[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31693-31710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018--AF01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To List
the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River
Population Segments of Bull Trout as Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list
the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus) from the coastal drainages and Puget Sound in western
Washington; the Jarbidge River population segment of bull trout from
the Jarbidge River basin in southern Idaho and northern Nevada; and the
St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout in the St. Mary
and Belly rivers in northwestern Montana as threatened with a special
rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). The
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, composed of 35 subpopulations
of ``native char'', is threatened by habitat degradation, dams and
diversions, and interactions with non-native fishes. The Jarbidge River
population segment, composed of a single subpopulation, is threatened
by habitat degradation from past and ongoing land management activities
such as mining, road construction and maintenance, and grazing. The St.
Mary-Belly River population segment, composed of four subpopulations,
is threatened by the effects of water management such as dewatering,
entrainment, and passage barriers at diversion structures, and
interactions with introduced non-native fishes. The special rule allows
for take of bull trout within the three population segments if in
accordance with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and
wildlife conservation laws and regulations, and conservation plans.
This proposal, if made final, would extend protection of the Act to
these three bull trout population segments.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October
8, 1998. Public hearings locations and dates are set forth in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material concerning this proposal should be
sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin Field
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709. Comments and
material received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake
River Basin Field Office, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243;
facsimile 208/378-5262).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearings locations and dates are:
1. Tuesday, July 7, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00
p.m. at the Norman Worthington Conference Center at St. Martin's
College, 5300 Pacific Avenue SE, Lacey, Washington.
2. Thursday, July 9, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00
p.m. at the Best Western Cotton Tree Inn, Mt. Adams Room, 2401
Riverside Dr, Mount Vernon, Washington.
3. Tuesday, July 14, 1998, from 2:00-until 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-
8:00 p.m. at Glacier Park Lodge, East Glacier, Montana.
4. Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00
p.m. at Cactus Petes, 1385 US Highway 93, Jackpot, Nevada.
Background
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family
Salmonidae, are char native to the Pacific northwest and western
Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in
the Pacific northwest from about 41 deg. N to 60 deg. N latitude, from
the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the
Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in
Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the west,
bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of
British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992). Bull trout
are wide-spread throughout tributaries of the Columbia River basin,
including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur
in the Klamath River basin of south central Oregon. East of the
Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the
Saskatchewan River in Alberta and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta
and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; Brewin
and Brewin 1997).
Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in
1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River, and
subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo
confluentus and Salvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bull trout and Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species
(Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). Cavender (1978) presented morphometric
(measurement), meristic (geometrical relation), osteological (bone
structure), and distributional evidence to document specific
distinctions between Dolly Varden and bull trout. Bull trout and Dolly
Varden were formally recognized as separate species distributional
evidence to document specific distinctions between Dolly Varden and
bull trout. Bull trout and Dolly Varden were formally recognized as
separate species by the American Fisheries Society in 1980 (Robins et
al. 1980). Although bull trout and Dolly Varden co-occur in several
northwestern Washington River drainages, there is little evidence of
introgression (Haas and McPhail 1991) and the two species appear to be
maintaining distinct genomes (Leary et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995;
Kanda et al. 1997; Spruell and Allendorf 1997).
Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life-history strategies
through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident
bull trout complete their life cycles in the tributary (or nearby)
streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in
tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four years
before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in
certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity is
reached in one of the three habitats (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz
1989). Anadromy is the least studied life-history type in bull trout,
and some biologists believe the existence of anadromous bull trout may
be uncertain (McPhail and Baxter 1996).
[[Page 31694]]
However, historical accounts, collection records, and recent
circumstantial evidence suggests an anadromous life-history form for
bull trout (Suckley and Cooper 1860; Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter
1996). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and bull
trout may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or
migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to
other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that
appear to influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water
temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning
and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors (Oliver 1979; Pratt
1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn
1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Rieman and
McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). Watson and
Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical
characteristics to provide the necessary habitat requirements for bull
trout spawning and rearing, and that the characteristics are not
necessarily ubiquitous throughout watersheds in which bull trout occur.
Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in undisturbed
habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), fish would likely not
simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. 1997).
Bull trout are most often found in colder streams, although
individual fish can occur throughout larger river systems. (Fraley and
Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory
1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Water temperature above 15 deg. C (59 deg.
F) is believed to limit bull trout distribution, which partially
explains the generally patchy distribution within a watershed (Fraley
and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Spawning areas are often
associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the
coldest streams in a given watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre
1993; Rieman et al. 1997).
All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex
forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders,
and pools (Oliver 1979; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher
and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992; Rich
1996; Sexauer and James 1997; Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober (1995)
observed bull trout overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools
containing large woody debris in the Bitterroot River drainage,
Montana, and suggested that suitable winter habitat may be more
restrictive than summer habitat. Maintaining bull trout populations
requires stream channel and flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream
margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). These
areas are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect
stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example,
altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the
spawning period and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs
and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring (Fraley
and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).
Preferred spawning habitat consists of low gradient streams with
loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and water temperatures of
5 to 9 deg. C (41 to 48 deg. F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz
1989). Pratt (1992) reported that increases in fine sediments reduce
egg survival and emergence. High juvenile densities were observed in
Swan River, Montana, and tributaries characterized by diverse cobble
substrate and a low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984).
Juvenile bull trout in four streams in central Washington occupied
slow-moving water less than 0.5 meters/second (m/sec) (1.6 feet/second
(ft/sec)) over a variety of sand to boulder size substrates (Sexauer
and James 1997).
The size and age of maturity for bull trout is variable depending
upon life-history strategy. Growth of resident fish is generally slower
than migratory fish; resident fish tend to be smaller at maturity and
less fecund (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Bull trout normally
reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and live as long as 12 years.
Repeat and alternate year spawning has been reported, although repeat
spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known
(Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman
and McIntyre 1996).
Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods
of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout
frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and move
upstream as far as 250 kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi)) to spawning
grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In the Blackfoot River, Montana,
bull trout began spawning migrations in response to increasing
temperatures (Swanberg 1997). Temperatures during spawning generally
range from 4 to 10 deg. C (39 to 51 deg. F), with redds often
constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or near other sources of
cold groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1996).
Depending on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days
(Pratt 1992), and juveniles remain in the substrate after hatching.
Time from egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry
normally emerge from early April through May depending upon water
temperatures and increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and
Howell 1992).
Growth varies depending upon life-history strategy. Resident adults
range from 150 to 300 millimeters (mm) (6 to 12 inches (in.)) total
length and migratory adults commonly reach 600 mm (24 in) or more
(Pratt 1985; Goetz 1989). The largest verified bull trout is a 14.6
kilogram (kg) (32 pound (lb)) specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille,
Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982).
Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a
function of size and life-history strategy. Resident and juvenile
migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-
zooplankton, amphipods, mysids, crayfish and small fish (Wyman 1975;
Rieman and Lukens 1979 in Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Boag 1987; Goetz
1989; Donald and Alger 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily
piscivorous, known to feed on various trout (Salmo spp.) and salmon
(Onchorynchus spp.), whitefish (Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald
and Alger 1993).
Bull trout co-evolved with, and in most areas co-occur with native
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.), resident (redband) and
migratory rainbow trout (O. mykiss ssp.), chinook salmon (O.
tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish (Prosopium
williamsoni), pygmy whitefish (P. coulteri), and various sculpin
(Cottus spp.), sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow (Cyprinidae) species
(Mauser et al. 1988; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; R2 Resource Consultants,
Inc. 1993). Bull trout habitat overlaps with the range of several
fishes listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, and petitioned for
listing under the Act, including the endangered Snake River sockeye
salmon (November 20, 1991; 56 FR 58619); threatened Snake River spring
and fall chinook salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR 14653); endangered
Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (September 6,
1994; 59 FR 45989); threatened and endangered steelhead (August 18,
1997; 62 FR 43937); Puget Sound chinook salmon
[[Page 31695]]
(March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11481); and westslope cutthroat trout (O. c.
lewisi) (petitioned for listing in July 1997). Widespread introductions
of non-native fishes, including brook trout (S. fontinalis), lake trout
(S. namaycush) (west of the Continental Divide), and brown trout (Salmo
trutta), have also occurred across the range of bull trout. These non-
native fishes are often associated with local bull trout declines and
extirpations (Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et
al. 1993; Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1996h). East of
the Continental Divide, bull trout co-evolved with lake trout and
westslope cutthroat trout (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Under these
conditions, bull trout and lake trout have apparently partitioned
habitat with lake trout dominating lentic (standing waters, such as,
lakes, ponds, and marshes) systems, relegating bull trout to the
fluvial life-history form (Donald and Alger 1993).
Bull trout habitat in the coterminous United States is found in a
mosaic of land ownership, including Federal lands administered by the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National
Park Service (NPS), and Department of Defense (DOD); Native American
tribal lands; state land in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and
Nevada; and private lands. As much as half of occupied bull trout
habitat occurs on non-federal lands.
Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-
history forms. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence
of local bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; M.
Gilpin, University of California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. 1997).
Migrations facilitate gene flow among local subpopulations because
individuals from different subpopulations interbreed when some return
to non-natal streams. Migratory fish can also reestablish extirpated
local subpopulations.
Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory are
applicable to the distribution and characteristics of bull trout
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an interacting network
of local subpopulations with varying frequencies of migration and gene
flow among them (Meffe and Carroll 1994). Local subpopulations may
become extinct, but can be reestablisheded by individuals from other
subpopulations. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for reducing risk
because the simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely.
Habitat alteration, primarily through construction of impoundments,
dams, and water diversions, has fragmented habitats, eliminated
migratory corridors, and isolated bull trout, often in the headwaters
of tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997).
Distinct Population Segments
The best available scientific and commercial information supports
designating five distinct population segments (DPSs) of bull trout in
the coterminous United States--(1) Klamath River, (2) Columbia River,
(3) Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-Belly
River. A final listing determination for the Klamath River and Columbia
River bull trout DPSs, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
includes a detailed description of the rationale behind the DPS
delineation. The approach is consistent with the joint National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Service policy for recognizing distinct
vertebrate population segments under the Act (February 7, 1996; 61 FR
4722). This proposed rule addresses only the Coastal-Puget Sound,
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout DPSs.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS encompasses all Pacific
coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the
Columbia River in Washington. This population segment is discrete
because it is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by
the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. The
population segment is significant to the species as a whole because it
is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the
coterminous United States, thus, occurring in a unique (i.e., marine)
ecological setting. In addition, the loss of this population segment
would significantly reduce the overall range of the taxon.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
The Jarbidge River, in southwest Idaho and northern Nevada, is a
tributary in the Snake River basin and contains the southernmost
habitat occupied by bull trout. This population segment is discrete
because it is segregated from other bull trout in the Snake River basin
by a large gap (greater than 240 km (150 mi)) in suitable habitat and
several impassable dams on the mainstem Snake River. The occurrence of
a species at the extremities of its range is not necessarily sufficient
evidence of significance to the species as a whole. However, because
the Jarbidge River possesses bull trout habitat that is disjunct from
other patches of suitable habitat, the population segment is considered
significant because it occupies a unique or unusual ecological setting
and its loss would result in a substantial modification of the species'
range.
