[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31647-31674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15319]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB94


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct 
Population Segments of Bull Trout

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines threatened 
status for the Klamath River and the Columbia River distinct population 
segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), with special rules, 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 
Klamath River population segment is limited to seven geographically 
isolated stream areas representing a fraction of the historical 
habitat. The distribution and numbers of bull trout have declined in 
the Klamath River basin due to habitat isolation, loss of migratory 
corridors, poor water quality, and the introduction of non-native 
species. The Columbia River population segment is represented by 
relatively widespread subpopulations that have declined in overall 
range and numbers of fish. A majority of Columbia River bull trout 
occur in isolated, fragmented habitats that support low numbers of fish 
and are inaccessible to migratory bull trout. The few remaining bull 
trout ``strongholds'' in the Columbia River basin tend to be found in 
large areas of contiguous habitats in the Snake River basin of central 
Idaho mountains, upper Clark Fork and Flathead Rivers in Montana, and 
several streams in the Blue Mountains in Washington and Oregon. The 
decline of bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation and 
fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, 
past fisheries management practices, and the introduction of non-native 
species. The special rules allow the take of bull trout in the Columbia 
River and Klamath River population segments if in accordance with 
applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and wildlife 
conservation laws and regulations and conservation plans approved by 
the Service.
    The listing proposal was restricted by court order to information 
contained in the 1994 administrative record. This final determination 
was based on the best available scientific and commercial information 
including current data and new information received during the comment 
period. As a result, the threatened listing status for the Columbia 
River population segment has been retained, however, the listing status 
for the Klamath River population segment is changed from endangered to 
threatened. This listing status change occurred because bull trout 
interagency management and recovery efforts for the Klamath River basin 
are being implemented and, consequently, threats have been reduced. 
This rule implements the protection and conservation provisions 
afforded by the Act for the Klamath River and Columbia River population 
segments of bull trout.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin Field Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, 
Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake 
River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section ) (telephone 208-378-5243, 
facsimile 208-378-5262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family 
Salmonidae, are char native to the Pacific northwest and western 
Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in 
the Pacific Northwest from about 41 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; Brewin and Brewin 1997).
    Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 
1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River, and 
subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo 
confluentus and Salvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bull trout and Dolly 
Varden (Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species 
(Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). Cavender (1978) presented morphometric 
(measurement), meristic (geometrical relation), osteological (bone 
structure), and distributional evidence to document specific 
distinctions between Dolly Varden and bull trout. Bull trout and Dolly 
Varden were formally recognized as separate species by the American 
Fisheries Society in 1980 (Robins et al. 1980). Although bull trout and 
Dolly Varden co-occur in several northwestern Washington river 
drainages, there is little evidence of introgression (Haas and McPhail 
1991) and the two species appear to be maintaining distinct genomes 
(Leary et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995; Kanda et al. 1997; Spruell 
and Allendorf 1997).
    Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life-history strategies 
through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident 
bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or 
nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout 
spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four 
years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), 
or in certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity 
is reached in one of the three habitats (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 
1989). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and it is 
suspected that bull trout give rise to offspring exhibiting either 
resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
    Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to 
other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that 
appear to influence bull trout distribution and

[[Page 31648]]

abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, 
valley form, spawning and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors 
(Oliver 1979; Pratt 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; 
Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 
1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 
1997). Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have 
specific physical characteristics to provide habitat requirements for 
bull trout to successfully spawn and rear, and that the characteristics 
are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout these watersheds. Because 
bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993), the fish should not be expected to 
simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. in press).
    Bull trout are found primarily in colder streams, although 
individual fish are found in larger river systems throughout the 
Columbia River basin (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 
1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Water 
temperature above 15 deg. C (59 deg. F) is believed to limit bull trout 
distribution, which may partially explain the patchy distribution 
within a watershed (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995). 
Spawning areas are often associated with cold-water springs, 
groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed 
(Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. in press). For 
example, the only stream with substantial bull trout spawning in the 
upper Blackfoot River in Montana was Copper Creek, which had maximum 
water temperatures less than 15 deg. C (59 deg. F) (Hillman and Chapman 
1996). Goetz (1989) suggested optimum water temperatures for rearing of 
about 7 to 8 deg. C (44 to 46 deg. F) and optimum water temperatures 
for egg incubation of 2 to 4 deg. C (35 to 39 deg. F). In Granite 
Creek, Idaho, Bonneau and Scarnecchia (1996) observed that juvenile 
bull trout selected the coldest water available in a plunge pool, 8 to 
9 deg. C (46 to 48 deg. F) within a temperature gradient of 8 to 
15 deg. C (46 to 60 deg. F).
    All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex 
forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, 
and pools (Oliver 1979; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher 
and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992; Rich 
1996; Sexauer and James 1997; Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober (1995) 
observed bull trout overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools 
containing large woody debris in the Bitterroot River drainage, 
Montana, and suggested that suitable winter habitat may be more 
restrictive than summer habitat. Maintaining bull trout habitat 
requires stream channel and flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 
Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream 
margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). These 
areas are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect 
stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, 
altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the 
spawning period and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs 
and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring (Fraley 
and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).
    Preferred spawning habitat consists of low gradient streams with 
loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and water temperatures of 
5 to 9 deg. C (41 to 48 deg. F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz 
1989). Pratt (1992) indicated that increases in fine sediments reduce 
egg survival and emergence. High juvenile densities were observed in 
Swan River, Montana, and tributaries with diverse cobble substrate and 
low percentage of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984). Juvenile bull 
trout in four streams in central Washington occupied slow-moving water 
less than 0.5 m/sec (1.6 ft/sec) over a variety of sand to boulder size 
substrates (Sexauer and James 1997).
    The size and age of bull trout at maturity depends upon life-
history strategy. Growth of resident fish is generally slower than 
migratory fish; resident fish tend to be smaller at maturity and less 
fecund (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Bull trout normally reach 
sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and live as long as 12 years. Repeat 
and alternate year spawning has been reported, although repeat spawning 
frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known (Leathe and 
Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 
1996).
    Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods 
of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout 
frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and have been 
known to move upstream as far as 250 kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi)) 
to spawning grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In the Blackfoot River, 
Montana, bull trout began migrations to spawning areas in response to 
increasing temperatures (Swanberg 1996). Temperatures during spawning 
generally range from 4 to 10 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). 
Bull trout require spawning substrate consisting of loose, clean gravel 
relatively free of fine sediments (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Depending 
on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 
1992), and after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. Time from 
egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge 
from early April through May depending upon water temperatures and 
increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and Howell 1992).
    Growth varies depending upon 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) 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 and small fish (Boag 1987; Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger 
1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivorous, known to 
feed on various fish species (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald and Alger 
1993).
    Bull trout evolved with, and, in some areas, co-occur with native 
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.), resident (redband) and 
migratory rainbow trout (O. mykiss), chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), 
sockeye salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), 
various sculpin (Cottus spp.), sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow species 
(Cyprinidae spp.) (Mauser et al. 1988; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull 
trout habitat overlaps with the range of several fishes listed as 
threatened, endangered, proposed, and petitioned for listing under the 
Act, including the endangered Snake River sockeye salmon (November 20, 
1991; 56 FR 58619); threatened Snake River spring and fall chinook 
salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR 14653); endangered Kootenai River white 
sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (September 6, 1994, 59 FR 45989); 
threatened and endangered steelhead (August 18, 1997, 62 FR 43937); and 
westslope cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi) (petitioned for listing in 
July 1997). Widespread introductions of non-native fishes, including 
brook trout

[[Page 31649]]

(S. fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush) (west of the Continental 
Divide), and brown trout (Salmo trutta), have also occurred across the 
range of bull trout. These non-native fish have caused local bull trout 
declines and extirpations (Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and Alger 
1993; Leary et al. 1993; Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 
1996h).
    Bull trout habitat in the coterminous United States is composed of 
a complex mosaic of land ownership, including Federal lands 
administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), and Department of 
Defense (DOD); numerous Indian tribal lands; State land in Montana, 
Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Nevada; and private lands. It is 
estimated that as much as half of present bull trout habitat is 
bordered by non-Federal lands.
    Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-
history forms. For example, in Montana, migratory bull trout make 
extensive migrations in the Flathead River system (Fraley and Shepard 
1989) and resident bull trout move to overwinter in downstream pools in 
tributaries of the Bitterroot River (Jakober 1995). The ability to 
migrate is important to the persistence of local bull trout 
subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; M. Gilpin, University of 
California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Migrations 
facilitate gene flow among local subpopulations because individuals 
from different subpopulations interbreed when some stray and return to 
non-natal streams. Subpopulations that are extirpated by catastrophic 
events may also become reestablished in this manner.
    Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory are 
applicable to the distribution and characteristics of bull trout 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an interacting network 
of local subpopulations with varying frequencies of migration and gene 
flow among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994). Local subpopulations may 
become extinct, but can be reestablished by individuals from other 
subpopulations. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for spreading risk 
because the simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely. 
Habitat alteration, primarily through the construction of impoundments, 
dams, and water diversions that create unsuitable conditions, has 
fragmented habitats, eliminated migratory corridors, and isolated bull 
trout often in the headwaters of tributaries (Rieman et al. in press).
    Though wide-ranging in parts of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and 
Montana, bull trout in the interior Columbia River basin presently 
occur in only about 44 to 45 percent of the historical range (Quigley 
and Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Declining trends and 
associated habitat loss and fragmentation have been documented 
rangewide (Bond 1992; Schill 1992; Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and 
McIntyre 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; Idaho Department of Fish and 
Game (IDFG), in litt. 1995; McPhail and Baxter 1996). Several local 
extirpations have been reported, beginning in the 1950s (Rode 1990; 
Ratliff and Howell 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Goetz 1994; Newton and 
Pribyl 1994; Berg and Priest 1995; Light et al. 1996; Buchanan et al. 
1997; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997). For 
example, bull trout were apparently extirpated around 1975 from the 
McCloud River, California, the southernmost range (Moyle 1976; Rode 
1990).

