpopulations of 
bull trout. However, under current harvest management there is no 
evidence that the specific harvest for Dolly Varden creates an 
additional threat to bull trout within this population segment. 
Therefore, a similarity of appearance rule is not being proposed for 
Dolly Varden at this time. However, if bull trout and Dolly Varden are 
managed in Washington State as separate species in the future, the 
Service may consider at that time the merits of proposing Dolly Varden 
under the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service 
will follow its peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) in the 
processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
threat (or lack thereof) to these three population segments;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of the three 
segments and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be 
determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
    (3) Additional and updated information concerning the range, 
distribution, and population size of the three segments;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on the three population segments; and
    (5) Promulgation of the special rule.
    The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
the comments and any additional information received by the Service, 
and such communications may lead to a final determination that differs 
from this proposal.
    The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal, 
if requested. However, given the high likelihood of several requests 
throughout the range of the population segments, the Service has 
scheduled four hearings in advance of any request. The hearings are 
scheduled for Lacey, Washington, on July 7, 1998; Mount Vernon, 
Washington, on July 9, 1998; East Glacier, Montana on July 14, 1998; 
and Jackpot, Nevada on July 21, 1998. For additional information on 
public hearings, see the DATES section.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, 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 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 Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).
    Author: The primary authors of this proposed rule include--Jeffery 
Chan, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, WA; Timothy 
Cummings, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, WA; 
Stephen Duke, Snake River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Robert Hallock, 
Upper Columbia River Basin Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, Snake 
River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Leslie Propp, Western Washington State 
Office, Olympia, WA.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    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 Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical 
order under Fishes, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 31710]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                     Vertebrate                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------                         population where                                   Critical    Special 
                                                            Historic range         endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat      rules  
           Common name                Scientific name                               threatened                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
FISHES:                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
    Trout, bull..................  Salvelinus            U.S.A. (Pacific NW),  Coastal-Puget Sound   T               ...........           NA  17.44 (w)
                                    confluentus.          Canada (NW            (U.S.A.-WA) all                                                         
                                                          Territories).         pacific coast                                                           
                                                                                drainages north of                                                      
                                                                                Columbia R..                                                            
    Do...........................  ......do............  ......do............  Jarbidge R. (U.S.A.-- T               ...........           NA        Do.
                                                                                ID, NV).                                                                
    Do...........................  ......do............  ......do............  St. Mary-Belly R.     T               ...........           NA        Do.
                                                                                (U.S.A.--MT east of                                                     
                                                                                Continental Divide).                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec. 17.44 by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.44  Special rules--fishes.

* * * * *
    (w) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coastal-Puget Sound, 
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout distinct population 
segments.
    (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (w)(2) of this 
section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR 
17.32 shall apply to the bull trout Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge 
River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments within the 
contiguous United States.
    (2) Exceptions. No person shall take this species, except in 
accordance with with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish 
and wildlife conservation laws and regulations, as constituted in all 
aspects relevant to protection of bull trout in effect on [date of 
publication of final determination in the Federal Register].
    (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 (w) (2) through (4) of this section.

    Dated: June 1, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-15318 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
```