St. Mary-Belly Rivers
The St. Mary-Belly River DPS is located in northwest Montana east
of the Continental Divide. Both the St. Mary and Belly rivers are
tributaries in the Saskatchewan River basin in Alberta, Canada. The
population segment is discrete because it is segregated from other bull
trout by the Continental Divide and is the only bull trout population
found east of the Continental Divide in the coterminous United States.
The population segment is significant because its loss would result in
a significant reduction in the range of the taxon. Bull trout in this
population segment are believed to migrate into Canada where a
substantial amount of habitat still remains.
Status and Distribution
To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and
abundance for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments, the Service analyzed data on a
subpopulation basis within each segment because fragmentation and
barriers have isolated bull trout. A subpopulation is considered a
reproductively isolated bull trout group that spawns within a
particular area(s) of a river system. In areas where two groups of bull
trout are separated by a barrier (e.g., an impassable dam or waterfall,
or reaches of unsuitable habitat) that may allow only downstream access
(i.e., one-way passage), both groups were considered subpopulations. In
addition, subpopulations were considered at risk of extirpation from
naturally occurring events if they were: (1) Unlikely to be
reestablished by individuals from another subpopulation (i.e.,
functionally or geographically isolated from other subpopulations); (2)
limited to a single spawning area (i.e., spatially restricted); (3)
characterized by low individual or spawner numbers; or (4) consisted
primarily of a single life-history form. For example, a subpopulation
of resident fish isolated upstream of an impassable waterfall would be
considered at risk of extirpation from naturally occurring events if it
had low numbers of fish that spawn in a relatively restricted area. In
such cases, a natural event such as a fire or flood could eliminate the
subpopulation, and,
[[Page 31696]]
subsequently, reestablishment from fish downstream would be prevented
by the impassable waterfall. However, a subpopulation residing
downstream of the waterfall would not be considered at risk of
extirpation because of potential reestablishment by fish upstream.
Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited downstream movement
(Nelson 1996), the Service's estimate of subpopulations at risk of
naturally occurring extirpation may be underestimated. The status of
subpopulations was based on modified criteria of Rieman et al. (1997),
including the abundance, trends in abundance, and the presence of life-
history forms of bull trout.
The Service considered a subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000
individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the subpopulation,
abundance appears stable or increasing, and life-history forms
historically present were likely to persist; and ``depressed'' if less
than 5,000 individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the
subpopulation, abundance appears to be declining, or a life-history
form historically present has been lost. If there was insufficient
abundance, trend, and life-history information to classify the status
of a subpopulation as either ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' the status
was considered ``unknown.'' It is emphasized that the assignment of
``unknown'' status implies only a deficiency of data to assign a
subpopulation as ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' not a lack of information
regarding the status or threats. Section 4 of the Act requires the
Service to make a determination solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. Although complete status and trend
information is not available for all the subpopulations, bull trout are
naturally rare and as discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
These Species'' there is sufficient information on threats to propose
these population segments for listing.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses
all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound.
No bull trout exist in coastal drainages south of the Columbia River.
Within this area, bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden. Because
the two species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) currently manages
bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char.'' The Coastal-
Puget Sound population segment contain 35 subpopulations of ``native
char'' (bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species) (Service 1998a). The
species can be differentiated by both genetic and morphological-
meristic analyses, of which one or both analyses have been conducted on
15 of the 35 subpopulations. Bull trout were confirmed in 12 of 15
subpopulations investigated (5 with only bull trout, 3 with only Dolly
Varden, and 7 with both species), and it is likely that bull trout
occur in the majority of the remaining 20 subpopulations (Service
1998a). In order to identify trends that may be specific to certain
geographic areas, the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations were grouped
into five analysis areas-- Coastal, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal,
Puget Sound, and Transboundary.
Coastal Analysis Area
Ten ``native char'' subpopulations occur in five river basins in
the Coastal analysis area (number of subpopulations)-- Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor (1), Coastal Plains-Quinault River (5), Queets River (1),
Hoh River-Goodman Creek (2), and Quillayute River (1). Recent efforts
to determine species composition in three subpopulations have confirmed
bull trout in two, the upper Quinault River and Queets River (Leary and
Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in
the upper Sol Duc River (Cavender 1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a).
Subpopulations of ``native char'' in the southwestern portion of
the coastal area appear to be in low abundance based on anecdotal
information. Because this is the southern extent of coastal bull trout
and Dolly Varden, abundance may be naturally low in systems like the
Chehalis, Moclips, and Copalis rivers (WDFW 1997a). Although little
historical and current information is known concerning bull trout in
these river basins, habitat degradation in the past has adversely
affected other salmonids (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Hiss and Knudsen
1993; WDFW 1997a). Habitat degradation in these basins is assumed to
have similarly affected bull trout. Although ``native char'' are
believed to be relatively more abundant in the Quinault River,
extensive portions of the basin have been degraded by past forest
management (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a).
Most ``native char'' subpopulations in the northwestern coastal
area occur partially within Olympic National Park, which contains
relatively undisturbed habitats. However, outside Olympic National
Park, ``native char'' habitat has been severely degraded by past forest
practices in the Queets River and Hoh River basins (Phinney and
Bucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a). Non-native brook trout are also present in
some park waters and threaten bull trout from competition and
hybridization. The Hoh River may have the largest subpopulation of
``native char'' on the Washington coast, although likely greatly
reduced since 1982 (Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) 1992; WDFW
1997a). Reasons for the decline are unknown, but overfishing is
believed to be a contributing factor (WDFW 1997a; WDFW, in litt. 1997).
The Service considers the Hoh River subpopulation ``depressed.'' The
current status of the remaining nine ``native char'' subpopulations in
the coastal analysis area is ``unknown'' because insufficient
abundance, trend, and life-history information is available (Service
1998a).
Strait of Juan de Fuca Analysis Area
Five ``native char'' subpopulations occur in three river basins in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca analysis area (number of subpopulations)--
Elwha River (2), Angeles basin (1), and Dungeness River (2). Recent
efforts to determine species composition in three subpopulations have
confirmed bull trout in the upper Elwha River and lower Dungeness
River-Gray Wolf River (Leary and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Only
Dolly Varden have been identified in the upper Dungeness River
subpopulation (Cavender 1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a).
The two subpopulations in the Dungeness River basin occur partially
within Olympic National Park and Buckhorn Wilderness Area, and likely
benefit from the relatively undisturbed habitats located there.
However, non-native brook trout occur in some streams in the park.
Large portions of the Dungeness River basin lie outside of Olympic
National Park, and have been severely degraded by past forest and
agricultural practices (Williams et al. 1975; WDFW 1997a). Within
Olympic National Park, the lower and upper Elwha River subpopulations
are isolated by dams. Although ``native char'' are widespread in some
basins within the analysis area, such as the Dungeness and Gray Wolf
rivers, fish abundance is thought to be ``greatly reduced in numbers''
(WDW 1992; WDFW 1997a). The Service considers subpopulations in the
lower Elwha River and lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River
``depressed.'' The remaining three ``native char'' subpopulations in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca coastal analysis area are considered
``unknown'' because
[[Page 31697]]
insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is
available (Service 1998a).
Hood Canal Analysis Area
Three ``native char'' subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River
basin in the Hood Canal analysis area. Recent surveys have confirmed
bull trout in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River (Leary
and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a) and Cushman Reservoir (Brown 1992;
Brenkman 1996 in WDFW 1997a). Bull trout in Cushman Reservoir have been
isolated and restricted to an adfluvial life-history form due to
Cushman Dam on the North Fork Skokomish River. Spawner surveys indicate
a decline in adult bull trout through the 1970's, subsequent increases
from 4 adults in 1985 to 412 adults in 1993, and relatively stable
numbers of 250 to 300 adults in recent years (WDFW 1997a). The increase
in adults from 1985 to 1993 is likely related to harvest closure on
Cushman Reservoir and upper North Fork Skokomish River in 1986 (Brown
1992). Recent surveys indicate low numbers of bull trout in tributaries
of the South Fork Skokomish River such as Church, Pine, Cedar, LeBar,
Brown, Rock, Flat, and Vance creeks, as well as in the mainstem (L.
Oss, Olympia National Forest (ONF), in litt. 1997). Habitat in the
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River has been degraded by past
forest and agricultural practices and hydropower development (Williams
et al. 1975; Hood Canal Coordination Council (HCCC) 1995; WDFW 1997a).
The upper North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation occurs within
Olympic National Park and habitat is likely relatively undisturbed. The
Service considers the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River
subpopulation ``depressed.'' The remaining two ``native char''
subpopulations in the Hood Canal analysis area are considered
``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history
information is available (Service 1998a).
Puget Sound Analysis Area
Sixteen ``native char'' subpopulations occur in eight river basins
in the Puget Sound analysis area (number of subpopulations)--Nisqually
River (1), Puyallup River (3), Green River (1), Lake Washington basin
(2), Snohomish River-Skykomish River (1), Stillaguamish River (1),
Skagit River (4), and Nooksack River (3). Recent surveys of eight
subpopulations have confirmed bull trout bull trout in six--Carbon
River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir, Skykomish River-Snohomish
River, lower Skagit River, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River (R2
Resource consultants, Inc. 1993; Samora and Girdner 1993; Kraemer 1994;
M. Barclay, Cascades Environmental Services, Inc., pers. comm. 1997;
Leary and Allendorf 1997; E. Warner, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT),
pers. comm. 1997). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in the Canyon
Creek (tributary to the Nooksack River) subpopulation (Leary and
Allendorf 1997).
The current abundance of ``native char'' in southern Puget Sound is
likely lower than occurred historically and declining (T. Cropp, WDW,
in litt. 1993; F. Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), pers.
comm. 1994a,b). Historical accounts from southern Puget Sound indicate
that anadromous char entered rivers there in ``vast numbers'' during
the fall and were harvested until Christmas (Suckley and Cooper 1860).
``Native char'' are now rarely collected in the southern drainages of
the area (Cropp, in litt. 1993; Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b). There is
only one record of a ``native char'' being collected in the Nisqually
River. A juvenile char was collected during a stream survey for salmon
in the mid-1980's (G. Walter, Nisqually Indian Tribe (NIT), pers. comm.