Distinct Population Segments

    The Service's June 13, 1997, proposal to list the Klamath River and 
the Columbia River population segments of bull trout (62 FR 32268) was 
based on the 1994 administrative record, as required by the court. The 
Service's original June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30254), 12-month petition 
finding found that listing the bull trout was warranted but precluded 
throughout the coterminous United States. As explained in the proposed 
rule, the approach to break the range of bull trout into distinct 
population segments in the reanalysis of the 1994 petition finding was 
undertaken because the fish occurs in widespread, but fragmented 
habitats and has several life-history patterns. In addition, the 
threats to bull trout are diverse, and the quality and quantity of 
information regarding the population status and trends varies greatly 
throughout the range. By examining bull trout distinct population 
segments, the Service was better able to evaluate proposed listing of 
those segments, based on the 1994 administrative record, that were a 
priority in need of Federal protection. Future listing actions could, 
thereby, be based on best available rather than outdated scientific 
information.
    In the process of making this final listing determination, the 
Service reexamined the appropriateness of applying the bull trout 
distinct population segments (DPSs) for the purposes of listing. The 
joint National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Service policy 
regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate populations published 
February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), was the basis for this reexamination. 
Three elements are considered in the decision on whether a population 
segment could be treated as threatened or endangered under the Act--
discreteness, significance, and conservation status in relation to the 
standards for listing. Discreteness refers to the isolation of a 
population from other members of the species and is based on two 
criteria--(1) marked separation from other populations of the same 
taxon resulting from physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors, including genetic discontinuity; and (2) populations delimited 
by international boundaries. Significance is determined either by the 
importance or contribution, or both, of a discrete population to the 
species throughout its range. Four criteria were used to determine 
significance--(1) persistence of the discrete population segment in an 
ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that 
loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant 
gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete 
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of 
the taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced 
population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that the 
discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of 
the taxon in its genetic characteristics. If a population segment is 
discrete and significant, its evaluation for endangered or threatened 
status is based on the Act's standards.
    Based on the best available information, numerous bull trout 
subpopulations are isolated from each other by either unsuitable 
habitat or impassible dams and diversions, or both. Although many 
subpopulations could be considered discrete, few meet the 
``significance'' criteria. For example, although some genetic 
differences were identified among subpopulations of bull trout in 
specific watersheds of the Columbia River basin, the subpopulations did 
not differ markedly and they inhabit similar habitats. The best 
available current information supports designating five DPSs in the 
coterminous United States--(1) Klamath River, (2) Columbia River, (3) 
Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-Belly River. 
For purpose of this final determination only the Klamath River and 
Columbia River DPSs will be addressed. The three remaining DPSs

[[Page 31650]]

are the subject of a proposed rule published concurrently.
    Although the range of bull trout extends into Canada and Alaska, 
subpopulations outside the coterminous United States are not being 
considered in this rulemaking. In accordance with the distinct 
vertebrate population policy, the Service may determine a population to 
be discrete at an international border where there are significant 
differences in the control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms. Bull trout management 
and conservation strategy in Canada differs from the United States and 
such activities are beyond the regulatory scope of the Act. The best 
available information also disclosed uncertainty regarding the status 
of bull trout in Canada. Throughout British Columbia and Alberta, data 
on bull trout status, distribution, and the presence of ongoing threats 
is incomplete and covers only a portion of the species' range within 
the provinces. The status of bull trout in Alaska is unknown.
    Within the coterminous United States, bull trout distribution is 
highly fragmented and many subpopulations are geographically isolated. 
The best available information indicates that bull trout in the 
coterminous United States, although still wide-ranging, have suffered a 
significant reduction in range. In addition, bull trout are faced with 
varying degrees of ongoing threats. The Service now determines that 
listing bull trout distinct population segments only within the 
coterminous United States is warranted at this time.

Klamath River

    The Klamath River originates in south central Oregon near Crater 
Lake National Park, and flows southwest into northern California where 
it meets the Trinity River and empties into the Pacific Ocean. Bull 
trout in this drainage are discrete because of physical isolation from 
other bull trout by the Pacific Ocean and several small mountain ranges 
in central Oregon. Leary et. al. (1991) determined genetic 
characteristics of bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River 
drainages using protein electrophoresis. They concluded that these two 
groups of fish were reproductively isolated and evolutionarily 
distinct. In addition, Williams et al. (1995) separated bull trout in 
the Klamath and Columbia Rivers into different clades (i.e., groups 
derived from different lineages) based on genetic diversity patterns. 
As a result, the Klamath River DPS is significant because it differs 
markedly in genetic characteristics from bull trout in the Columbia 
River basin.

Columbia River

    The Columbia River DPS occurs throughout the entire Columbia River 
basin within the United States and its tributaries, excluding bull 
trout found in the Jarbidge River, Nevada. Although Williams et al. 
(1995) identified two distinct clades in the Columbia River basin 
(upper and lower Columbia River) based on genetic diversity patterns, a 
discrete geographical boundary between the two clades was not 
documented. The Columbia River DPS is significant because the overall 
range of the species would be substantially reduced if this discrete 
population were lost.

Status and Distribution

    The Service evaluated the status and distribution of bull trout for 
each subpopulation in the Klamath River and Columbia River population 
segments. The complete review of this evaluation is found in a status 
summary compiled by the Service (Service status summary 1998). A 
synopsis of the summary is presented in this rule.
    To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and 
abundance for both the Klamath River and Columbia River population 
segments, the Service analyzed data on bull trout relative to 
subpopulations because fragmentation and barriers have isolated bull 
trout throughout their current range. A subpopulation is considered a 
reproductively isolated group of bull trout that spawns within a 
particular area of a river system. In areas where two groups of bull 
trout are separated by a barrier (e.g., an impassable dam or waterfall, 
or reaches of unsuitable habitat) that allows only individuals upstream 
access to those downstream (i.e., one-way passage), both groups were 
considered subpopulations. In addition, subpopulations were considered 
at risk of extirpation from naturally occurring events if they were--
(1) unlikely to be reestablished by individuals from another 
subpopulation (i.e., functionally or geographically isolated from other 
subpopulations); (2) limited to a single spawning area (i.e., spatially 
restricted); and either (3) characterized by low individual or spawner 
numbers; or (4) primarily of a single life-history form. For example, a 
subpopulation of resident fish isolated upstream of an impassable 
waterfall would be considered at risk of extirpation from naturally 
occurring events if the subpopulation had low numbers of fish that 
spawn in a restricted area. In such cases, a natural event such as a 
fire or flood affecting the spawning area could eliminate the 
subpopulation, and reestablishment from fish downstream would be 
prevented by the impassable waterfall. However, a subpopulation 
residing downstream of the waterfall would not be considered at risk of 
extirpation from naturally occurring events because there would be 
establishment potential by fish from the subpopulation upstream. 
Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited downstream movement 
(Nelson 1996), the Service's determination of subpopulations at risk of 
extirpation from naturally occurring events may overestimate the number 
of subpopulations that are likely to be reestablished.
    The status of subpopulations was based on modified criteria of 
Rieman et al. (in press), including the abundance, trends in abundance, 
and the presence of life-history forms of bull trout. The Service 
considered a subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000 individuals or 500 
spawners likely occur in the subpopulation, abundance appears stable or 
increasing, and life-history forms were likely to persist; and 
``depressed'' if less than 5,000 individuals or 500 spawners likely 
occur in the subpopulation, abundance appears to be declining, or a 
life-history form historically present has been lost. If there was 
insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information to classify 
the status of a subpopulation as either ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' 
the status was considered ``unknown.''
    Based on abundance, trends in abundance, and the presence of life-
history forms, bull trout were considered strong (i.e., 5,000 
individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the subwatershed or larger 
area, abundance is stable or increasing with at a minimum of half of 
historic abundance, and the presence of all life-history forms 
historically present) in 13 percent of the occupied range in the 
interior Columbia River basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Using 
various estimates of bull trout range, Rieman et al. (in press) 
estimated that bull trout were strong in 6 to 24 percent of the 
subwatersheds in the Columbia River basin. Bull trout declines have 
been attributed to the effects of land and water management activities, 
including forest management and road building, mining, agricultural 
practices, and livestock grazing (Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan 1991; 
Nehlsen et al. 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; McIntosh et 
al. 1994; Platts et al. 1995). Isolation and habitat fragmentation from 
dams and agricultural diversions (Rode 1990; Mongillo 1993; Jakober 
1995),

[[Page 31651]]

fisheries management practices, poaching and the introduction of non-
native species (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; Howell and Buchanan 1992; WDFW 
1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et al 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; 
Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996h; Palmisano and Kaczynski, 
Northwest Forest Resources Council (NFRC), in litt. 1997) also threaten 
bull trout populations.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Historical records suggest that bull trout were once widely 
distributed and exhibited diverse life-history traits in the Klamath 
River basin (Gilbert and Evermann 1894; Dambacher et al. 1992; Ziller 
1992; Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (OCAFS) 1993). 
The earliest records of bull trout in the basin are from Fort Creek 
(formerly Linn Creek), a tributary to the Wood River (L. Dunsmoor and 
C. Bienz, Klamath Tribe, in litt. 1997). Records from the late 1800s 
suggest that migratory fish (adfluvial) inhabited Klamath Lake (OCAFS 
1993). Other migratory bull trout (i.e., fluvial) were evidently 
present in some of the larger streams in the basin as recently as the 
early 1970s (Ziller 1992). Bull trout are thought to have been 
extirpated from the Sycan River, the South Fork of the Sycan River, and 
four streams in the Klamath River basin (Cherry, Sevenmile, Coyote, and 
Callahan creeks) since the 1970s.
    Currently, bull trout in the Klamath River basin occur only as 
resident forms isolated in higher elevation headwater streams (Goetz 
1989) within three watersheds--Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and 
Sycan River (Light et al. 1996). Factors contributing to isolation 
include habitat degradation, water diversion, and habitat fragmentation 
(OCAFS 1993; Light et al. 1996). In addition, long distances separate 
each isolated subpopulation (Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997). 
According to Light et al. (1996), bull trout occupy approximately 38.2 
km (22.9 mi) of streams in the Klamath River basin. More recently, 
Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that bull trout occupy approximately 
34.1 km (20.5 mi) of streams. The risk of extinction for Klamath River 
bull trout over the next 100 years was recently estimated at 70 to 90 
percent (K. Schroeder and H. Weeks, OCAFS, in litt. 1997). The Service 
identified seven bull trout subpopulations in three watersheds (number 
of subpopulations in each watershed)--Upper Klamath Lake (2), Sycan 
River (1), and Sprague River (4). The Service considers six of the 
subpopulations at risk of extirpation caused by naturally occurring 
events due to their isolation, single life-history form and spawning 
area, and low abundance (Service status summary 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

