Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31693

North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 17:1158–1172.

Author

The primary author of this 90-day

finding is Lynn Kaeding (See ADDRESSES

section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15317 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

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. MaryBelly 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° N to

60° N latitude, from the southern limits

in the McCloud River in northern

California and the Jarbidge River in

Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon

River in Northwest Territories, Canada

(Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the

west, bull trout range includes Puget

Sound, various coastal rivers of British

Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska

(Bond 1992). Bull trout are wide-spread

throughout tributaries of the Columbia

River basin, including its headwaters in

Montana and Canada. Bull trout also

occur in the Klamath River basin of

south central Oregon. East of the

Continental Divide, bull trout are found

in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan

River in Alberta and the MacKenzie

River system in Alberta and British

Columbia (Cavender 1978; 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).
31694 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

However, historical accounts, collection

records, and recent circumstantial

evidence suggests an anadromous lifehistory 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°

C (59° 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 coldwater 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° C (41 to

48° 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 slowmoving 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 lifehistory 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° C (39 to

51° F), with redds often constructed in

stream reaches fed by springs or near

other sources of cold groundwater

(Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1996). 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 lifehistory strategy. Resident adults range

from 150 to 300 millimeters (mm) (6 to

12 inches (in.)) total length and

migratory adults commonly reach 600

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

1989). The largest verified bull trout is

a 14.6 kilogram (kg) (32 pound (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, macrozooplankton, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 coevolved 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) CoastalPuget 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,
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 lifehistory 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 lifehistory 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 RiverGoodman 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 lifehistory 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, nonnative 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31697

insufficient abundance, trend, and lifehistory 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 RiverSkykomish 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 RiverSelesia Creek subpopulation (Service

1998a). The current status of the ‘‘native
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 mid1980’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. MaryBelly 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 lifehistory 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
31700 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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, SkykomishSnohomish River, Green River, White

River, Nisqually River, South Forklower 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 SkykomishSnohomish 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 nonanadromous 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 nonnative 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 CoastalPuget 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-ofthe-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 lifehistory 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
31702 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

century and mining spoils were placed

directly into Wells Creek (Mt. BakerSnoqualmie 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°C (59

to 63°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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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-andrelease 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 CoastalPuget 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 oldgrowth 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
31704 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 nonFederal 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 RiverIssaquah 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°C (59°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°C (61°F).

Waters on the 303(d) list that do not

meet instream flow standards and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 Forklower 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° C (60.8°F) (Class

AA), 18°C (64.4°F) (Class A), 21°C

(69.8°F) (Class B), to 22°C (71.6°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°C (67°F) for May through

October, and 7°C (45°F) for November

through April, with less than 1°C (2°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
31706 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 Forklower 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 masswasting, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 CoastalPuget 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 CoastalPuget 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
31708 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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. MaryBelly 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. MaryBelly 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 CoastalPuget 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 § 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

Fishes, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *
31710 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

FISHES:

* * * * * * *

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

confluentus.

U.S.A. (Pacific NW),

Canada (NW Territories).

Coastal-Puget Sound

(U.S.A.–WA) all

pacific coast drainages north of Columbia R..

T .................... NA 17.44 (w)

Do...... ................ ......do ....................... ......do ....................... Jarbidge R.

(U.S.A.—ID, NV).

T .................... NA Do.

Do...... ................ ......do ....................... ......do ....................... St. Mary-Belly R.

(U.S.A.—MT east

of Continental Divide).

T .................... NA Do.

* * * * * * *

3. Amend § 17.44 by adding

paragraph (w) to read as follows:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 630

[Docket No. 980527137–8137–01; I.D.

121597D]

RIN 0648–AL24

Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; South

Atlantic Quotas; Quota Adjustment

Procedures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend the

regulations governing the Atlantic

swordfish fishery to establish annual

quotas for the South Atlantic swordfish

stock. Additionally, NMFS proposes

changes to the quota adjustment

procedures. The purpose of these

proposed actions is to improve

conservation and management of the

Atlantic swordfish resource, while

allowing harvests consistent with

recommendations of the International

Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NMFS seeks

comment on the proposed measures and

on two related issues and will schedule

public hearings at a later date.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule should be submitted to Rebecca

Lent, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division (F/SF1), Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Copies of the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review

(EA/RIR) supporting this action may be

obtained from Jill Stevenson by calling

(301) 713–2347 or by writing to the

preceding address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Stevenson: 301–713–2347 or FAX 301–

713–1917; Buck Sutter: 813–570–5447

or FAX 813–570–5364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.

Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed

under the Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Swordfish. Regulations at 50

CFR part 630 are issued under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (codified at

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the Atlantic

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (codified

at 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). Regulations

issued under the authority of ATCA

implement the recommendations of

ICCAT.

ICCAT has identified two

management units for Atlantic

swordfish; the one comprises fish

occurring north and the other fish

occurring south of a dividing line

designated at 5° N. latitude. ICCAT has

noted that high levels of fishing effort

over the last several decades have led to

a decline in the North Atlantic

swordfish stock. In recent years, the

South Atlantic swordfish stock has been

under increased fishing pressure, and

biomass of that stock may also be

declining. ICCAT has recommended