1997; WDFW 1997a). In the Puyallup River, ``native char'' are
occasionally caught by steelhead anglers (WDW 1992). In the Green
River, ``native char'' are rarely observed (Cropp, in litt. 1993;
Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b; Warner, pers. comm. 1997). Habitat in
watersheds of the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Green rivers has been
degraded by logging, agriculture, road construction, and urban
development. In the Chester Morse Reservoir subpopulation, fewer than
10 redds were observed in 1995 and 1996; and fry abundance was low in
spring 1996 and 1997 (D. Paige, Seattle Water Department (SWD), in
litt. 1997). Logging and extensive road construction have occurred
within the basin (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW 1997a), and
have likely affected ``native char'' in Chester Morse Reservoir. Only
two ``native char'' have been observed during the past 10 years in the
Issaquah Creek drainage and none have been observed in the Sammamish
River system. Habitat in the Sammamish River and Issaquah Creek
drainages has been negatively affected by urbanization, road building
and associated poor water quality (Williams et al. 1975, Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1997a). The Service considers the
Nisqually River, Puyallup River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir,
and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek subpopulations ``depressed.''
Drainages in the northern Puget Sound area appear to support larger
subpopulations of ``native char'' than the southern portion (Goetz,
pers. comm. 1994a,b; S. Fransen, Service, pers. comm. 1997). The WDFW
conducts redd counts in two index reaches of the northern Puget Sound,
the upper South Fork Sauk River in the Skagit River basin (lower Skagit
River subpopulation) and the upper North Fork Skykomish River
(Snohomish River-Skykomish River subpopulation), which have healthy
habitats supporting stable numbers of ``native char'' (Kraemer 1994).
Redd surveys have been conducted since 1988 in both index reaches. In
the upper Sauk River, a substantial increase in redds was observed in
1991, a year after a minimum 508-mm (20-in) harvest restriction was
implemented; and redd numbers have remained relatively stable (WDFW
1997a). Harvest restrictions were implemented in the Skagit River and
its tributaries in 1990. ``Native char'' in the lower Skagit River
subpopulation have access to at least 38 documented or suspected
spawning tributaries in the basin (WDFW et al. 1997) and the number of
adults is estimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish (C. Kraemer, WDFW, pers.
comm. 1998). The number of redds in the upper North Fork Skykomish
River index reach have averaged 78 redds (range--21 to 159) during 1988
through 1993, with 75 or fewer redds observed since 1993. Within the
Puget Sound analysis area, the Service considers the lower Skagit River
subpopulation ``strong'' and five subpopulations ``depressed.'' The
remaining 10 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Puget Sound analysis
area are considered ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend,
and life-history information is available (Service 1998a).
Transboundary Analysis Area
One ``native char'' subpopulation occurs in the Chilliwack River
basin in the Transboundary analysis area. The Chilliwack River is a
transboundary system flowing into British Columbia, Canada. The species
composition of the subpopulation has not been determined. In
Washington, portions of the Chilliwack River are within the North
Cascades National Park and a tributary, Selesia Creek, are within the
Mount Baker Wilderness where the habitat is relatively undisturbed
(WDFW 1997a). Little information is available for ``native char'' in
the Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek subpopulation (Service 1998a). The
current status of the ``native
[[Page 31698]]
char'' subpopulations in the Transboundary analysis area is ``unknown''
because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is
available (Service 1998a).
Jarbidge River Population Segment
The Jarbidge River DPS consists of one bull trout subpopulation
occurring primarily in Nevada (Service 1998b). Resident fish inhabit
the headwaters of the East Fork and West Fork of the Jarbidge River and
several tributary streams, and low numbers of migratory (fluvial) fish
are present (Zoellick et al. 1996; L. McLelland, Nevada Division of
Wildlife (NDOW), in litt. 1998; K. Ramsey, Humboldt National Forest
(HNF), in litt. 1997). Bull trout were not observed during surveys in
the Idaho portion of the Jarbidge River basin in 1992 and 1995 (Warren
and Partridge 1993; Allen et al. 1997), however, a single, small bull
trout was captured when traps were operated on the lower East Fork and
West Fork Jarbidge River during August through October 1997 (F.
Partridge, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), pers. comm. 1998).
A loss of range likely has occurred for migratory bull trout (fluvial)
in the lower Jarbidge and Bruneau rivers and perhaps downstream to the
Snake River (Johnson and Weller 1994; Zoellick et al. 1996). Low
numbers of migratory (fluvial) bull trout have been documented in the
West Fork Jarbidge River from the 1970's through the mid-1980's
(Johnson and Weller 1994).
The distribution of bull trout in Nevada includes at least six
headwater streams above 2,200 m (7,200 ft), primarily in wilderness
areas--East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River and Slide, Dave, Pine,
and Jack creeks (Johnson and Weller 1994). Zoellick et al. (1996)
compiled data from 1954 through 1993 and estimated bull trout
population size in the middle and upper headwater areas of the West
Fork and East Fork of the Jarbidge River. In each stream, sampled areas
were located at elevations above 1,792 m (5,880 ft), and population
estimates were less than 150 fish/km (240 fish/mi) (Zoellick et al.
1996).
In general, bull trout represent a minor proportion of the fish
fauna downstream of the headwater reaches; native redband trout are the
most abundant salmonid and sculpin the most abundant fish (Johnson and
Weller 1994). Although accounts of bull trout distribution in the
Jarbidge River basin date to the 1930's, historic abundance is not well
documented. In 1934, bull trout were collected in the East Fork
Jarbidge River drainage downstream of the Idaho-Nevada border (Miller
and Morton 1952). In 1985, 292 bull trout ranging from 73 to 266 mm
(2.9 to 10.5 in) in total length, were estimated to reside in the West
Fork Jarbidge River (Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1992, the abundance
of bull trout in the East Fork Jarbidge River was estimated to be 314
fish ranging from 115 to 165 mm (4.5 to 6.5 in) in total length
(Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1993, bull trout numbers in Slide and
Dave creeks were estimated at 361 and 251 fish, respectively (Johnson
and Weller 1994). During snorkel surveys conducted in October 1997, no
bull trout were observed in 40 pools of the West Fork Jarbidge River or
in four 30-m (100-ft) transects in Jack Creek (G. Johnson, NDOW, pers.
comm. 1998). Only one bull trout had been observed at the four
transects in 1992 (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However, it is premature
to consider bull trout extirpated in Jack Creek (Service 1998b). There
is no information on whether bull trout have been extirpated from other
Jarbidge River headwater tributaries.
It is estimated that between 50 and 125 bull trout spawn throughout
the Jarbidge River basin annually (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However,
exact spawning sites and timing are uncertain (Johnson, pers. comm.
1998) and only two redds have been observed in the basin (Ramsey, in
litt. 1997; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). Presumed spawning streams have
been identified by records of one or more small bull trout (about 76 mm
(3 in)).
Population trend information for bull trout in the Jarbidge River
subpopulation is not available, although the current characteristics of
bull trout in the basin (i.e., low numbers and disjunct distribution)
have been described as similar to that observed in the 1950's (Johnson
and Weller 1994). Based on recent surveys, the subpopulation is
considered ``depressed.'' Past and present activities within the basin
are likely restricting bull trout migration in the Jarbidge River, thus
reducing opportunities for bull trout reestablishment in areas where
the fish are no longer found (Service 1998b).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Much of the historical information regarding bull trout in the St.
Mary-Belly River DPS is anecdotal and abundance information is limited.
Bull trout probably entered the system via postglacial dispersal routes
from the Columbia River through either the Kootenai River or Flathead
River systems (Fredenberg et al. 1996). The St. Mary River system
historically contained native bull trout, lake trout, and westslope
cutthroat trout. Although abundance of these fishes is unknown, the
presence of lake trout suggests that migratory bull trout were
primarily fluvial and not adfluvial (Donald and Alger 1993). Within the
St. Mary River system, historic accounts of bull trout date to the
1930's (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Historic distribution of bull trout in
the Belly River basin is limited but migratory bull trout from Canada
likely spawned in the North Fork and mainstem Belly Rivers.
Both migratory (fluvial) and resident life-history forms are
present (Fredenberg et al. 1996), but bull trout within the St. Mary-
Belly River DPS are isolated and fragmented by irrigation dams and
diversions (Fredenberg et al. 1996; R. Wagner, Service, pers. comm.
1998). Bull trout that migrate across the international border are
dependent upon the relatively undisturbed water quality and spawning
habitat located in the upper St. Mary and Belly rivers and their
tributaries (Fredenberg et al. 1996).
Based on natural and artificial barriers to fish passage within the
St. Mary-Belly River DPS, the Service identified four bull trout
subpopulations-- (1) upper St. Mary River (from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) diversion structure on lower St. Mary Lake upstream
to St. Mary Falls, including Swiftcurrent and Boulder creeks below Lake
Sherburne, and Red Eagle and Divide creeks); (2) Swiftcurrent Creek
(including tributaries and Lake Sherburne and Cracker Lake); (3) lower
St. Mary River (St. Mary River downstream of the USBR diversion
structure including Kennedy, Otatso, and Lee creeks); and (4) Belly
River (mainstem and North Fork Belly River) (Service 1998c). The
current status of the bull trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly
River DPS is ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and
life-history information is available (Service 1998c).
In summary, little information is available on the abundance,
trends in abundance, and distribution of bull trout in the Coastal-
Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSs. The
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment includes the only anadromous
bull trout found in the coterminous United States. The population
segment is composed of 35 ``native char'' subpopulations of which bull
trout have been confirmed in 12 of 15 subpopulations examined. The
remaining 20 subpopulations consist of ``native char'' that may include
bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species. At this time, Dolly Varden
only have been confirmed in three subpopulations. The
[[Page 31699]]
status of the lower Skagit River subpopulation is considered ``strong''
and nine additional subpopulations ``depressed.'' The Jarbidge River
population segment consists of one subpopulation found in the East Fork
and West Fork Jarbidge River and headwater tributaries in Nevada. The
population segment is isolated from other bull trout by a large expanse
of unsuitable habitat. Migratory fish (fluvial) may be present in low
abundance, but resident fish are the predominant life-history form. The
total population size is low, with spawner abundance throughout the
basin estimated to be from 50 to 125 fish. The status of the Jarbidge
River population segment of bull trout is considered ``depressed.'' The
St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout is composed of
four subpopulations and represents the only area of bull trout range
east of the Continental Divide within the coterminous United States.
Migratory fish occur in three of the subpopulations and the life-
history form in the fourth subpopulation is unknown. The status of bull
trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS is ``unknown.''