    The Columbia River DPS includes bull trout residing in portions of 
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimated to 
have occupied about 60% of the Columbia River Basin, and presently 
occur in 45% of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide 
1997). The Columbia River population segment is composed of 141 
subpopulations. For discussion and analysis, the Service considered 
four geographic areas of the Columbia River basin--(1) lower Columbia 
River (downstream of the Snake River confluence), (2) mid-Columbia 
River (Snake River confluence to Chief Joseph Dam), (3) upper Columbia 
River (upstream from Chief Joseph Dam), and (4) Snake River and its 
tributaries (including the Lost River drainage).
Lower Columbia River Geographical Area
    The lower Columbia River area includes all tributaries in Oregon 
and Washington downstream of the Snake River confluence near the town 
of Pasco, Washington. The Service identified 20 subpopulations in 
watersheds of nine major tributaries of the lower Columbia River 
(number of subpopulations in each watershed)--the Lewis River (2), 
Willamette River (3), White Salmon River (1), Klickitat River (1), Hood 
River (2), Deschutes River (3), John Day River (3), Umatilla River (2), 
and Walla Walla River (3). The present distribution of bull trout in 
the lower Columbia River basin is less than the historic range 
(Buchanan et al. 1997; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 
1993). Bull trout are thought to be extirpated from several tributaries 
in five river systems in Oregon--the Middle Fork Willamette River, the 
North and South Forks of the Santiam River, the Clackamas River, the 
upper Deschutes River (upstream of Bend, Oregon) and the Crooked River 
(tributary to the Deschutes River) (Buchanan et al. 1997).
    Hydroelectric facilities and large expanses of unsuitable, 
fragmented habitat have isolated these subpopulations. Large dams, such 
as McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville, separate four reaches 
of the lower Columbia River. Although fish may pass each facility in 
both upstream and downstream directions, the extent to which bull trout 
use the Columbia River is unknown. In addition, the nine major 
tributaries have numerous facilities, many of which do not provide 
upstream passage.
    Migratory bull trout are present with resident fish or exclusively 
in at least 13 of the 20 subpopulations in the lower Columbia River. 
Many migratory fish are adfluvial and inhabit reservoirs created by 
dams. However, this area includes the only extant adfluvial 
subpopulation in Oregon, which exists in Odell Lake in the Deschutes 
River basin (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Buchanan et al. 1997). The 
Metolius River-Lake Billy Chinook subpopulation is also found in the 
Deschutes River basin. It is the only subpopulation considered 
``strong'' and exhibits an increasing trend in abundance. The Service 
considers 5 of the 20 subpopulations at risk of extirpation caused by 
naturally occurring events exacerbated by isolation, single life-
history form and spawning area, and low abundance.
Mid-Columbia River Geographical Area
    The mid-Columbia River area includes watersheds of four major 
tributaries of the Columbia River in Washington, between the confluence 
of the Snake River and Chief Joseph Dam. The Service identified 16 bull 
trout subpopulations in the four watersheds (number of subpopulations 
in each watershed)--Yakima River (8), Wenatchee River (3), Entiat River 
(1), and Methow River (4). Historically, bull trout occurred in larger 
areas of the four tributaries and Columbia River. Bull trout are 
thought to have been extirpated in 10 streams within the area--Satus 
Creek, Nile Creek, Orr Creek, Little Wenatchee River, Napecqua River, 
Lake Chelan, Okanogan River, Eightmile Creek, South Fork Beaver Creek, 
and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Most bull trout in the 
mid-Columbia River geographic area are isolated by dams or unsuitable 
habitat created by water diversions.
    Bull trout in the mid-Columbia River area are most abundant in 
Rimrock Lake of the Yakima River basin and Lake Wenatchee of the 
Wenatchee River basin. Both subpopulations are considered ``strong'' 
and increasing or stable. The remaining 14 subpopulations are 
relatively low in abundance, exhibit ``depressed'' or unknown trends, 
and primarily have a single life-history form. The Service considers 10 
of the 16 subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of naturally 
occurring events due to isolation, single life-history form and 
spawning area, and low abundance.

[[Page 31652]]

Upper Columbia River Geographic Area
    The upper Columbia River geographic area includes the mainstem 
Columbia River and all tributaries upstream of Chief Joseph Dam in 
Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are found in two large 
basins, the Kootenai River and Pend Oreille River, which include the 
Clark Fork River. Historically, bull trout were found in larger 
portions of the area. Numerous dams and degraded habitat have 
fragmented bull trout habitat and isolated fish into 71 subpopulations 
in 9 major river basins (number of subpopulations in each basin)--
Spokane River (1), Pend Oreille River (3), Kootenai River (5), Flathead 
River (24), South Fork Flathead River (3), Swan River (3), Clark Fork 
River (4), Bitterroot River (27), and Blackfoot River (1). Bull trout 
are thought to be extirpated in 64 streams and lakes of various sizes--
Nespelam, Sanpoil, and Kettle rivers; Barnaby, Hall, Stranger, and 
Wilmont creeks; 8 tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille; 5 tributaries to 
Pend Oreille River below Albeni Falls Dam; Lower Stillwater Lake; Arrow 
Lake (Montana); upper Clark Fork River, 12 streams in the Coeur d'Alene 
River basin; and approximately 25 streams in the St. Joe River basin 
(e.g., IDFG, in litt. 1995).
    The upper Columbia River area contains ``strongholds'' for bull 
trout. Bull trout are considered ``strong'' in Hungry Horse Reservoir 
and Swan Lake. Trends in abundance are stable in Hungry Horse 
Reservoir, and increasing in Swan Lake. Although high numbers of bull 
trout are found in Lake Pend Oreille and the upper Kootenai River, 
trends in abundance are either negative or unknown. The high number of 
subpopulations (27) in the Bitterroot River basin, Montana, indicates a 
high degree of habitat fragmentation where numerous groups of resident 
bull trout are restricted primarily to headwaters. The Service 
considers 47 of the 71 subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of 
naturally occurring events due to isolation, single life-history form 
and spawning area, and low abundance.
Snake River Geographical Area
    Bull trout occupy portions of 14 major tributaries in the Snake 
River basin of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The Service identified 34 
bull trout subpopulations in the Snake River basin. The area consists 
of two primary portions separated by Hells Canyon Dam. Downstream of 
Hells Canyon Dam, major tributaries that support bull trout include 
(number of subpopulations in each tributary)--Tucannon River (2), 
Clearwater River (3), Asotin Creek (2), Grande Ronde River (1), Imnaha 
River (4), and Salmon River (2). Upstream of Hells Canyon Dam, major 
tributaries that support bull trout include--Pine Creek (4), Powder 
River (3), Malheur River (2), Payette River (4), Weiser River (2), and 
Boise River (2). Although bull trout distribution upstream of Hells 
Canyon Dam is limited primarily to the basin downstream of Shoshone 
Falls in southern Idaho, three geographically isolated bull trout 
subpopulations occur upstream of Shoshone Falls in the Little Lost 
River drainage. Bull trout subpopulations upstream of Hells Canyon Dam 
are generally low in abundance, fragmented, and isolated. The current 
distribution of bull trout in the Snake River basin is less than 
historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997; 
Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), with recent extirpations documented in 
Eagle Creek (Powder River basin) and Wallowa Lake (Grande Ronde River 
basin) (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997); and 
possibly in South Fork Asotin Creek (WDFW 1997). Numerous impassable 
dams and large expanses of unsuitable habitat have isolated 
subpopulations within the historic range. Isolation is most prominent 
upstream of Hells Canyon Dam (southwest Idaho and southeast Oregon). 
The basin downstream of Hells Canyon Dam is relatively intact, and 
connectivity among bull trout subpopulations may still occur.
    Bull trout occupy large areas of contiguous habitat in the Snake 
River basin downstream of Hell's Canyon Dam, such as in the Clearwater 
River and Salmon River basins. High numbers of bull trout have been 
observed in the Tucannon River, Imnaha River, Clearwater River, Salmon 
River, and Malheur River subpopulations, however, trends in abundance 
are largely unknown or declining. The Service considers 9 of the 34 
subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of naturally occurring 
events due to isolation, single life-history form and spawning area, 
and low abundance.
    In summary, the Columbia River population segment of bull trout has 
declined in overall range and numbers of fish. Though still widespread, 
there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the 
Columbia River basin. In Idaho, for example, bull trout have been 
extirpated from 119 reaches in 28 streams (IDFG in litt. 1995) . The 
population segment is composed of 141 subpopulations indicating habitat 
fragmentation, isolation, and barriers that limit bull trout 
distribution and migration within the basin. Although some strongholds 
still exist, bull trout, generally, occur as isolated subpopulations in 
headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have been lost.

Previous Federal Action

    On September 18, 1985, the Service published an animal notice of 
review in the Federal Register (50 FR 37958) designating the bull trout 
a category 2 candidate for listing in the coterminous United States. 
Category 2 taxa were those for which conclusive data on biological 
vulnerability and threats were not currently available to support 
proposed rules. The Service published updated notices of review for 
animals on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 
58804), reconfirming the bull trout category 2 status. The Service 
elevated bull trout in the coterminous United States to category 1 for 
Federal listing on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Category 1 taxa 
were those for which the Service had on file substantial information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing 
proposals. Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, notice of review 
(61 FR 7596), the Service ceased using category designations and 
included the bull trout as a candidate species. Candidate species are 
those which the Service has on file sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the 
species as threatened or endangered.
    On October 30, 1992, the Service received a petition to list the 
bull trout as an endangered species throughout its range from the 
following conservation organizations in Montana--Alliance for the Wild 
Rockies, Inc., Friends of the Wild Swan, and Swan View Coalition 
(petitioners). The petitioners also requested an emergency listing and 
concurrent critical habitat designation for bull trout populations in 
select aquatic ecosystems where the biological information indicated 
that the species was in imminent threat of extinction. A 90-day 
finding, published on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28849), determined that the 
petitioners had provided substantial information indicating that 
listing of the species may be warranted. The Service initiated a 
rangewide status review of the species concurrent with publication of 
the 90-day finding.
    On June 6, 1994, the Service concluded in the original finding that 
listing of bull trout throughout its range was not warranted due to 
unavailable or insufficient data regarding threats to, and status and 
population trends of, the species within Canada and Alaska. However, 
the Service determined that