Previous Federal Action
On September 18, 1985, the Service published an animal notice of
review in the Federal Register (50 FR 37958) designating the bull trout
a category 2 candidate for listing in the coterminous United States. At
that time, a category 2 species was one for which conclusive data on
biological vulnerability and threats was not available to support a
proposed rule. The Service published updated notices of review for
animals on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and November 21, 1991 (56 FR
58804), reconfirming the bull trout's category 2 status. The Service
discontinued using category designations upon publication of a February
28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596) and now maintains a list of
candidate species. Candidate species are those for which the Service
has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threats to support a proposal to list the species as threatened or
endangered. The Service elevated the bull trout in the coterminous
United States to candidate status on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).
On October 30, 1992, the Service received a petition to list the
bull trout as an endangered species throughout its range from the
following conservation organizations in Montana--Alliance for the Wild
Rockies, Inc., Friends of the Wild Swan, and Swan View Coalition
(petitioners). The petitioners also requested an emergency listing and
concurrent critical habitat designation for bull trout populations in
select aquatic ecosystems where the biological information indicates
that the species is in imminent threat of extinction. A 90-day finding,
published on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28849), determined that the
petitioners had provided substantial information indicating that
listing of the species may be warranted. The Service initiated a range-
wide status review of the species concurrent with publication of the
90-day finding.
On June 6, 1994, the Service concluded in the original finding that
listing of bull trout throughout its range was not warranted due to
unavailable or insufficient data regarding threats to, and status and
population trends of, the species within Canada and Alaska. However,
the Service determined that sufficient information on the biological
vulnerability and threats to the species was available to support a
warranted finding to list bull trout within the coterminous United
States. Because the Service concluded that the threats were imminent
and moderate to bull trout in the coterminous United States, the
Service gave the bull trout within the coterminous United States a
listing priority number of 9. As a result, the Service found that
listing a distinct vertebrate population segment consisting of bull
trout residing in the coterminous United States was warranted but
precluded due to higher priority listing actions.
On November 1, 1994, Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. and Alliance
for the Wild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit in the U.S. District
Court of Oregon (Court) arguing that the warranted but precluded
finding was arbitrary and capricious. After the Service issued a
``recycled'' 12-month finding for the population segment of bull trout
in the coterminous United States on June 12, 1995, the Court issued an
order declaring the plaintiffs' challenge to the original finding moot.
The plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint and appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the plaintiffs'
challenge fell ``within the exception to the mootness doctrine for
claims that are capable of repetition yet evading review.'' On April 2,
1996, the circuit court remanded the case back to the district court.
On November 13, 1996, the Court issued an order and opinion remanding
the original finding to the Service for further consideration. Included
in the instructions from the Court were requirements that the Service
limit its review to the 1994 administrative record, and incorporate any
emergency listings or high magnitude threat determinations into current
listing priorities. In addition, reliance on other Federal agency plans
and actions was precluded. The reconsidered 12-month finding based on
the 1994 administrative record was delivered to the Court on March 13,
1997.
On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a motion for mandatory
injunction to compel the Service to issue a proposed rule to list the
Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations within 30 days
based solely on the 1994 administrative record. In response to this
motion, the Service ``concluded that the law of this case requires the
publication of a proposed rule'' to list the two warranted populations.
On April 4, 1997, the Service requested 60 days to prepare and review
the proposed rule. In a stipulation between the Service and plaintiffs
filed with the Court on April 11, 1997, the Service agreed to issue a
proposed rule in 60 days to list the Klamath River population of bull
trout as endangered and the Columbia River population of bull trout as
threatened based solely on the 1994 record. Based upon the Court
agreement and stipulation, and information contained solely in the 1994
record, the Service proposed to list the Klamath River population of
bull trout as endangered and Columbia River population of bull trout as
threatened on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32268).
The plaintiffs then challenged the Service's determination that
listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River,
and Saskatchewan River population segments of bull trout. On December
4, 1997, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider its designation of
five distinct bull trout population segments, as well as its
determination that listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget
Sound population. In compliance with the Court's order, the Service
reviewed the original 1994 administrative record, as well as a
substantial body of new information on the status of bull trout. In
light of that review, the Service has reached two conclusions. First,
the Service determined that its designation of five distinct population
segments remains valid, but has modified the boundraries of two to
those segments-- the Coastal-Puget Sound segment and the Saskatchewan
River segment-- to include only those portions within the coterminous
United States. The Service now refers to the portion of the
Saskatchewan River segment that is in the United States as the St.
Mary-Belly River segment. Second, the Service has determined that the
listing is warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge
[[Page 31700]]
River, and St. Mary-Belly River distinct population segments.
The Service published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years
1998 and 1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the
order in which the Service will process rulemakings giving highest
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second
priority (Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to
add species to the Lists, processing new proposals to add species to
the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions (to add
species to the Lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species),
and processing a limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or
reclassify species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed
or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this
proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.
Summary of Factors Affecting These Species
Procedures found in section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR
part 424) promulgated to implement the Act set forth the procedures for
adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Land and water management activities that degrade and continue to
threaten all of the bull trout distinct population segments in the
coterminous United States include dams, forest management practices,
livestock grazing, agriculture and agricultural diversions, roads, and
mining (Beschta et al. 1987; Chamberlain et al. 1991; Furniss et al.
1991; Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Sedell and Everest 1991; Craig
and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et al.
1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) 1995, 1996, 1997; Light et al.
1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-h).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Bull trout are often migratory (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt
1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW) 1995; McPhail and Baxter 1996). In the Coastal-Puget Sound
population segment, migratory ``native char'' exhibit both anadromous
and fluvial strategies. Flood control structures, hydroelectric
projects, water diversion structures including irrigation withdrawals,
forest practices, agricultural cultivation, grazing, urbanization, and
industrial development have all contributed to degradation of migratory
corridors used by bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence et al.
1996; WDFW 1997a).
In the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, eight subpopulations (four
currently determined solely as bull trout based on genetic samples) are
currently known to be isolated or fragmented as a result of man-made
barriers. These are the lower Elwha River, upper Elwha River, South
Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Cushman Reservoir, Gorge
Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork
Nooksack River (Service 1998a).
Past forest management activities have contributed to degraded
watershed conditions, including increased sedimentation of bull trout
habitat (Salo and Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Bisson et al. 1992; USDA et
al. 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). These activities
continue to negatively affect ``native char'' in the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment. Timber harvest and road building in riparian
areas reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, large woody
debris recruitment, and increase sedimentation and peak stream flows
(Chamberlin et al. 1991). These can alternatively lead to increased
stream temperatures and bank erosion, and decreased long-term stream
productivity.
Strict cold water temperature requirements make bull trout
particularly vulnerable to activities that warm spawning and rearing
waters (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Increased
temperature reduces habitat suitability, which can exacerbate
fragmentation within and between subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). Of the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment, 11 are likely affected by elevated stream
temperatures as a result of past forest practices (lower Nooksack
River, Stillaguamish River, Skykomish-Snohomish River, Green River,
White River, Nisqually River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish
River, Goodman Creek, Copalis River, Moclips River, and Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor) (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Williams et al. 1975; Hiss
and Knudsen 1993; WDFW 1997a; WDOE 1997a). Bull trout have been
confirmed in 3 of these ``native char'' subpopulations (Green River,
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Skykomish-Snohomish
River).
Road construction and maintenance account for a majority of man-
induced sediment loads to streams in forested areas (Shepard et al.
1984; Cederholm and Reid 1987; Furniss et al. 1991). Sedimentation
affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering substrate composition,
reducing interstitial space, and causing braiding of channels (Rieman
and McIntyre 1993), which reduce carrying capacity. Sedimentation
negatively affects bull trout embryo survival and juvenile bull trout
rearing densities (Shepard et al. 1984; Pratt 1992). In National
Forests in Washington, large deep pools have been reduced 58 percent
due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as
boulders and large wood (USDA et al. 1993). The effects of
sedimentation from roads and logging are prevalent in basins containing
10 ``native char'' subpopulations (Nooksack, Skykomish, Stillaguamish,
Puyallup, upper Cedar, Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, and Coastal
Plain-Quinault basins) (HCCC 1995; ONF 1995a,b; S. Noble and S.
Spalding, Service, in litt. 1995; WDFW 1997a, WDOE 1997a). Bull trout
have been confirmed in six of these subpopulations (upper Cedar,
Skokomish, Dungeness, Queets, Quinault, and Skykomish basins).
A recent assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem
revealed that increasing road densities and associated effects caused
declines in four non-anadromous salmonid species (bull trout,
Yellowstone cutthrout trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband
trout) within the basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Bull trout were
less likely to use highly roaded basins for spawning and rearing, and
if present, were likely to be at lower population levels (Quigley and
Arbelbide 1997). Quigley et al. (1996) demonstrated that when average
road densities were between 0.4 to 1.1 km/km2 (0.7 and 1.7
mi/mi2) on USFS lands, the proportion of subwatersheds
supporting ``strong'' populations of key salmonids dropped
substantially. Higher road densities caused further declines. When USFS
lands were compared to lands administered by all other entities at a
given road density, the proportion of lands supporting ``strong'' bull
trout populations was lower on lands administered by other entities.
Although this assessment was conducted east of the Cascade Mountain
Range, effects
[[Page 31701]]
from high road densities may be more severe in western Washington.
Higher precipitation west of the Cascade Mountains increases the
frequency of surface erosion and mass wasting (USDI et al. 1996b).
Limited data concerning road densities are available for the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS; however, two bull trout subpopulations (lower
Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River and Chester Morse Reservoir) occur in
basins with road densities greater than 1.1 km/km2 (1.7 mi/
mi2). The effects of relatively high road density on aquatic
habitat may contribute to the ``depressed'' status of these two
``native char'' subpopulations. Other basins containing ``native char''
subpopulations also have relatively high road densities, ranging from
1.5 to 3.0 km/km2 (2.4 to 4.8 mi/mi2), in
portions of the Queets River basin (ONF 1995a; Cederholm and Reid
1987). ``Native char'' in these areas are likely negatively affected by
the presence of roads.
Approximately 65 percent of the ``native char'' subpopulations
within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS are affected by past or present
forest management activities. Areas not affected by such activities
occur primarily within National Parks or Wilderness Areas. Five
``native char'' subpopulations lie completely within National Parks and
Wilderness Areas withdrawn from timber harvest. These are the upper
Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir,
and Ross Reservoir. The status of these ``native char'' subpopulations
is ``unknown'' at this time. However, all but the upper Quinault River
subpopulation are threatened by non-native brook trout (see Factor D).
Of these five ``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has
been examined in two, and only the upper Quinault River subpopulation
is known to contain bull trout. Eleven ``native char'' subpopulations
(lower Quinault River, Queets River, Hoh River, upper Elwha River,
lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, upper Dungeness River, upper
North Fork Skokomish River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish
River, lower Skagit River, and Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek) lie
partially within withdrawn Federal areas. Species composition has been
examined in seven subpopulations, and bull trout were confirmed in six
(Queets River, upper Elwha River, Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River,
Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish River, and lower Skagit River).