[[Page 31653]]

sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats to 
the species was available to support a warranted finding to list bull 
trout within the coterminous United States. Because the Service 
concluded that the threats were imminent and moderate to this 
population segment, the Service gave the bull trout within the 
coterminous United States a listing priority number of 9. As a result, 
the Service found that listing a distinct vertebrate population segment 
of bull trout residing in the coterminous United States was warranted 
but precluded due to higher priority listing actions.
    On November 1, 1994, Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. and Alliance 
for the Wild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit in the U.S. District 
Court of Oregon (Court) arguing that the warranted but precluded 
finding was arbitrary and capricious. After the Service issued a 
``recycled'' 12-month finding for the coterminous population of bull 
trout on June 12, 1995, the Court issued an order declaring the 
plaintiffs' challenge to the original finding moot. The plaintiffs 
declined to amend their complaint and appealed to the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, which found that the plaintiffs' challenge fell 
``within the exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are 
capable of repetition yet evading review.'' On April 2, 1996, the 
circuit court remanded the case back to the district court. On November 
13, 1996, the Court issued an order and opinion remanding the original 
finding to the Service for further consideration. Included in the 
instructions from the Court were requirements that the Service limit 
its review to the 1994 administrative record, and incorporate any 
emergency listings or high magnitude threat determinations into current 
listing priorities. In addition, reliance on other Federal agency plans 
and actions was precluded. The reconsidered 12-month finding based on 
the 1994 Administrative Record was delivered to the Court on March 13, 
1997.
    On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a motion for mandatory 
injunction to compel the Service to issue a proposed rule to list the 
Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations within 30 days 
based solely on the 1994 Administrative Record. In response to this 
motion, the Service ``concluded that the law of this case requires the 
publication of a proposed rule'' to list the two warranted populations. 
On April 4, 1997, the Service requested 60 days to prepare and review 
the proposed rule. In a stipulation between the Service and plaintiffs 
filed with the Court on April 11, 1997, the Service agreed to issue a 
proposed rule in 60 days to list the Klamath River population of bull 
trout as endangered and the Columbia River population of bull trout as 
threatened based solely on the 1994 record.
    Based upon the Court agreement and stipulation, and information 
contained solely in the 1994 record, the Service proposed the Klamath 
River population of bull trout as endangered and Columbia River 
population of bull trout as threatened on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32268). 
The proposal included a 60-day comment period and gave notice of five 
public hearings in Portland, Oregon; Spokane, Washington; Missoula, 
Montana; Klamath Falls, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho. The comment period on 
the proposal, which originally closed on August 12, 1997, was extended 
to October 17, 1997 (62 FR 42092), to provide the public with more time 
to compile information and submit comments.
    On December 4, 1997, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider 
several aspects of the 1997 reconsidered finding. On February 2, 1998, 
the Court gave the Service until June 12, 1998, to respond. The final 
listing determination for the Klamath River and Columbia River 
population segments of bull trout and the concurrent proposed listing 
rule for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly 
River DPSs constitute the Service's response.
    The Service published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 
1998 and 1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the 
order in which the Service will process rulemakings giving highest 
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second 
priority (Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to 
add species to the Lists, processing new proposals to add species to 
the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions (to add 
species to the Lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species), 
and processing a limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or 
reclassify species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed 
or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this 
proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the June 13, 1997, proposed rule (62 FR 32268), all interested 
parties were requested to submit comments or information that might 
contribute to the final listing determination for bull trout. 
Announcements of the proposed rule and notice of public hearings were 
sent to at least 370 individuals, including Federal, State, county and 
city elected officials, State and Federal agencies, interested private 
citizens and local area newspapers and radio stations. Announcements of 
the proposed rule were also published in nine newspapers--the 
Oregonian, Portland, Oregon; the Spokesman Review, Spokane, Washington; 
the Yakima Herald, Yakima, Washington; the Missoulian, Missoula, 
Montana; the Kalispell Interlake, Kalispell, Montana; the Idaho 
Statesman, Boise, Idaho; the Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho; the 
Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Herald and News, Klamath 
Falls, Oregon. Public hearings were held on July 1, 1997, in Portland, 
Oregon; July 8, 1997, in Spokane, Washington; July 10, 1997, in 
Missoula, Montana; July 15, 1997, in Klamath Falls, Oregon; and July 
17, 1997, in Boise, Idaho. In response to numerous requests for 
additional time to complete compilation of information and meaningfully 
participate in the public comment process, the Service published a 
notice on August 5, 1997 (62 FR 42092), extending the comment period to 
October 17, 1997.
    Eighty-four oral and 278 written (including electronic mail) 
comments were received on the proposed rule. These included comments 
from 7 Federal agencies, 9 State agencies, 6 counties in Oregon and 
Idaho, 2 Native American tribes, 6 private timber companies, and 20 
industry or trade associations and bureaus. Comments were also received 
from the Idaho Congressional delegation, and Governors from the states 
of Montana, Idaho and Oregon.
    The Service did not specifically solicit formal scientific peer 
review of the proposal as outlined in the Service's July 1, 1994, 
Interagency Cooperative Policy (59 FR 34270) because the proposal was 
based on the 1994 administrative record and not the best available 
scientific information. However, in the process of making this final 
listing determination, a number of professional fishery biologists were 
consulted and their comments and information were either incorporated 
into the listing decision as appropriate or are addressed below.
    The Service considered all comments, including oral testimony at 
the five public hearings. A majority of comments supported the listing 
proposal and 65 comments were in opposition. Opposition was based on 
several concerns, including conflicts between ongoing State 
conservation efforts and Federal listing; possible economic impacts 
from listing the bull

[[Page 31654]]

trout; lack of solutions to the bull trout decline that would result 
from listing; and because the proposed rule was not peer-reviewed or 
based on the most current information. Seventy-three respondents 
provided new scientific information considered by the Service for this 
determination. The states of Idaho and Montana submitted conservation 
plans for bull trout for consideration by the Service in lieu of 
listing. The USFS (R. Joslin, USFS, in litt. 1997), BLM (A. Thomas, 
BLM, in litt. 1997) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (M. 
McClendon, USBR, in litt. 1997) provided the Service with information 
on respective agency efforts to date to assess, evaluate, monitor, and 
conserve bull trout populations in habitats affected by each agency's 
management. Because multiple respondents offered similar comments in 
some cases, comments of a similar nature or point are grouped. These 
comments and the Service's response are discussed below--
    Issue 1: Several respondents urged the Service to list bull trout 
throughout its entire range. Two respondents recommended that the 
Service include the Jarbidge River bull trout population as a 
threatened species. Another respondent stated that the proposal to list 
the entire Columbia River bull trout population was too broad and 
suggested that the area be analyzed for listing purposes by major river 
segments. Conversely, another respondent requested that the Service 
designate bull trout in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins as 
distinct population segments, citing geographic and historic isolation, 
and biological significance to the species as a whole as reasons. 
Additionally, several other commenters suggested that smaller, more 
manageable distinct population segments be established to avoid listing 
healthy populations so that conservation efforts can be applied to 
areas where restoration is truly needed. Other commenters, at the 
Federal, State and local level suggested other delineations for the 
distinct population segments, and questioned whether listing would 
afford protection of bull trout only in currently occupied habitat.
    Service response: Based on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, and consistent with the distinct vertebrate 
population policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1997), the Service has 
determined that bull trout should be divided into five distinct 
vertebrate populations for listing purposes, but only in the 
coterminous United States (see Distinct Population Segment section). 
The Klamath River and the Columbia River population segments are the 
subject of this final rule and the remaining three population segments 
are addressed in an accompanying proposed rule.
    In addressing the appropriateness in designating additional DPSs 
within the Columbia River basin, the Service reviewed new genetic and 
other biological data developed since 1994, and determined that there 
is insufficient information available to further divide this DPS. 
Although many bull trout groups in the Columbia River basin were 
discrete according to the DPS policy, they failed to meet criteria for 
significance (e.g. bull trout in the Little Lost River basin in Idaho 
and portions of the upper Columbia River basin). However, during the 
recovery process, further division of the Columbia River DPS into 
recovery units or zones including separation of the bull trout in the 
Kootenai River, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille River, Little Lost River, 17 
potential genetic conservation groups (GCGs) in the State of 
Washington, and 8 additional GCGs in Oregon can be considered. For 
wide-ranging species, designation of recovery units can focus recovery 
objectives on the specific threats, status and habitat requirements 
within the defined geographic area. Although recovery units cannot be 
individually delisted without consideration of the entire listed entity 
(species or DPS), the Service can develop ``special rules'' (under 
section 4(d) of the Act) for individual recovery units (see issue #6 
below for more information on special rules).
    Issue 2: Several respondents stated that because the proposed rule 
was based on information gathered prior to June 1994, listing should be 
deferred until new information is analyzed and updated. Comments that 
``* * * quality of peer reviewed scientific data is noticeably 
lacking'' were also received. Some respondents questioned why the bull 
trout is now being considered for listing when the Service's analysis 
in the proposed rule concluded that bull trout had a widespread range 
and threats to the fish were only moderate. Respondents also stated 
that conclusions in the proposed rule regarding population distribution 
and population trends were inaccurate.
    Service response: The U.S. District Court of Oregon ordered the 
Service on November 13, 1996, to reconsider the original 1994 bull 
trout finding based only information available to the agency when it 
made the original 1994 finding. Therefore, the Service was mandated to 
move ahead with a listing proposal based on the information contained 
in the 1994 administrative record. In making this final listing 
determination, however, the Service has reviewed and considered new 
information regarding distribution and life history for the Klamath 
River and Columbia River population segments of bull trout. This 
includes, but is not limited to, new bull trout status, distribution, 
and threats information, and also descriptions of ongoing conservation 
actions, contained in reports and other written correspondence 
available since 1994 concerning bull trout in Idaho (Adams and Bjornn 
1997; Batt 1996; Bonneau and Scarnecchia 1996; Corley 1997; Elle 1995; 
Espinoza et al. 1997; N. Horner, IDFG, in litt. 1997); Montana (Berg 
and Priest 1995; Hillman and Chapman 1996; Hansen and DosSantos 1997; 
Kanda et al. 1997; Long 1995, 1997; Mathieus 1996; McDowell et al 1997; 
MBTSG 1995a-e; MBTSG 1996a-h; Rich 1996; Swanberg 1996; Swanberg and 
Burns 1997); Oregon (Buchanan et al. 1997; Buchanan and Gregory 1997; 
Capruso 1997; Crabtree 1996; Germond et al. 1996a, b; Ratliff et al. 
1996; Spruell and Allendorf 1997); Washington (Faler and Bair 1996; 
Northrop 1997; Raekes 1996; Sexauer and James 1997; WDFW 1997); the 
Klamath River basin (Buktenica 1997; Buktenica and Larson 1997; Light 
et al. 1996; ODFW 1996) and bull trout in the Columbia River basin 
(Platts et al. 1995; Quigley and Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al in press; 
Rieman and McIntyre 1995, 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997; Williams et al 
1995; R. Joslin, in litt, 1997; J. Kraft, Plum Creek, in litt. 1997; M. 
McClendon, in litt, 1997; Palmisano and Kacynski, in litt, 1997; 
Thomas, in litt, 1997).
    Based on the best information currently available, bull trout in 
the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments are not more 
widespread or found in other areas of the Klamath or Columbia River 
basins than shown in the 1994 administrative record. Bull trout occur 
over a large geographic area in four states within the Columbia River 
drainage. However, bull trout display a generally patchy distribution 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The best available information indicates 
that bull trout are in widespread decline across the historic range and 
restricted to numerous reproductively isolated subpopulations in the 
Columbia River basin with many recent local extirpations. The largest 
contiguous areas supporting bull trout are ``strongholds'' in central 
Idaho and Montana, such as the upper Flathead River basin. Many 
remaining bull trout subpopulations are characterized by declining 
trends, low relative subpopulation size, loss of migratory

[[Page 31655]]

fish or the presence of a single life-history form, and isolated from 
other bull trout by large geographic separation(s). Habitat loss, 
fragmentation and other changes that have isolated and continue to 
impact bull trout subpopulations also increase their susceptibility to 
naturally occurring processes (both demographically and 
environmentally). Many remaining subpopulations in both the Klamath 
River and Columbia River population segments are at risk of extirpation 
from the combined effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of 
migration corridors, and inability to reestablish extirpated 
subpopulations through emigration, and recovery actions are required to 
slow the rate of habitat loss and continued reductions in range. 
Existing regulations have not arrested the decline of bull trout and 
newly developed State and local conservation strategies are largely not 
implemented.
    Issue 3: Several respondents opposed the Federal listing or 
believed it not necessary, and expressed support for various State and 
local conservation plans developed for bull trout. Two respondents 
stated that State forest practice rules and regulations are adequate to 
conserve and restore bull trout. In addition, others recommended that 
if the bull trout is eventually listed, the Service should defer to the 
States for management and recovery.
    Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires that 
listing decisions be made solely on the best scientific and commercial 
data available after conducting a review of the status of the species. 
The Act also instructs the Service to consider ``existing regulatory 
mechanisms, including taking into account those efforts by State, local 
and other entities to protect a species, including conservation plans 
or practices.'' However, several recent Federal court decisions have 
limited the extent to which the Service may rely upon land management 
plans, agreements and other documents that are under development and 
promise proposed future actions, as a basis for determining that 
listing is not warranted (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920 (D. Ariz. 1996); Biodiversity Legal 
Foundation v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23 (D. D.C. 1996).
    The Service has reviewed conservation plans developed by the States 
of Montana and Idaho, and other local conservation agencies for bull 
trout. These actions are encouraging for long term bull trout 
conservation and recovery. It is recognized that individual restoration 
projects have been undertaken by States (for instance, the Klamath 
River Basin Bull Trout Working Group has been implementing conservation 
activities and planning efforts since 1993), and harvest regulations 
for bull trout have become more restricted. However, based on the best 
available information, the Service cannot determine or predict the 
effectiveness of the conservation actions in reducing threats to the 
bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments 
to the extent that listing is unnecessary.
    The Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan (Plan) (Batt 1996), approved 
in July 1996, addresses bull trout conservation in 59 key watersheds to 
provide for the conservation and recovery of bull trout statewide. The 
Plan emphasizes locally developed, site-specific programs with 
technical assistance from appropriate State and Federal agencies. 
Although the Plan establishes a mechanism for generating 59 
conservation plans by the year 2008, it lacks any description of how 
specific practices that currently affect bull trout (e.g., timber 
harvest, mining, grazing, hydropower operations) will be modified. This 
specificity would provide a basis for the development of future 
conservation plans and help ensure adequate protection for bull trout. 
It must also be clear how Federal agencies and private landowners in 
key watersheds will be required to institute bull trout conservation 
measures. Given the extent of Federal lands in Idaho, implementation of 
bull trout conservation measures by the USFS and BLM are critical to 
the Plan. The Plan also cites hydropower and irrigation practices 
contributing to the decline of bull trout, but the Plan needs to 
address these practices in light of the existing Idaho water law, USBR 
water commitments, and existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) licenses. The Plan provides potential future benefits to bull 
trout conservation and recovery once adequate funding and full 
implementation occurs.
    The Montana bull trout conservation effort was initiated in 1994. 
Since 1994, 11 basin-specific status reports and two technical, peer-
reviewed papers have been completed. Local watershed groups are being 
established; however, few on-the-ground local efforts have been 
completed or are underway. The Service is a member of the Montana Bull 
Trout Restoration Team which has been formed as part of the State's 
Montana Bull Trout Plan. Although actions taken to date under the 
Montana Plan have provided some benefits, not all threats to bull trout 
have been addressed, partly by lack of State jurisdiction, except in a 
few local areas. The Service is encouraged by State of Montana's 
progress in implementing the Montana plan and developing appropriate 
strategies to remove threats and promote conservation and recovery of 
bull trout.
    The Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Recovery Plan (Wallowa 
County and Nez Perce Tribe, in litt. 1997) in Oregon is intended to 
primarily aid in the recovery of listed chinook salmon and steelhead. 
Twenty-six stream segments in the County have been identified for 
restoration, with two to five stream segments scheduled to be addressed 
each year over the next 15 years. By 2008, some positive steps towards 
improved land and water management in Wallowa County should occur; 
however, the limited scope of the plan will not benefit bull trout 
outside the County or necessarily address threats on Federal lands.
    Bull trout conservation and planning efforts in the Klamath River 
basin were initiated earlier than similar State conservation efforts, 
and incorporated all land owners of occupied bull trout habitat. The 
Klamath River Basin Bull Trout Working Group (Working Group) functions 
under a Memorandum of Understanding, and has been actively implementing 
portions of the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy (Light 
et al. 1996). These proactive interagency efforts to stabilize and 
expand bull trout in the Klamath River basin are unique in their early 
initiation and multi-entity approach. The Service supports and 
encourages the Working Group to continue implementing phases I and II 
of the Conservation Strategy and complete a formal implementation plan 
for conservation of bull trout in the Klamath River basin.
    Bull trout have declined across much of their former range due to a 
variety of factors, including effects of dam construction, agricultural 
practices, introduced non-native fishes, and forest practices. A 
thorough discussion of the factors affecting bull trout is found in 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Existing State law 
addressing forest practices is discussed under Factor D in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Although State rules and 
regulations governing forested land management activities are 
improving, they are generally not adequate to conserve and recover bull 
trout or remedy the effects of past damage to bull trout habitats.
    Issue 4: Several respondents opposed the proposed listing of bull 
trout because possible ``activity restrictions'' and economic impacts 
might occur.
    Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires that a 
listing

[[Page 31656]]

determination be based solely on the best scientific and commercial 
information available. The legislative history of this provision 
clearly states the intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing 
decisions are ``based solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-
biological considerations from affecting such decisions'' (H.R. Rep. 
No. 97-835, 97th Congress 2nd Session 19 (1982)). Because the Service 
is specifically prohibited from considering economic and other non-
biological impacts of species listing, such impacts are not addressed 
in this final rule.
    Issue 5: Some respondents suggested that bull trout listing and 
recovery may conflict with recovery of other listed fish, notably 
endangered Snake River salmon species.
    Service response: Concerns regarding the possible adverse 
environmental and non-biological effects from implementing future 
recovery measures cannot be considered in a decision to list a species. 
However, these concerns are important in developing recovery measures 
that take into account environmental effects on other species, 
including listed Snake River salmon. The Service will fully evaluate 
the environmental effects and consequences of implementing future 
recovery measures for bull trout in the Columbia River and Klamath 
River basins. It should be noted that bull trout co-evolved with Snake 
River salmon and recovery actions that benefit one species may also 
benefit other native fishes.
    Issue 6: The Service received several comments on the proposed 
special rule that would allow for take of bull trout within the 
Columbia River population segment when it is in accordance with 
applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations. 
While some respondents supported the proposed special rule, others were 
opposed to the special rule in its current form. Various activities 
were cited that continue to threaten bull trout, including poaching, 
electrofishing, and mis-identification of bull trout by fisherman.
    Service response: Based on comments received during the public 
comment period, the Service modified the special rule to address those 
concerns. The 4(d) special rule conditions in this final rule relate to 
existing State and Tribal conservation laws and harvest regulations 
pertaining to bull trout at the time of publication of this rule. The 
Service has determined that, as currently constituted, the applicable 
State and Tribal fishing regulations provide conservation of bull 
trout. In the event any of these laws and regulations are modified in a 
manner that is inconsistent with conservation of bull trout, the 4(d) 
rule would not allow the take of bull trout.
    The Service also has discretion under section 4(d) of the Act to 
issue special regulations for activities other than harvest regulations 
for a threatened species that are deemed necessary and advisable for 
its conservation. The Service recognizes that on-going and future land-
use activities will occur on non-Federal lands that may result in take 
of bull trout. In the future, the Service will consider issuing special 
rules that would define the conditions under which take associated with 
State permitted, or other activities deemed necessary and advisable for 
the species' conservation, would be authorized for bull trout. Special 
rules allow for more efficient management of threatened species, and 
encourage and enhance the conservation of species through the 
development of regulations the Service deems necessary and advisable to 
provide for conservation of the species. For example, conservation 
actions or other activities implemented as part of the Idaho Governor's 
bull trout plan, Wallowa County-Nez Perce Salmon Plan, Montana Bull 
Trout Recovery Plan, and Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy 
may qualify for consideration under a special rule. The Service will 
consider the development and approval of special rules that will lead 
to the conservation of bull trout, allowing certain specific land 
management activities that may allow take of bull trout to continue or 
occur, with certain restrictions. Under a special rule, this take of 
bull trout as a result of these activities would not be considered a 
violation of section 9 of the Act.
    This process can provide non-Federal landowners with the 
flexibility to develop prescriptions or restrictions for their lands 
which would achieve the level of bull trout conservation consistent 
with the special rule.
    Issue 7: Several respondents stated that since hatcheries will be 
relied on for bull trout restoration efforts, habitat threats would not 
be addressed and hatchery-reared fish could transmit and introduce 
disease to wild bull trout.
    Service response: According to section 2(b) of the Act, one of the 
purposes of the Act is ``to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
conserved.'' Once a species becomes listed as threatened or endangered, 
section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and implement 
recovery plans for that species. Recovery means improvement in the 
status of a listed species to the point at which listing is no longer 
appropriate under the criteria provided in section 4 of the Act (50 CFR 
402.02). Two goals of the recovery process are: (1) The maintenance of 
secure, self-sustaining wild populations of the species; and (2) 
restoration of the species to the point where it is a viable, self-
sustaining component of its ecosystem.
    The Service recognizes that captive propagation and hatchery 
supplementation can be valid conservation tools and assist in recovery 
efforts, but by themselves, do not contribute to secure, self-
sustaining bull trout populations in the wild. For example, the Service 
agrees with the findings of the Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group 
that stocking or supplementation is a potential tool in the restoration 
of bull trout and should only be used if the actual cause(s) of local 
extirpations are identified and corrected first (MBTSG 1996g). Any such 
project ``* * * involving stocking must be appropriate in scope, 
judiciously applied, rigorously designed, and thoroughly monitored.''
    Issue 8: Several respondents stated that the introduction of exotic 
fishes, hybridization with brook trout, and past agency efforts to 
eradicate bull trout are the primary causes of decline.
    Response: The Service agrees that the introduction of exotic fishes 
by fish management agencies, ongoing hybridization with brook trout, 
and past efforts to eradicate bull trout have contributed to the 
decline of the species. The significance of these threats, however, 
varies by subpopulation location and habitat characteristics (See 
Factors B, C and E of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
section).
    Issue 9: Several respondents requested that the Service designate 
critical habitat as part of the final rulemaking process. A 
representative of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, stated that ``* * 
* the delineation of critical habitat should be based on repeatable, 
verifiable scientific data followed by a common sense approach to 
economics.''
    Service response. A majority of the comments in this regard were 
standardized requests advocating critical habitat designation with 
special attention on roadless areas and riparian buffers. These 
comments included no sight-specific analysis and provided no 
information to aid the Service in delineation of critical habitat. The 
proposed rule included a ``not determinable'' finding for designation 
of critical habitat based on the 1994 administrative record and 
solicited comments on whether any habitat

[[Page 31657]]

should be determined critical bull trout habitat. The Service received 
no substantial new information regarding critical habitat during the 
open comment period for the proposed rule. Therefore, based on the best 
scientific information currently available, the Service finds in this 
final rule that critical habitat designation is ``not determinable'' 
(see Critical Habitat section).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined that the Klamath River and 
Columbia River distinct population segments of bull trout should be 
classified as threatened. Procedures found at Section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) were followed. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and 
their application to the Klamath River and Columbia River population 
segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are as follows--
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of bull trout habitat or range. Land and water management 
activities that degrade and continue to threaten bull trout and its 
habitat include dams, forest management practices, livestock grazing, 
agriculture and agricultural diversions, roads, and mining (Beschta et 
al. 1987; Chamberlain et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan 1991; 
Nehlsen et al. 1991; Sedell and Everest 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993; 
Frissell 1993; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. 
Department of the Interior (USDI) 1995; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et 
al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; Light et al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-
h; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997).