Agricultural practices and associated activities can affect bull
trout and their habitat. Irrigation withdrawals including diversions
can dewater spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and
migration, and cause entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms
suspended in water are pulled through a pump or other device).
Discharging pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals,
animal waste and sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also
detrimental (Spence et al. 1996). Agricultural practices regularly
include stream channelization and diking, large woody debris and
riparian vegetation removal, and bank armoring (Spence et al. 1996).
Improper livestock grazing can promote streambank erosion and
sedimentation, and limit the growth of riparian vegetation important
for temperature control, streambank stability, fish cover, and detrital
input. In addition, grazing can increase input of organic nutrients
into streams (Platts 1991). Ten ``native char'' subpopulations in the
Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (Carbon River, White River, Puyallup River,
Stillaguamish River, lower Skagit River, lower Nooksack River, Green
River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Dungeness River-
Gray Wolf River, and Chehalis River-Grays Harbor) are negatively
affected by past or ongoing agricultural or livestock grazing practices
(Williams et al. 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993; Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDF) et al. 1993; HCCC 1995; ONF 1995b; WDFW 1997a). Species
composition has been examined in five of these subpopulations, and bull
trout were confirmed in four (Green River, Carbon River, South Fork-
lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River).
Dams constructed with poorly designed fish passage or without fish
passage create barriers to migratory bull trout, precluding access to
former spawning, rearing, and migration habitats. Dams disrupt the
connectivity within and between watersheds essential for maintaining
aquatic ecosystem function (Naiman et al. 1992; Spence et al. 1996) and
bull trout subpopulation interaction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Natural recolonization of historically occupied sites can be precluded
by migration barriers (e.g., McCloud Dam in California (Rode 1990)).
Within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, there are at least 41 existing or
proposed hydroelectric projects regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) that are within watersheds supporting bull
trout (G. Stagner, Service, in litt. 1997). Of the 41 projects or
proposals, 17 are currently operating and most are run-of-the-river
small hydroelectric projects. Negotiated instream flows for these
projects have been primarily based on resident cutthroat or rainbow
trout flow requirements, and may not meet the needs of species with
different life-history strategies, such as bull trout (T. Bodurtha,
Service, in litt. 1995). Of the 41 existing or proposed projects, fish
passage has not been addressed for 28 (Stagner, in litt. 1997). In
addition, the Service is aware of 10 water diversions or other dams,
not regulated by FERC, currently operating in watersheds with ``native
char''. None of these 10 facilities provide for upstream fish passage.
Dams on the Middle Fork Nooksack, Skagit, Baker (Skagit tributary),
Green, Puyallup, White, Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha rivers are
barriers to upstream fish migration and have fragmented populations of
``native char'' within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. A draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been published for three
proposed hydroelectric projects on Skagit River tributaries, and a
final EIS recommends two proposed hydroelectric projects on the lower
Nooksack River. This illustrates that FERC is close to licensing
decisions on these projects.
Urbanization has led to decreased habitat complexity (uniform
stream channels and simple nonfunctional riparian areas), impediments
and blockages to fish passage, increased surface runoff (more frequent
and severe flooding), and decreased water quality and quantity (Spence
et al. 1996). In the Puget Sound area, human population growth is
predicted to increase by 20 percent between 1987 and 2000, requiring a
62 percent increase in land area developed (Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority (PSWQA) 1988 in Spence et al. 1996). The effects of
urbanization, concentrated at the lower most reaches of rivers within
Puget Sound, primarily affect ``native char'' migratory corridors and
rearing habitats. Six ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, Puyallup River,
White River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, and
Stillaguamish River) are known to be negatively affected by
urbanization (Williams et al. 1975; WDFW 1997a).
Mining can degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy
metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream
channels and flow (Martin and Platts 1981). Although not currently
active, mining in the Nooksack River basin, where ``native char''
occur, has adversely affected streams. For example, the Excelsior Mine
on the upper North Fork Nooksack River was active at the turn of the
[[Page 31702]]
century and mining spoils were placed directly into Wells Creek (Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) 1995), a known spawning stream
for ``native char.'' Spoils in and adjacent to the stream may continue
to be sources of sediment and heavy metals.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
Although timber was historically removed from the Jarbidge River
basin, forest management is not thought to be a major factor currently
affecting bull trout habitat. The steep terrain of the Jarbidge River
basin has been a deterrent to grazing (J. Frederick, HNF, in litt.
1998a); and grazing does not occur in approximately 60 percent of the
watershed. Although much of the remaining 40 percent of public and
private lands are grazed, the effects are localized and considered of
relatively minor importance to bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge River
basin. For example, livestock grazing is affecting about 3.2 km (2 mi)
of the East Fork Jarbidge River and portions of Dave Creek and Jack
Creek (Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998).
Ongoing threats affecting bull trout habitat have maintained
degraded conditions in the West Fork Jarbidge River (McNeill et al.
1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). At least
11.2 km (7 mi) of the West Fork Jarbidge River has been affected by
over a century of human activities such as road development and
maintenance, historic mining and adit (horizontal passage from the
surface in a mine) drainage, channelization and removal of large woody
debris, residential development, and road and campground development on
USFS lands (McNeill et al. 1997). As a result of these activities, the
riparian canopy and much of the upland forest has been removed,
recruitment of large woody debris has been reduced, and channel
stability has decreased (McNeill et al. 1997; Ramsey, in litt. 1997;
Frederick, in litt. 1998a). These activities reduce habitat complexity
and likely elevate water temperatures seasonally. For example, water
temperatures recorded near Bluster Bridge were 15 to 17 deg.C (59 to
63 deg.F) for 24 days in 1997.
Culverts installed at road crossings may act as barriers to bull
trout movement in the Jarbidge River basin. For example, an Elko County
road culvert had prevented upstream movement of bull trout in Jack
Creek, a West Fork Jarbidge River tributary, for approximately 17
years. Private and public funding was used to replace the culvert with
a bridge in the fall of 1997 (Frederick, in litt. 1998b); however, a
rock structure approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) upstream from the bridge
in Jack Creek may still impede bull trout movement, at least seasonally
during low flows.
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Forest management practices, livestock grazing, and mining are not
thought to be major factors affecting bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly
River DPS. However, bull trout subpopulations are fragmented and
isolated by dams and diversions (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Specifically,
the USBR diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary Lake is an
unscreened trans-basin diversion (i.e., transferring water to the
Missouri River drainage via the Milk River) that threatens bull trout.
This diversion restricts upstream bull trout passage into the upper St.
Mary River. Consequently, migratory (fluvial) bull trout are prevented
from reaching suitable spawning habitat in Divide and Red Eagle creeks
(Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly, the
irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne) physically blocks
bull trout passage into the upper watershed (Fredenberg et al. 1996;
Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).
In addition to the dams physically isolating subpopulations, the
associated diversions seasonally dewater the streams, effectively
decreasing available habitat for migratory and resident bull trout
(Fredenberg et al. 1996). The diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary
Lake may result in a reduction (up to 50 percent) of instream flow,
possibly affecting juvenile and adult bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm.
1998). The diversion is unscreened and recent information suggests
downstream loss through entrainment of bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm.
1998). Similarly, the irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake
Sherburne) seasonally dewaters the creek downstream, effectively
eliminating habitat (Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Declines in bull trout have prompted states to institute
restrictive fishing regulations and eliminate the harvest of bull trout
in most waters in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Montana.
Recent observations of increased numbers of adult bull trout in some
areas have been attributed to more restrictive regulations. However,
illegal harvest and incidental harvest still threaten bull trout in
some areas.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Fishing for ``native char'' is currently closed in most of the
waters within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment. Most of these
closures were implemented in 1994. Areas where harvest of ``native
char'' is still allowed are the mainstem Skagit River and several of
its tributaries (Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck and Sauk rivers) (508-mm
(20-in) minimum size limit); the Snohomish River mainstem and the
Skykomish River below the forks (508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit and
2 fish daily bag limit) (WDFW 1997a); and portions of the Quinault and
Queets rivers that are within the Quinault Indian Reservation (QIN)
boundary (4 fish daily bag limit with no minimum size restriction) (S.
Chitwood, Quinault Indian Nation, pers. comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a).
Olympic National Park has catch-and-release regulations for ``native
char'' in all park waters. Fishing for bull trout in Mount Rainier
National Park is prohibited. There is likely some mortality from
incidental hook and release of ``native char'' in fisheries targeting
other species, especially in streams where restrictive angling
regulations (i.e., artificial flies or lures with barbless single hook,
bait prohibited) have not been established.
The objective of the 508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit is to allow
most females to spawn at least once before harvest (WDFW 1997a),
however, there is concern that this size limit will have minimal
effects in conserving bull trout (J. Johnston, WDFW, pers. comm. 1995).
The regulation protects smaller fish, but older, larger fish are more
fecund and able to use a greater range of substrates for spawning
(Johnston, pers. comm. 1995). Regulations on the Quinault Indian
Reservation in the lower Quinault River and Queets River systems offer
less bull trout conservation opportunity because there is no minimum
size limit to allow most females to reach maturity before being subject
to harvest. Areas of the lower Quinault and Queets rivers outside of
the Quinault Indian Reservation have been closed to harvest for
``native char'' (WDFW 1997a).
In 1993, WDFW increased the catch limit for brook trout in order to
reduce interactions with bull trout (WDFW 1995). The liberalization of
the brook trout catch has the potential to increase harvest of bull
trout due to misidentification by anglers. In a Montana study, only 40
percent of the anglers surveyed correctly identified bull trout out of
six species of salmonids found locally (M. Long and S. Whalen,
[[Page 31703]]
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), in litt. 1997).
Poaching is considered a factor negatively affecting ``native
char'' in nine drainages within the Coastal-Puget Sound population
segment. These are the South Fork Nooksack River, North Fork Nooksack
River (above and below the falls), Sauk River and tributaries, North
Fork Skykomish River, Chester Morse Reservoir, lower Dungeness River-
Gray Wolf River, Hoh River, Goodman Creek, and Morse Creek (WDW 1992;
Mongillo 1993; WDFW 1997a).
Jarbidge River Population Segment
Overutilization by angling was a concern in the past for the
Jarbidge River DPS of bull trout. Although Idaho prohibited harvest of
bull trout beginning in 1995, Nevada, until recently, allowed harvest
of up to 10 trout per day, including bull trout, in the Jarbidge River
basin. An estimated 100 to 400 bull trout were harvested annually in
the Jarbidge River basin (Johnson 1990; P. Coffin, Service, pers. comm.