Dams

    Dams affect bull trout by changing various biological and physical 
processes. Dams can alter habitats; flow, sediment, and temperature 
regimes; migration corridors; and interspecific interactions, 
especially between bull trout and introduced species (Rode 1990; 
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) 1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993; 
ODFW, in litt. 1993; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Wissmar et al. 1994; T. 
Bodurtha, Service, in litt. 1995; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). Impassable 
dams have caused declines of bull trout primarily by preventing access 
of migratory fish to spawning and rearing areas in headwaters and 
precluding recolonization of areas where bull trout have been 
extirpated (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
    Existing dams can be passage and migratory barriers for bull trout 
and these structures may isolate bull trout subpopulations, eliminate 
individuals from subpopulations, reduce or eliminate genetic exchange, 
and separate spawning areas from productive overwintering and foraging 
areas (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995a, 
1996b,c). Dams have fragmented bull trout habitat and resulted in 
numerous isolated subpopulations. Within the Columbia River population 
segment, 66 percent of bull trout subpopulations are isolated by dams 
or indirectly by dam or water diversion operations that alter habitat 
conditions. Individuals that pass downstream over or through dams are 
often lost from the upstream subpopulations. Dams have converted 
historic rearing habitats for migratory fish in the larger river system 
to reservoirs with conditions that frequently are unsuitable for bull 
trout (MBTSG 1996b), especially where non-native salmonids occur.
    Although the predominant effects of dams affect the long term 
viability of bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; 
Gilpin, in litt. 1997), dams can benefit bull trout by preventing 
introduced non-native species access to upstream areas. For example, 
dams on the Swan River and South Fork Flathead River, Montana, have 
prevented lake trout from moving into these major river systems (MBTSG 
1995e, 1996a). Dams may also increase the potential forage base for 
bull trout by creating reservoirs that support prey species (Faler and 
Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993).
    The extirpation of bull trout in the McCloud River basin, 
California, has been attributed primarily to construction and operation 
of McCloud Dam, which began operation in 1965 (Rode 1990). McCloud Dam 
inundated bull trout spawning and rearing habitats, and isolated these 
fish from habitats used by migratory adults. The dam also altered the 
stream flow regime and elevated water temperature to levels detrimental 
to bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Dams are not known to affect bull trout subpopulations in the 
Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

    Bull trout passage is prevented or inhibited at hydroelectric, 
flood-control, or irrigation dams in almost every major river in the 
Columbia River basin except the Salmon River in Idaho. For instance, 
six dams were constructed without fish passage in the Boise River, 
Idaho, and of these, Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch dams isolate bull 
trout subpopulations. Historically, bull trout in the Boise River 
likely functioned as a single subpopulation with migratory adults 
moving among areas that are now isolated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). 
Similarly, bull trout were thought to have ranged throughout the Yakima 
River, Washington, prior to construction of several dams beginning in 
1905 (WDFW 1997). Storage dams (Tieton, Bumping Lake, Keechelus Lake, 
Kachess Lake, and Cle Elum Lake dams) now isolate five of eight bull 
trout subpopulations in the Yakima River basin, with agricultural 
diversion dams isolating three additional bull trout subpopulations 
(WDFW 1997). Operation of irrigation diversion dams also disrupts 
annual migrations of fluvial bull trout in five of seven spawning 
streams in the Methow River basin, Washington (WDFW 1997). In the 
mainstem Methow River, up to 79 percent of the average flow is removed 
from a 64 km (40 mi) reach, occasionally stranding and killing bull 
trout (Mullan et al. 1992). Due primarily to temperature constraints in 
partially dewatered tributaries to the Methow River, 60 percent of the 
total spawning and rearing areas for bull trout has been lost (Mullan 
et al. 1992; WDFW, in litt. 1995). Also in Washington, bull trout in 
the North Fork Lewis River were separated into two subpopulations by 
the construction of Swift and Yale reservoirs, and the Condit Dam on 
the White Salmon River also isolated a subpopulation (WDFW 1997). In 
Oregon, bull trout were thought to have historically occurred 
throughout the Willamette River basin, but are presently found only in 
the McKenzie River basin. Dams in the basin (Trailbridge and Carmen) 
isolate bull trout into three subpopulations.
    In the mainstem Clark Fork River, Idaho and Montana, bull trout 
moved and migrated freely from Lake Pend Oreille upstream to the 
headwaters of the Clark Fork and Flathead rivers prior to construction 
of five dams (Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996b; Frissell 1997). The 
construction of Albeni Falls, Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids, Thompson 
Falls, and Milltown dams isolated four bull trout subpopulations in the 
mainstem Clark Fork-Pend Oreille rivers. The uppermost dam, Milltown, 
isolates downstream fish from those in the upper Clark Fork River and 
prevents fish downstream of the dam from

[[Page 31658]]

moving into the Blackfoot River, a major tributary of the upper Clark 
Fork River. Annually, some bull trout congregate below Milltown Dam, 
attempting to move upstream. Radio-tagged bull trout collected below 
Milltown Dam and released above the dam moved into Rock Creek, a 
tributary to the upper Clark Fork system (Swanberg 1996). Movement of 
bull trout from the mainstem Clark Fork River to the Flathead Lake 
system is prevented by Kerr Dam on the lower Flathead River. Sport 
harvest of bull trout from Lake Pend Orielle, Idaho, abruptly declined 
more than 50 percent after Albeni Falls and Cabinet Gorge dams blocked 
access to historic spawning streams and reduced adult numbers (Ellis 
1940; Pratt and Huston 1993).
    Major tributaries of the Flathead River basin, Montana, were 
historically interconnected so that migratory bull trout were widely 
distributed throughout the drainage (MBTSG 1995d). Bull trout from the 
Flathead River system had access to the South Fork Flathead River 
drainage and the Swan River drainage. However, upstream passage from 
the Flathead River has been blocked by dams on the South Fork Flathead 
River (Hungry Horse Dam) and the Swan River (Bigfork Dam).
    On the Kootenai River, Montana, Libby Dam is an upstream passage 
barrier to bull trout. The dam also has altered the flow regime, water 
temperature, and sediment load in the Kootenai River (MBTSG 1996e). Dam 
operation has typically reduced spring flows, which has made upstream 
passage over Kootenai Falls, located downstream of Libby Dam, 
impossible. Therefore, fish below the falls do not have the opportunity 
to interbreed with fish above (MBTSG 1996e).
    An additional effect of dams on bull trout is the loss of 
individuals from a subpopulation. During a 7-month study in the Boise 
River, bull trout were marked in Arrowrock Reservoir and 5 percent of 
them were recaptured in Lucky Peak Reservoir (USBR, in litt. 1997). 
Lucky Peak Dam is downstream of the Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch 
subpopulations, and neither Lucky Peak Reservoir nor the reach 
downstream of the dam provide any known spawning habitat. Thus, fish 
entering Lucky Peak Reservoir are lost from the upstream 
subpopulations.

Forest Management Practices

    Forest management activities, including timber extraction and road 
building, affect streams habitats by altering recruitment of large 
woody debris, erosion and sedimentation rates, runoff patterns, the 
magnitude of peak and low flows, and annual water yield (Cacek 1989; 
Furniss et al. 1991; Wissmar et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). 
Activities that promote excessive substrate movement lower bull trout 
production by increasing egg and juvenile mortality, and reduce or 
eliminate habitat important to later life-history stages, such as when 
pools are filled with substrates (Shepard et al. 1984; Fraley and 
Shepard 1989; Brown 1992). The length and timing of bull trout egg 
incubation and juvenile development (typically more than 200 days 
during winter and spring) and the strong association of juvenile fish 
with stream substrate make bull trout vulnerable to changes in peak 
flows and timing that affect channels and substrate (Shepard et al. 
1984; Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992).
    Logging and road building in riparian zones reduce stream shading 
and widen stream channels, allowing greater sunlight penetration, 
surface water warming, and winter anchor ice formation (Beschta et al. 
1987; Chamberlain et al. 1991). Timber extraction in riparian areas 
that results in increased water temperatures in spawning and rearing 
areas may cause bull trout to decline (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman 
and McIntyre 1993). Logging in riparian areas reduces recruitment of 
large woody debris, thereby reducing stream habitat complexity. Loss of 
riparian vegetation destabilizes streambanks and increases erosion and 
sediment delivery to streams. Road construction that involves 
channelizing streams may cause reduced habitat complexity and increased 
sediment delivery.
    Although bull trout occur in watersheds affected by past timber 
extraction, bull trout strongholds persist in a greater percentage of 
watersheds experiencing little or no past timber harvest, such as the 
wilderness areas of Central Idaho and the South Fork Flathead River 
drainage in Montana (Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995e; USDA and USDI 
1997; Rieman et al. in press). One bull trout stronghold subject to 
extensive logging and road construction is in the Swan River basin 
(Watson and Hillman 1997). It is difficult to assess the overall 
effects of forestry practices on bull trout in parts of the basin 
because of the complex geomorphology and geology of the drainage (MBTSG 
1996a). However, the Swan River tributaries also drain large areas of 
contiguous roadless lands that provide important protected bull trout 
habitat.
    Timber harvest has occurred throughout the Columbia River (Henjum 
et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997) and Klamath River basins (Light 
et al. 1996; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). The effects of timber harvest 
on streams are long lasting, and recovery is slow (Furniss et al. 1991; 
Henjum et al. 1994). The MBTSG ranked forestry, especially the legacy 
left by past forestry practices, as a limitation to bull trout 
restoration in all major watersheds in Montana (MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-
f).

Klamath River Population Segment

    Much of the forest in the Klamath River basin has been managed for 
timber production, with substantial activity beginning in 1940. 
Extensive harvesting, including partial cutting with overstory removal, 
clearcutting, and selective logging for old-growth pine occurred on 
private lands, and low intensity harvest occurred on some of the USFS 
lands. Past forest management activities in the Klamath River basin 
have temporarily reduced riparian vegetative cover and increased water 
temperature in some streams, including Threemile Creek (Light et al. 
1996). Roads were built in the basin for access to timber, causing 
increased sedimentation and substrate embeddedness. Sediment from 
existing roads continues to degrade stream habitat (Light et al. 1996). 
Weyerhauser Timber Company began an improved road maintenance program 
in 1994 to reduce sediment inputs from roads on its lands adjacent to 
occupied bull trout stream reaches in the Klamath River basin, and U.S. 
Timberlands is presently continuing the practice (B. Johnson, pers. 
comm. 1997). Two recent timber harvest activities occurred on U.S. 
Timberlands property along Boulder Creek in 1994 and Long Creek in 1995 
(Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, pers. comm. 1997). A review of the 
activities concluded that leaving buffer strips and obliterating 
existing roads left the riparian habitat in better condition than 
before the timber harvest (B. Johnson, pers. comm. 1997). No timber 
harvests are currently planned for areas adjacent to streams occupied 
by bull trout. Six of the seven bull trout subpopulations identified in 
the Klamath River basin have been affected by past forest management 
practices.

Columbia River Population Segment

    Perhaps the greatest threat to bull trout involving forest 
practices and roads stems from the ongoing and latent adverse effects 
caused by over a century of logging. Latent threats are illustrated by 
approximately 2,300 land slides correlated with high logging road 
density on national forest lands in the Clearwater and Spokane rivers 
basins during high runoff events in 1995 and

[[Page 31659]]

1996 (L. McLaud, Idaho Conservation League, in litt. 1997; R. Patten, 
Panhandle National Forest, in litt. 1997). The same runoff events also 
triggered an estimated 2,000 land slides on adjacent non-Federal timber 
lands in the Clearwater River basin (McLaud, in litt. 1997). On over 
half of the non-wilderness lands within National Forests across 
northern Idaho and western Montana, the environmental effects of past 
forest practices now constrain forest management (USFS map, in litt. 
1994). For example, 70 percent of stream miles on the Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest are degraded beyond Land and Resource Management Plan 
(LRMP) standards for fine sediment and temperature parameters on the 
forest (Wissmar et al. 1994). On the Panhandle National Forest, Idaho, 
pool volumes, quality and frequency in managed watersheds (mainly 
watersheds with past timber extraction and road construction) were 
reduced compared to non-managed watersheds. Further, decreases in pool 
volume and frequency were correlated with decreases in the distribution 
and abundance of bull trout (Cross and Everest 1995). In the Lake Pend 
Oreille and Priest River basins, 31 percent of streams in National 
Forest lands are degraded beyond LRMP standards, and 51 percent of 
streams are in the most degraded category (B. Kasun, USFS, in litt. 
1993). Streams in the most degraded category generally do not support 
bull trout because of stream morphology changes, increased cobble 
embeddedness and high summer temperatures. Jones and Espinosa (1992) 
determined that 71 percent of the stream or watershed areas in the 
managed portion of the Clearwater National Forest did not meet LRMP 
standards, and that streams in poor condition generally did not support 
bull trout. Similarly, 67 percent of the non-wilderness portion of the 
Nez Perce National Forest did not meet LRMP standards, and streams in 
the most degraded category increased 12 percent over a five year period 
between 1987 and 1992 (Gloss and Gerhardt 1992).
    In the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, bull trout spawning 
and rearing is correlated with streams not subject to past timber 
harvest (Brown 1992). Timber harvest activities were responsible in the 
decline and isolation of bull trout in Pataha Creek, Washington (WDFW 
1997), a tributary in the Tucannon River drainage. In the North Fork 
Boise River basin, Idaho, the majority of bull trout spawning and 
rearing habitat for the Arrowrock Reservoir subpopulation exists in the 
roadless headwaters of the Crooked, Bear, and North Fork Boise rivers 
(Boise National Forest, in litt. 1995).
    The long-lasting effects of past timber management activities on 
aquatic habitats is illustrated by conditions in the 3,289 
km2 (1,270 mi2) South Fork Salmon River 
watershed, Idaho. The watershed was first logged in the 1940's and 
logging activity peaked in 1961 (Chapman et al. 1991). Sedimentation in 
the South Fork Salmon River increased approximately 350 percent above 
pre-logging levels (Chapman et al. 1991). Resident and anadromous 
salmonids, including bull trout, declined after timber extraction and 
associated road building. Despite a 25-year logging moratorium in the 
watershed, fish habitat has not returned to pre-logging quality, and 
salmon production has not recovered (Chapman et al. 1991).
    A relationship between forest management, watershed conditions, 
aquatic habitat degradation, and loss of occupied bull trout range has 
been documented in the Spokane River basin, Idaho. Streambed 
aggradation and loss of pool habitat are attributed to forest 
management and associated roads in the basin (G. Kappesser, Panhandle 
National Forest, in litt. 1993). The loss of pool habitat correlates to 
reductions in bull trout range and abundance in managed watersheds 
(Cross and Everest 1995). Sixty-one percent of the basin's managed 
watersheds do not meet forest plan standards (B. Kasum, Panhandle 
National Forest, in litt. 1992). The Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho, 
provides an example of the rate of watershed degradation. Significantly 
degraded watersheds with forest management increased by 12 percent in 
only 5 years; 40 percent of all non-wilderness land were in degraded 
condition (Gloss and Gearhardt 1992).
    The USFS classified watersheds in the Bitterroot National Forest, 
Montana, into three categories, ``healthy,'' ``sensitive,'' and ``high 
risk'' based on sediment yield from road construction and increased 
water yield and peak flow from timber harvest (Decker 1991 in MBTSG 
1995b). About one third of all watersheds were assigned to each of the 
three categories. Bull trout with estimable numbers were found only in 
watersheds rated as ``healthy'' or ``sensitive drainages'' (Clancy 
1993). The effects of past forest practices, including road 
construction, continue to affect Bitterroot tributaries (MBTSG 1995b). 
Generally, bull trout numbers were higher where stream substrates were 
larger, but numbers tended to be lower in areas high in fine sediments 
(Clancy 1993). In contrast, habitat where brook trout were found were 
characteristic of areas degraded by land use activities (Rich 1996). 
Eighty-five percent of the drainages classified as ``high risk'' 
supported brook trout (Clancy 1993) (see Factor E).
    Extensive logging activity has impaired water quality in many 
tributaries of the Blackfoot River, Montana, including the North Fork 
Blackfoot River (Montana Department of Health and Environmental 
Sciences (MDHES) 1994). Wide-spread canopy removal, alterations to 
riparian vegetation, and water irrigation returns have increased the 
historic temperature regime of the Blackfoot River (MBTSG 1995c; Pierce 
et al. 1997). Water temperatures in the mainstem Blackfoot frequently 
exceeded the bull trout preferred range of 15 deg.C (60 deg.F) in 1994, 
1995 and 1996, making coldwater refuges during this time critical for 
bull trout (Pierce et al. 1997). The effect of forest practices was 
considered a limitation to bull trout restoration in the Blackfoot 
River drainage (MBTSG 1995c).
    Timber management is the dominant land use in the Kootenai River 
watershed, Montana. Extensive road construction to support forestry 
activities exists throughout the watershed. Many reaches of streams in 
the Kootenai drainage have impaired water quality as a result of 
silviculture activities (MDHES 1994). As a result of salvage logging in 
1996, the number of timber sales and clearcuts have substantially 
increased over the past three years (Kootenai National Forest 1997).
    Past forest practices, including road construction, log skidding, 
riparian tree harvest, clearcutting, and splash dams, are considered a 
cause in the historic decline of bull trout and have limited 
restoration opportunities in the Flathead Lake basin (MBTSG 1995d). 
This basin supports over 30 subpopulations in wilderness, national 
park, national forest, and private lands of Montana. Because bull trout 
are sensitive to habitat and water quality degradation, Fraley and 
Shepard (1989) considered timber harvest and road construction in both 
the North and Middle Fork Flathead River drainages to be threats to 
bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. Although forest practices have 
improved, effects of past activities still affect bull trout because 
the existing road systems continue to erode, cause sedimentation, and 
increase water yield to streams. Silvicultural activities have 
contributed to 323.2 km (202 mi) in 17 streams being classified as 
water quality impaired in the Flathead basin (MDHES 1994). Existing 
roads in two National Forests of Idaho (Boise and Payette)

[[Page 31660]]

created slides and slumps during 1997, a high water year. In some areas 
of Montana and Idaho, culverts, that are passage barriers for bull 
trout, are being replaced at road crossings (P. Batt, Governor of 
Idaho, in litt. 1997, P. Graham, Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks 
(MFWP), and B. Clinch, Montana Department of Natural Resources and 
Conservation (MDNRC), in litt. 1997).
    Future proposed timber harvests also threaten bull trout. For 
instance, in Oregon, the Malheur National Forest proposes to salvage 
trees and build roads in a roadless area containing bull trout, site of 
the 1996 Summit Fire in the John Day River watershed, and a designated 
riparian habitat conservation area in the Environmental Assessment for 
the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 
Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of 
California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995). The project has not been completed, 
but it would likely degrade bull trout habitat if implemented as 
presently planned.
    In summary, forestry activities that adversely affect bull trout 
and its habitat are primarily timber extraction and road construction, 
especially when impacting riparian areas. These activities, when 
conducted without adequate protective measures, alter bull trout 
habitat by increasing sedimentation, reducing habitat complexity, 
increasing water temperature, and promoting channel instability. 
Although certain forestry practices have been prohibited or altered in 
recent years to improve protection of aquatic habitats, the 
consequences of past activities continue to affect bull trout and their 
habitat. Within the Columbia River population segment, approximately 74 
percent of bull trout subpopulations are threatened by forestry 
management practices.

Livestock Grazing

    Livestock grazing degrades aquatic habitat by removing riparian 
vegetation, destabilizing streambanks, widening stream channels, 
promoting incised channels and lowering water tables, reducing pool 
frequency, increasing soil erosion, and altering water quality (Platts 
1981; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Henjum et al. 1994; Overton et al. 
1993). These effects increase summer water temperatures, promote 
formation of anchor ice in winter, and increase sediment into spawning 
and rearing habitats. Cover for bull trout is reduced. Occupied bull 
trout habitat is also negatively affected by livestock grazing (Howell 
and Buchanan 1992; Mullan et al. 1992; Platts et al. 1993; R. Uberuaga, 
Payette National Forest, in litt. 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 
1995a,b,c; USDA and USDI 1996,1997).
    Livestock grazing impacts on bull trout habitat maybe minimized if 
grazing is managed appropriately for conditions at a specific site. 
Practices generally compatible with the preservation and restoration of 
bull trout habitat may include fences to exclude livestock from 
riparian areas, rotation schemes to avoid overuse of areas, and stock 
tanks so that livestock would concentrate outside of riparian areas for 
water.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Intensive livestock grazing historically occurred throughout most 
of the Klamath River basin, and continues to be widespread (Light et 
al. 1996). Livestock grazing is a major land use within the Sprague 
River drainage, mostly in the lowland meadows and to a lesser extent in 
some forested areas. Grazing has been eliminated along bull trout 
streams on U.S. Timberlands property (B. Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, in 
litt. 1997) and adjacent National Forest lands. However, documented 
cattle trespass on Long and Deming creeks indicates that livestock 
continue to locally affect bull trout habitats (Light et al. 1996; 
Buchanan et al. 1997). The meadows in upper Long Creek exhibit bank 
instability and diminished availability of undercut banks caused by 
livestock (Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization and intense grazing by 
cattle degraded lower Sun Creek and an adjoining stream in the Klamath 
River basin and may have contributed to the extirpation of migratory 
bull trout in Sun Creek (Dambacher et al. 1992).