1994; Coffin, in litt. 1995). Nevada State regulations were recently
amended to allow only catch-and-release of bull trout starting March 1,
1998 (G. Weller, NDOW, in litt. 1997; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). We
anticipate that this change in the regulations will have a positive
effect on conservation of bull trout, however, the effects of the new
harvest regulations may require five years to evaluate (Johnson, pers.
comm. 1998).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Historically, the harvest of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River
DPS was considered ``extensive'' (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Currently,
legal angler harvest in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS only occurs on the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation, which has a five fish per day limit
(Fredenberg et al. 1996).
In 1994, at least 19 adult and subadult bull trout were harvested
in gill nets set for a commercial fishery for lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis) in lower St. Mary Lake (Blackfeet Tribe, in litt. 1998).
Given the apparent low abundance of adult bull trout in the upper St.
Mary Lake subpopulation, and restricted migration opportunities over
the USBR diversion on lower St. Mary Lake, any harvest of bull trout
from this subpopulation represents a threat. Record-keeping by the two
commercial fishers is a requirement of the Blackfeet Tribal Fish and
Game Commission, but not strictly enforced.
C. Disease and Predation
Diseases affecting salmonids are present or likely present in the
Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly DPSs, but are
not thought to be a factor threatening bull trout. However,
interspecific interactions, including predation, likely negatively
affect bull trout where non-native salmonids have been introduced (J.
Palmisano and V. Kaczynski, Northwest Forestry Resources Council
(NFRC), in litt. 1997).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Disease is not believed to be a factor in the decline of bull trout
in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. Outbreaks of the parasite
Dermocystidium salmonis in the lower Elwha River may negatively affect
``native char'' in years of high chinook salmon returns (K. Amos, WDFW,
pers. comm. 1997). The susceptibility of bull trout to the parasite is
unknown. There is concern about whirling disease (Myxobolus
cerebralis), which occurs in wild trout waters of western states, but
it has not been documented in Washington (Bergersen and Anderson 1997).
Apparently, most species of salmonids are susceptible to the organism,
and it has been diagnosed in Dolly Varden (Post 1987). However,
laboratory testing indicates that bull trout may be one of the least
susceptible salmonids (McDowell et al. 1997). It is not currently
treatable in the wild.
Predation is not considered a primary factor in the decline of
Coastal-Puget Sound ``native char'' and bull trout. However, the recent
discovery of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Cushman
Reservoir on the Skokomish River may potentially affect the bull trout
subpopulation (S. Brenkman, Oregon State University, pers. comm. 1997;
WDFW 1997a). Warm-water species (centrarchids and percids), which may
prey on ``native char,'' are also established in portions of the
Sammamish River system and Lake Washington.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the
survival of bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the
survival of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River basin. However, non-
native brook trout are present and may prey on juvenile bull trout.
Whirling disease has also been documented in numerous Missouri River
watersheds in central Montana.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although efforts are underway to assist in conserving bull trout
throughout the coterminous U.S. (e.g., Batt 1996; R. Joslin, USFS, in
litt. 1997; A. Thomas, BLM, in litt. 1997), the implementation and
enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve
fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat
have not been sufficient to prevent past and ongoing habitat
degradation leading to bull trout declines and isolation. Regulatory
mechanisms, including the National Forest Management Act, the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act,
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal
Power Act, State Endangered Species Acts and numerous State laws and
regulations oversee an array of land and water management activities
that affect bull trout and their habitat.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
In April 1994, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior adopted
the Northwest Forest Plan for management of late-successional forests
within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina) (USDA and USDI 1994a). This plan set forth objectives,
standards, and guidelines to provide for a functional late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystem. Included in the plan is an aquatic
conservation strategy involving riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and habitat restoration. Approximately 22 percent
of the total acreage within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment
lies within USFS jurisdiction, and would thus be subject to Northwest
Forest Plan standards and guidelines (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in
litt. 1996). An assessment panel determined that the proposed standards
and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan would result in an 85
percent future likelihood of attaining sufficient aquatic habitat to
support well-distributed populations of bull trout on Federal lands
(USDA and USDI 1994b). Almost all projects developed under the
Northwest Forest Plan in this DPS have been determined to have ``no
effect'' on bull trout. However, existing habitat conditions are
severely degraded in many subbasins. Effects from past land management
activities can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future in
the form of increased stream
[[Page 31704]]
temperatures, altered stream flows, sedimentation, and lack of instream
cover. These effects can be exacerbated due to future slides, road
failures, and debris torrents. Many of these aquatic systems will
require decades to fully recover (USDA et al.1993). Until then, future
habitat losses can be expected due to past activities, potentially
resulting in local extirpations, migratory barriers, and reduced
reproductive success (Spence et al. 1996).
Washington State Forest Practice Rules (WFPR) apply to all State,
city, county, and private lands not currently covered under a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or other conservation agreement in Washington.
Approximately 45 percent of the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment
is held under private ownership and 1.5 percent under city or county
ownership. Bull trout face threats from ongoing and future timber
harvest activities on these lands that are in forest production. The
WFPR set forth timber harvest regulations for non-Federal and non-
Tribal forested lands in the State of Washington. These rules set
standards for timber harvest activities in and around riparian areas,
in an effort to protect aquatic resources. These riparian management
zone widths, as specified by the WFPR, do not ensure protection of the
riparian components, because the minimum widths are insufficient to
fully protect riparian ecosystems (USDI et al. 1996a). Thus, bull trout
will continue to be negatively affected by forest practices on lands
guided by the WFPR.
In January 1997, the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) entered into a multispecies HCP with the Service,
covering all WDNR-owned lands within the range of the northern spotted
owl. The WDNR HCP was initiated primarily to address the conservation
needs for old-growth forest dependent species, northern spotted owl,
and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), while
allowing WDNR to meet its trust responsibilities to the State. The HCP
also addresses the conservation needs of other terrestrial and aquatic
species on WDNR lands. Approximately 10 percent of the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment is in State ownership and is managed under the
HCP. The HCP specifically provides Riparian Conservation Strategies
designed to maintain the integrity and function of freshwater stream
habitat necessary for the health and persistence of aquatic species,
especially salmonids. Road maintenance and network planning strategies
included in the HCP also play important roles in protecting aquatic
habitats, but are often reliant on the Riparian Conservation Strategy
stream buffers for complete protection.
If fully and properly implemented, the HCP should aid in the
restoration and protection of freshwater salmonid habitat on the
Olympic Peninsula and the areas on the west slope of the Cascades.
There are still continued threats to bull trout subpopulations on State
lands even with the HCP in place. For example, the HCP states,
``Adverse impacts to salmonid habitat will continue to occur because
past forest practices have left a legacy of degraded riparian
ecosystems, deforested unstable hillslopes, and a poorly planned and
maintained road network'' (WDNR 1997). Areas that have been logged in
the past will take decades to fully recover. In addition, ``Some
components of the riparian conservation strategy require on-site
management decisions, and adverse impacts to salmonid habitat may occur
inadvertently. For example, timber harvesting in the riparian buffer
must ``maintain or restore salmonid habitat'', but, at present, the
amount of timber harvesting in riparian ecosystems compatible with high
quality salmonid habitat is unknown'' (WDNR 1997).
In 1992, the Washington Department of Wildlife (now the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife) developed a draft bull trout-Dolly
Varden management and recovery plan. In 1995, WDFW released a draft EIS
for the management plan. The plan establishes a goal of restoring and
maintaining the health and diversity of ``native char'' stocks and
their habitats in the State of Washington (WDFW 1995). At this time,
the management plan has not been finalized and implemented. The Wild
Salmonid Policy has been described as an umbrella document to the
management plan, and in an effort to avoid contradicting documents,
WDFW has postponed finalizing the plan.
Since 1994, WDFW has been in the process of developing a Wild
Salmonid Policy (WSP) to address management of all native salmonids in
the State. In September 1997, WDFW released the final EIS for the WSP.
The policy establishes a goal to protect, restore, and enhance the
productivity, production, and diversity of wild salmonids and their
ecosystems to sustain ceremonial, subsistence, commercial, and
recreational fisheries; non-consumptive fish benefits; and related
cultural and ecological values well into the future (WDFW 1997b). The
WSP, in its current form, may not adequately protect sensitive salmonid
species such as bull trout because the primary focus is wild salmon and
steelhead. Although other wild salmonids, including bull trout, are
referred to in an ancillary manner in the document, the proposed policy
does not address the unique requirements of bull trout. As a result,
proposed habitat and water quality standards (current State surface
water quality standards), originally developed with a focus on salmon,
may fall short in protection for bull trout. The final EIS is not
considered a policy document to direct WDFW. The EIS describes a set of
alternatives presented to the Washington State Fish and Wildlife
Commission (Commission). The Commission has the final responsibility
for taking action on the preferred alternative and recommending policy
direction. When implemented, the policy would present guidelines for
actions that WDFW must follow, but would not be binding on other state,
tribal, or private entities. The publication of a WSP will likely occur
in the near future, but the format and exact content of the document is
unknown. Given the uncertainties surrounding implementation of the plan
and lack of specificity concerning bull trout, possible benefits to
bull trout can not be evaluated.
Section 305(b) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires states
to identify water bodies biennially that are not expected to meet State
surface water quality standards (WDOE 1996). These waters are reported
in the Section 303(d) list of water quality limited streams. The
Washington State 303(d) list (WDOE 1997a) reflects the poor condition
of lower stream reaches of some systems containing bull trout and Dolly
Varden. At least 30 stream reaches, occupied by 14 subpopulations of
``native char'', are listed on the Washington State proposed 1998
303(d) list of water quality impaired streams (WDOE 1997a). Waters on
the 303(d) list that inhibit these subpopulations because of
temperature exceedances are--Chehalis River-Grays Harbor, lower
Quinault River, Hoh River, lower Elwha River, Nisqually River, White
River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, Stillaguamish
River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout have been identified in one
of these subpopulations (Green River). The State temperature standards
are likely inadequate for bull trout because temperatures in excess of
15 deg.C (59 deg.F) are thought to limit bull trout distribution
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993) and the State temperature standard for the
highest class of waters is 16 deg.C (61 deg.F).
Waters on the 303(d) list that do not meet instream flow standards
and
[[Page 31705]]
contain ``native char'' subpopulation include--Dungeness River-Gray
Wolf River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Puyallup
River, lower Skagit River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout are
known to occur in three of these subpopulations (Dungeness River-Gray
Wolf River; South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River; and lower
Skagit River). Although minimum instream flow requirements for bull
trout have not been determined, variable stream flows and low winter
flows are thought to negatively influence the embryos and alevins (a
young fish which has not yet absorbed its yolk sac) of bull trout
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Subpopulations in waters that occur on the 303(d) list for not
meeting the standards for dissolved oxygen are--Chehalis River-Grays
Harbor and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek (WDOE 1997a). Although no
dissolved oxygen standards have been developed for bull trout, poor
water quality and highly degraded migratory corridors may hinder or
interrupt migration (Spence et al. 1996), leading to the further
fragmentation of habitat and isolation of bull trout.
Surface waters are assigned to one of five classes under the Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (WAC
173-201A-130). These classes are AA (extraordinary), A (excellent), B
(good), C (fair) and Lake class. For each of these classes a set of
criteria have been established for water quality parameters such as
temperature, fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and toxic
deleterious material concentrations. With the exception of dissolved
oxygen, parameters are not to exceed the maximum levels specified for
each class. Maximum water temperature criteria range from 16 deg. C
(60.8 deg.F) (Class AA), 18 deg.C (64.4 deg.F) (Class A), 21 deg.C
(69.8 deg.F) (Class B), to 22 deg.C (71.6 deg.F) (Class C). Bull trout
streams within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment have stream
segments that fall in classes AA, A, and B. Given the low temperature
requirements of bull trout, these temperature standards are inadequate
to protect bull trout spawning, rearing or migration (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993). Segments of the Quinault, Queets, Elwha, Skokomish,
Nisqually, White, Green, and Snohomish rivers do not meet existing
State standards for their respective classes. It is unknown whether the
current standards established for other water quality parameters (fecal
coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, toxic deleterious material
concentrations) within the various classes, are adequate to protect
bull trout. See Factor A for additional discussion of water quality.
Jarbidge River Population Segment
Regulatory mechanisms addressing alterations to stream channels,
riparian areas, and floodplains from road construction and maintenance,
and the effects associated with roads and past mining on water quality,
have been inadequate to protect bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge
River basin. For example, the Jarbidge Canyon Road parallels the West
Fork Jarbidge River for much of its length and includes at least seven
undersized bridges for the stream and floodplain. Maintenance of the
road and bridges requires frequent channel and floodplain modifications
that affect bull trout habitat, such as channelization; removal of
riparian trees and beaver dams; and placement of rock, sediment, and
concrete (McNeill et al. 1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Frederick,
in litt. 1998a). In 1995, debris torrents washed out a portion of the
upper Jarbidge Canyon Road above Pine Creek, and plans to reestablish
the road include channelizing the river (McNeill et al. 1997). The
Service has recommended that this road segment be closed to vehicular
traffic and that a trail be maintained to reduce the effects of the
road and its maintenance on the river (R. Williams, Service, in litt.
1998). Periodic channelization in the Jarbidge River by unknown parties
has occurred without the oversight provided by the COE Clean Water Act
section 404 regulatory program (M. Elpers, Service, pers. comm. 1998),
and the HNF has been unable to control trespass (unauthorized road
openings) on Federal lands. Several old mines (adits) are releasing
small quantities of warm water and other contaminants into the West
Fork Jarbidge River.
The Nevada water temperature standards throughout the Jarbidge
River are 21 deg.C (67 deg.F) for May through October, and 7 deg.C
(45 deg.F) for November through April, with less than 1 deg.C (2 deg.F)
change for beneficial uses (Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection (NDEP), in litt. 1998). Water temperature standards for May
through October exceed temperatures conducive to bull trout spawning,
incubation, and rearing (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Buchanan and Gregory
1997). There is no Clean Water Act section 303(d) designation in the
destabilized seven mile reach of the West Fork Jarbidge River (J.
Heggeness, NDEP, pers. comm. 1998).
In 1994, a local Bull Trout Task Force was formed to gather and
share information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River. The task force
is open to any representative from Elko and Owyhee counties, the towns
of Jarbidge (Nevada) and Murphy Hot Springs (Idaho), road districts,
private land owners, NDOW, IDFG, the Boise District of BLM, HNF, and
the Service. The task force was successful in 1997 in obtaining nearly
$150,000 for replacing the Jack Creek culvert with a concrete bridge to
facilitate bull trout passage into Jack Creek. However, the task force
has not yet developed a comprehensive conservation plan addressing all
threats to bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.
In 1995, the Humbolt National Forest plan was amended to include
the Inland Native Fish Strategy. This fish and wildlife habitat policy
sets a no net loss objective and is currently guiding possible
reconstruction of a portion of the Jarbidge Canyon Road (Ramsey 1997).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Two USBR structures likely affect bull trout by dewatering stream
reaches, acting as passage barriers, or exposing fish to entrainment
(Service 1998c). The Service is not aware that the effects of the
structures were considered in their construction (1902 and 1921) or
operation. Currently, operators attempt to minimize passage and
entrainment problems by staging the fall dewatering of the canal and
removing boards in the dam during winter. The effectiveness of the
operations has not been evaluated.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence of
bull trout include--previous introductions of non-native species that
compete, hybridize, and prey on bull trout; fragmentation and isolation
of bull trout subpopulations from habitat changes caused by human
activities; and subpopulation extirpations due to naturally occurring
events such as droughts, floods and other environmental events.
Previous introductions of non-native species by the Federal
government, State fish and game departments and unauthorized private
parties, across the range of bull trout has resulted in declines in
abundance, local extirpations, and hybridization of bull trout (Bond
1992; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and Alger
1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al. 1995;
Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-native species may
exacerbate stresses on bull trout from habitat degradation,
fragmentation, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). In some
[[Page 31706]]
lakes and rivers, introduced species, such as rainbow trout or kokanee,
may benefit large adult bull trout by providing supplemental forage
(Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993; MBTSG 1996a).
However, the same introductions of game fish can negatively affect bull
trout due to increased angling and subsequent incidental catch, illegal
harvest of bull trout, and competition for space (Rode 1990; Bond 1992;
WDW 1992; MBTSG 1995d).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Competition and hybridization with introduced brook trout threatens
the persistence of some ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS. Brook trout have been introduced into headwater areas
occupied by bull trout and ``native char''; however, the distribution
of brook trout within many of these areas appears to be limited. Brook
trout can threaten bull trout even in areas with undisturbed habitats
(e.g., National Parks). Brook trout may have a reproductive advantage
(earlier maturation) over resident bull trout, which can lead to
species replacement (Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992). At present,
portions of 14 ``native char'' subpopulations overlap with brook trout
(Sol Duc River, upper Elwha River, lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf
River, upper North Fork Skokomish River, South Fork-lower North Fork
Skokomish River, Green River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish
River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, Lower Skagit
River, upper Middle Fork Nooksack River, and Canyon Creek) (R. Glesne,
North Cascades National Park (NCNP), in litt. 1993; Mongillo and
Hallock 1993; J. Meyer, ONP, pers. comm. 1995; Morrill and McHenry
1995; Brenkman, pers. comm. 1997; B. Green, MBSNF, pers. comm. 1997).
Of the 14 subpopulations, species composition has been examined in 10
and bull trout have been confirmed in 8 (Service 1998a).
``Native char'' subpopulations that have become geographically
isolated may no longer have access to migratory corridors. ``First-,
and second-order streams in steep headwaters tend to be hydrologically
and geomorphically more unstable than large, low-gradient streams.
Thus, salmonids are being restricted to habitats where the likelihood
of extirpation because of random environmental events is greatest''
(Spence et al. 1996). ``Native char'' subpopulations likely more prone
to naturally occurring events as a result isolation are Cushman
Reservoir, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Gorge
Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, upper Middle Fork Nooksack
River, upper Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, upper Dungeness
River, and Chester Morse Reservoir (Service 1998a). Of these 10
``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has been examined
in 7 and bull trout have been confirmed in 5 (Cushman Reservoir, South
Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, upper Quinault River, Chester
Morse Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River) (Service 1998a).
Jarbidge River Populations Segment
``The smaller and more isolated parts of the range [such as the
bull trout remaining in the Owyhee Uplands ecological reporting units
or Jarbidge River basin] likely face a higher risk'' of naturally
occurring extirpation relative to other bull trout populations (Rieman
et al. 1997). One such risk is fire. In 1992, a 4,900 hectare (ha)
(12,000 acre (ac)) fire (Coffeepot Fire) occurred at lower elevations,
up to 2,286 m (7,500 ft), in areas adjacent to the Bruneau River basin
and a small portion of the Jarbidge River basin. Although the Coffeepot
Fire did not affect areas currently occupied by bull trout, similar
conditions likely exist in nearby areas where bull trout occur. Adverse
effects of fire on bull trout habitat may include loss of riparian
canopy, increased water temperature and sediment, loss of pools, mass
wasting of soils, altered hydrologic regime and debris torrents. Fires
large enough to eliminate one or two suspected spawning streams are
more likely at higher elevations where bull trout are usually found in
the Jarbidge River basin (Frederick, in litt. 1998a; Ramsey, pers.
comm. 1998b).
Hybridization with introduced brook trout is also a potential
threat. In the West Fork Jarbidge River, approximately one percent of
the harvest from the 1960's through the 1980's was brook trout (Johnson
1990). Some brook trout may spill out of Emerald Lake into the East
Fork Jarbidge River during peak runoff events, but the lake lacks a
defined outlet so that the event appears unlikely (Johnson, pers. comm.
1994). Although low numbers of brook trout persist in the Jarbidge
River basin, conditions are apparently not conducive to the expansion
of a brook trout population.
Other naturally occurring risks have been recently documented. The
Jarbidge River Watershed Analysis (McNeill et al. 1997) indicates that
65 percent of the upper West Fork Jarbidge River basin has a 45 percent
or greater slope. Debris from high spring runoff flows in the various
high gradient side drainages such as Snowslide, Gorge, and Bonanza
gulches provide the West Fork Jarbidge River with large volumes of
angular rock material. This material has moved down the gulches at
regular intervals, altering the river channel and damaging the Jarbidge
River Canyon road, culverts, and bridge crossings. Most of the river
flows are derived from winter snowpack in the high mountain watershed,
with peak flows corresponding with spring snowmelt, typically in May
and June (McNeill et al. 1997). Rain on snow events earlier in the year
(January and February) can cause extensive flooding problems and has
the potential for mass-wasting, debris torrents, and earth slumps,
which could threaten the existence of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge
River and tributary streams. In June, 1995, a rain on snow event
triggered debris torrents from three of the high gradient tributaries
to the Jarbidge River in the upper watershed (McNeill et al. 1997). The
relationship between these catastrophic events and the history of
intensive livestock grazing, burning to promote livestock forage,
timber harvest and recent fire control in the Jarbidge River basin is
unclear. However, debris torrents may potentially affect the long-term
viability of the Jarbidge River bull trout subpopulation.
St. Mary-Belly Population Segment
Non-native species are pervasive throughout the St. Mary and Belly
rivers (Fitch 1994; Fredenberg et al. 1996; Clayton 1997). Brook,
brown, and rainbow trout have been widely introduced in the area. The
Service is not aware of any studies conducted in the DPS evaluating the
effects of introduced non-native fishes on bull trout. However, because
brook trout occur in the four bull trout subpopulations, competition
and hybridization are threats in the St. Mary and Belly rivers (Service
1998c), especially on resident bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and
St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout in determining
to propose this rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is
to list the bull trout as threatened in each of the three population
segments. Determinations by distinct population segment follow:
Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull trout and ``native char'' in the Coastal-
Puget
[[Page 31707]]
Sound population segment, despite their relative widespread
distribution, have declined in abundance and distribution within many
individual river basins. Bull trout and ``native char'' currently occur
as 35 isolated subpopulations, which indicates the level of habitat
fragmentation and geographic isolation. Eight subpopulations are
isolated by dams or other diversion structures, with at least 17 dams
proposed in streams inhabited by other bull trout or ``native char''
subpopulations. Bull trout and ``native char'' continue to be
threatened by the effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation,
blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, harvest, and
introduced non-native species.
Jarbidge River. This population segment is composed of a single
subpopulation, characterized by low numbers of resident fish.
Activities, such as mining and grazing, threaten bull trout in the
Jarbidge River basin. Although some of these activities have been
modified or discontinued in recent years, the lingering effects
continue to alter water quality, contribute to channel and bank
instability, and inhibit habitat recovery. Ongoing threats include
channel and bank alterations associated with road construction and
maintenance, a proposed stream rechannelization project, recreational
fishing (intentional and unintentional harvest), and competition with
brook trout.
St. Mary-Belly River This population segment is composed of four
subpopulations primarily isolated by dams and unsuitable habitat
conditions created by irrigation diversions. The primary threat to bull
trout are effects of introduced non-native fishes. Three of the four
subpopulations are threatened by dams and irrigation diversions.
Based on this evaluation, the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River,
and St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout are likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future, and thus, these
population segments fit the definition of threatened as defined in the
Act.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific area within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the
species and (II) that may require special management considerations or
protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is not
determinable if information sufficient to perform required analysis of
impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of the
species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an
area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Service to consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating
a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best
scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in
the extinction of the species.
The Service finds that the determination of critical habitat is not
determinable for these distinct population segments based on the best
available information. When a ``not determinable'' finding is made, the
Service must, within 2 years of the publication date of the original
proposed rule, designate critical habitat, unless the designation is
found to be not prudent. The Service reached this conclusion because
the biological needs of the species in the three population segments
are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of areas as
critical habitat. No information is available on the number of
individuals required for a viable population throughout the distinct
population segment and the extent of habitat required for recovery of
these fish has not been identified. In addition, within the Coastal-
Puget Sound bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden. These two
species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate and genetic
and morphological-meristic analyses to determine the presence or
absence of bull trout and Dolly Varden have only been conducted on 15
of the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations. The presence of bull trout in
the remaining 20 subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget Sound along with
the information noted above is considered essential for determining
critical habitat for these population segments. Therefore, the Service
finds that designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the
Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River distinct
population segments is not determinable at this time. Protection of
bull trout habitat will be addressed through the recovery process and
through section 7 consultations to determine whether Federal actions
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages and
results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
insure that activities that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
The three bull trout population segments occur on lands
administered by the USFS, NPS, and BLM; various State-owned properties
in Washington (Coastal-Puget Sound population segment), Idaho and
Nevada (Jarbidge population segment), and Montana (St. Mary-Belly River
population segment); Blackfeet Tribal lands in Montana and various
Tribal lands in Washington; and
[[Page 31708]]
private lands. Federal agency actions that may require conference or
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include COE
involvement in projects such as the construction of roads and bridges,
and the permitting of wetland filling and dredging projects subject to
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.); FERC
licensed hydropower projects authorized under the Federal Power Act;
USFS and BLM timber, recreational, mining, and grazing management
activities; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) land management activities;
Environmental Protection Agency authorized discharges under the
National Pollutant Discharge System of the Clean Water Act; NPS
activities such as construction on park lands; and U.S. Housing and
Urban Development projects.
The Act and its implementing regulations, found at 50 CFR 17.21 and
17.31, set forth a series of general trade prohibitions and exceptions
that apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part,
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are available for
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and/or for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. For threatened species, permits are also available for
zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes
consistent with the purpose of the Act. Private landowners seeking
permits under section 10 of the Act for incidental take are a means of
protecting bull trout habitat through the voluntary development of
habitat conservation plans. Information collections associated with
these permits are approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget clearance
number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning these permits
and associated requirements, see 50 CFR 17.32.
It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range.
The Service believes the following actions would not be likely to
result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Actions that may affect bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound,
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments that are
authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action
is conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by
the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act;
(2) Possession of Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.
Mary-Belly River population segments bull trout caught legally in
accordance with state fishing regulations (see Special Rule section).
With respect to the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.
Mary-Belly River bull trout population segments, the following actions
likely would be considered a violation of section 9:
(1) Take of bull trout without a permit, which includes harassing,
harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,
capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions, except in
accordance with applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws
and regulations within the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.
Mary-Belly River bull trout population segments;
(2) Possession, sale, delivery, carriage, transportation, or
shipment of illegally taken bull trout;
(3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across
state and international boundaries) and import/export of bull trout (as
discussed earlier in this section);
(4) Introduction of non-native fish species that compete or
hybridize with, or prey on bull trout;
(5) Destruction or alteration of bull trout habitat by dredging,
channelization, diversion, in-stream vehicle operation or rock removal,
or other activities that result in the destruction or significant
degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate composition,
temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging,
cover, migration, and spawning;
(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other
pollutants into waters supporting bull trout that result in death or
injury of the species; and
(7) Destruction or alteration of riparian or lakeshore habitat and
adjoining uplands of waters supporting bull trout by recreational
activities, timber harvest, grazing, mining, hydropower development, or
other developmental activities that result in destruction or
significant degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate
composition, temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species
for foraging, cover, migration, and spawning.
Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may
be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider
these lists to be exhaustive and provides them as information to the
public.
Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of
the Service's Snake River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed species and
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE.
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6241;
facsimile 503/231-6243).
Special Rule
Section 4(d) of the Act provides authority for the Service to
promulgate special rules for threatened species that would relax the
prohibition against taking. In this case, the Service proposes a
special rule for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-
Belly River bull trout distinct population segments (see ``Proposed
Regulations Promulgation'' section). The Service recognizes that
statewide angling regulations have become more restrictive in an
attempt to protect bull trout throughout Washington, Idaho, Montana,
and Nevada. The Service intends to continue to work with the States in
developing management plans and agreements with the objective of
recovery and eventual delisting (in the event that they are listed) of
the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull
trout distinct population segments. Further, the Service, acting under
the June, 1997, Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trust
responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, will work with Tribal
governments who manage bull trout streams to restore ecosystems and
[[Page 31709]]
enhance Tribal management plans affecting the species. The Service is
consequently proposing a special rule under section 4(d) that offers
additional management flexibility for these population segments. The
special rule would allow for take of bull trout within the Coastal-
Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout
distinct population segments when it is in accordance with applicable
State and Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations,
and conservation plans approved by the Service. The Service believes
that this special rule will allow for more efficient management of the
species, thereby facilitating its conservation. The Service also feels
that this special rule is consistent with the Secretarial Order
designed to enhance Native American participation under the Act and
will allow more efficient management of the species on Tribal lands.
Similarity of Appearance
Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes listing based on similarity of
appearance if--(A) The species so closely resembles in appearance an
endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have
substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and
unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an
additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such
treatment will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the
policy of the Act.
Within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, bull trout occur
sympatrically within the range of Dolly Varden. These two species so
closely resemble one another in external appearance, that it is
virtually impossible for the general public to visually differentiate
the two. Currently, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char''.
Fishing for bull trout and Dolly Varden is open in four subpopulations
within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, two under WDFW
regulations and two under Native American Tribal regulations. These
``native char'' fisheries may adversely affect these subpopulations of
bull trout. However, under current harvest management there is no
evidence that the specific harvest for Dolly Varden creates an
additional threat to bull trout within this population segment.
Therefore, a similarity of appearance rule is not being proposed for
Dolly Varden at this time. However, if bull trout and Dolly Varden are
managed in Washington State as separate species in the future, the
Service may consider at that time the merits of proposing Dolly Varden
under the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service
will follow its peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) in the
processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
threat (or lack thereof) to these three population segments;
(2) The location of any additional populations of the three
segments and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be
determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional and updated information concerning the range,
distribution, and population size of the three segments;
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on the three population segments; and
(5) Promulgation of the special rule.
The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration
the comments and any additional information received by the Service,
and such communications may lead to a final determination that differs
from this proposal.
The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,
if requested. However, given the high likelihood of several requests
throughout the range of the population segments, the Service has
scheduled four hearings in advance of any request. The hearings are
scheduled for Lacey, Washington, on July 7, 1998; Mount Vernon,
Washington, on July 9, 1998; East Glacier, Montana on July 14, 1998;
and Jackpot, Nevada on July 21, 1998. For additional information on
public hearings, see the DATES section.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section
4(a) of the Act, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's reasons
for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget
clearance number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning
permit and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR
17.32.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Snake River Basin Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author: The primary authors of this proposed rule include--Jeffery
Chan, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, WA; Timothy
Cummings, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, WA;
Stephen Duke, Snake River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Robert Hallock,
Upper Columbia River Basin Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, Snake
River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Leslie Propp, Western Washington State
Office, Olympia, WA.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under Fishes, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 31710]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
FISHES:
* * * * * * *
Trout, bull.................. Salvelinus U.S.A. (Pacific NW), Coastal-Puget Sound T ........... NA 17.44 (w)
confluentus. Canada (NW (U.S.A.-WA) all
Territories). pacific coast
drainages north of
Columbia R..
Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ Jarbidge R. (U.S.A.-- T ........... NA Do.
ID, NV).
Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ St. Mary-Belly R. T ........... NA Do.
(U.S.A.--MT east of
Continental Divide).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.44 by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.44 Special rules--fishes.
* * * * *
(w) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coastal-Puget Sound,
Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout distinct population
segments.
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (w)(2) of this
section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR
17.32 shall apply to the bull trout Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge
River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments within the
contiguous United States.
(2) Exceptions. No person shall take this species, except in
accordance with with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish
and wildlife conservation laws and regulations, as constituted in all
aspects relevant to protection of bull trout in effect on [date of
publication of final determination in the Federal Register].
(3) Any violation of applicable State and Native American Tribal
fish and wildlife conservation laws or regulations with respect to the
taking of this species is also a violation of the Endangered Species
Act.
(4) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export, any means whatsoever, any such species taken in
violation of this section or in violation of applicable State and
Native American Tribal fish and game laws and regulations.
(5) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in
paragraphs (w) (2) through (4) of this section.
Dated: June 1, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-15318 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P