Columbia River Population Segment

    Livestock grazing has caused habitat degradation in stream reaches 
supporting bull trout. On Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Payette 
River, Idaho, livestock grazing has damaged streambank and riparian 
vegetation. While fencing and grazing changes are underway to reduce 
impacts in this area, future damage from grazing will not be eliminated 
(M. Huffman, Boise National Forest (BNF), in litt. 1997). Livestock 
grazing continues to affect bull trout habitat for spawning, rearing, 
and migration in Bear Valley Creek and its tributaries in the BNF, 
Idaho (T. Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997). Livestock grazing was a 
factor in the decline of bull trout habitat in Pataha Creek, Washington 
(WDFW 1997). In Montana, severe overgrazing occurs in the Bitterroot 
River valley bottom streams and along the mainstem Clark Fork River in 
the Deerlodge valley, Flint Creek valley, and parts of Rock Creek, and 
limits bull trout restoration in these drainages (MBTSG 1995a,b; Maxell 
1996). Overall, livestock grazing in portions of the Wieser, Grande 
Ronde, Imnaha, and Malheur rivers has degraded streamside habitat 
(Adams 1994; Buchanan et al. 1997). Of the 141 subpopulations the 
Service identified in the Columbia River population segment, 
approximately 50 percent were threatened by ongoing livestock grazing.

Agricultural Practices

    Agricultural practices, such as cultivation, irrigation, and 
chemical application can affect bull trout. Agriculture has been 
identified a source of nonpoint source pollution in some areas within 
the range of bull trout (Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) 
1991; Washington Department of Ecology (WDE) 1992; MDHES 1994). These 
practices can release sediment, nutrients, pesticides and herbicides 
into streams, increase temperature, reduce riparian vegetation, and 
alter the hydrologic regime, typically with low flows in the spring and 
summer. Irrigation diversions also affect bull trout by altering stream 
flow and through entrainment. Bull trout may enter unscreened 
irrigation diversions and become stranded in ditches and agricultural 
fields. Diversion dams, without proper passage facilities, prevent bull 
trout from migrating and may isolate subpopulations (Dorratcaque 1986; 
Light et al. 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

    Historical agricultural use in the Klamath River basin has had a 
profound effect on bull trout habitat in the larger tributaries and 
mainstem rivers (Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization, water 
diversions, removal of streamside vegetarian, and disturbances have 
altered the aquatic environment by elevating water temperature, 
reducing water quantity and quality, and increasing sedimentation 
(Light et al. 1996). Deming, Long, Threemile, and Sun creeks have 
diversions immediately downstream of occupied bull trout habitat 
(Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997). Unscreened diversions result in 
the transport of fish into irrigation canals (e.g., Deming and Sun 
creeks), often resulting in mortality (Light et al. 1996).

Columbia River Population Segment

    In 1988, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 
conducted an assessment of nonpoint source pollution of the Salmon 
River basin. Of 4,080 km (2,550 mi) of streams assessed, an estimated 
2,059 km (1,287

[[Page 31661]]

mi) were affected by nonpoint sources, of which 1,374 km (859 mi) were 
affected by agricultural practices (IDHW 1991). Dewatering of stream 
reaches due to irrigation has restricted bull trout migration and 
isolated bull trout into subpopulations. Examples include the Powder, 
Malheur, Grande Ronde, Umatilla, and John Day rivers in Oregon 
(Buchanan et al. 1997); the Tucannon, Snake, Yakima, Methow, and Walla 
Walla rivers in Washington (WDW 1992; WDFW 1997); the upper Salmon and 
Lemhi rivers in Idaho (Dorratcaque 1986; Chapman et al. 1991); and the 
Clark Fork, Blackfoot, and Bitterroot rivers in Montana (Clancy 1993; 
MBTSG 1995a,b,c; 1996b,c; Swanberg 1996).
    The mainstem Umatilla River is frequently dry during the irrigation 
season, effectively isolating bull trout (M. Northrop, Umatilla 
National Forest, pers. comm. 1997). Moreover, two diversion facilities 
in the Umatilla River inhibit migration during portions of the year 
(Buchanan et al. 1997). Walla Walla River basin bull trout 
subpopulations are segregated in the Touchet River, Mill Creek, and 
South Fork and North Fork of the Walla Walla River by four irrigation 
diversion dams (Buchanan et al 1997; WDFW 1997). Streams are also 
channelized in agricultural areas, reducing stream length and area of 
aquatic habitat, altering stream channel morphology, and diminishing 
aquatic habitat complexity.
    In Idaho, Dorratcaque (1986) documented chronic flow and passage 
problems on the Lemhi River, where the stream has been dewatered during 
the irrigation season. An irrigation diversion dewaters the upper 
Salmon River in Idaho from mid-July to the end of the irrigation 
season, preventing chinook salmon access to spawning areas. Juvenile 
chinook salmon, which are used as prey by bull trout, are, thereby, no 
longer available (Chapman et al. 1991). Streamflows in the Umatilla 
River basin in Oregon have been fully appropriated during the 
irrigation season since 1920 (Oregon Water Resources Division (OWRD), 
in litt. 1988). Over-appropriations have resulted in dewatered stream 
reaches that limit bull trout distribution within the basin. Similarly, 
the Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC) first recognized the negative 
effects of irrigation diversions on fisheries resources in the 
Deschutes River as early as 1950 (OSGC, in litt. 1950). In Washington, 
over 80 percent of the annual stream flow in the Yakima River basin is 
seasonally diverted for irrigation (WDW 1992). Bull trout in the basin 
are isolated into eight subpopulations in upper watershed tributaries 
by reduced summer flows and dams (WDW 1992). The lower reaches of the 
Walla Walla River in Washington are often dewatered during the 
irrigation season, isolating three bull trout subpopulations in 
perennial headwater reaches (Martin et al. 1992).
    In 1991, MFWP listed Montana streams that support or contribute to 
important fisheries and are substantially dewatered from diversions and 
appropriated streamflows (MFWP, in litt. 1991). Within the range of 
bull trout, 101 stream reaches totaling 958.4 km (599 mi) were listed 
as chronically dewatered due to irrigation withdrawals and an 
additional 220.8 km (138 mi) were listed as periodically dewatered. 
Although bull trout do not occur in all streams cited, all are within 
the range of bull trout and dewatering likely affects fish migration 
and connectivity among subpopulations.
    The extirpation of bull trout in the mainstem Bitterroot River, 
Montana, and the loss of migratory fish are attributed to chronic 
dewatering of the mainstem Bitterroot and the lower reaches of most of 
its tributaries (Clancy 1993, 1996; MBTSG 1995b). Some diversions on 
the mainstem Bitterroot are fish passage barriers or entrain downstream 
migrants into irrigation ditches (MBTSG 1995b). Nearly 104 km (65 mi) 
of 18 tributary streams are chronically dewatered in the Bitterroot 
River basin (MBTSG 1995b). Dewatering of tributary streams is a 
limitation to restoration of bull trout in the Bitterroot River basin 
(MBTSG 1995b) and the cause of habitat fragmentation isolating 27 
subpopulations.
    In the Clark Fork River basin, Montana, irrigation diversions, 
canals, and dams in the Jocko and lower Flathead rivers eliminated bull 
trout access to spawning and rearing areas; however, some of these 
structures are in the process of being modified (MBTSG 1996c; Hansen 
and DosSantos 1997; MBTRT 1997). The lower reaches of the Jocko River 
are severely affected by grazing and irrigated agriculture (Hansen and 
DosSantos 1997). Because migratory bull trout can no longer ascend 
Grant Creek from the mainstem Clark Fork River due to irrigation 
diversions, only resident bull trout exist upstream (MBTSG 1996c; R. 
Berg, MFWP, pers. comm. 1997). Dewatering, irrigation return flows, and 
denuded riparian areas have increased water temperatures in the 
Blackfoot River and Clark Fork River basins, Montana (MBTSG 1995a,c). 
Water temperatures in the mainstem upper Clark Fork River frequently 
exceed 20 deg.C (68 deg. F) and temperatures in tributaries, including 
the Little Blackfoot and Flint Creek, may exceed bull trout tolerance 
limits (MBTSG 1995a). In the Blackfoot River basin, irrigation returns 
have contributed to the warming of this historic coldwater river (MBTSG 
1995c; Pierce et al. 1997). Irrigation diversions, particularly in the 
Little Blackfoot River and in Flint Creek of the upper Clark Fork 
River, are physical and thermal passage barriers to bull trout (MBTSG 
1995a). Diversion for irrigation is the primary cause of 622 km (389 
mi) of streams in the upper Clark Fork basin being chronically 
dewatered (MDHES 1994). Irrigation diversions also continue to limit 
restoration of migratory bull trout in the Blackfoot River basin (MBTSG 
1995c). Recently, several diversions have been renovated to provide 
passage and eliminate ditch entrainment (MBTRT 1997).
    Unscreened irrigation diversions in eastern Washington are known to 
trap or divert bull trout in Ahtanan Creek (Yakima River basin), 
Ingalls and Peshastin creeks (Wenatchee River basin), Roaring Creek 
(Entiat River basin), and Buttermilk, Little Bridge, Eagle, and Wolf 
Creeks (Methow River basin) (J. Easterbrooks, WDFW, pers. comm. 1997). 
Channelization has altered 56 km (35 mi) of the Methow River (Mullan et 
al. 1992). Approximately 72 km (45 mi) of the lower Coeur d'Alene, St. 
Joe, and St. Maries rivers of the Spokane River basin have been 
channelized. These streams were once considered important rearing areas 
and migratory corridors for migratory (fluvial) bull trout.
    Approximately 47 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the 
Columbia River population segment are affected by the past and ongoing 
effects from agricultural practices, including diversions.

Road Construction and Maintenance

    Non-forest roads degrade salmonid habitat by creating flow 
constraints in ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels; 
increasing erosion and sedimentation; creating passage barriers; 
channelization; and reducing riparian vegetation (Furniss et al. 1991; 
Ketcheson and Megahan 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

    Streamside roads may have multiple locations of elevated sediment 
delivery. Some level of sedimentation is normal, and can be documented 
along parts of Boulder, Deming, Threemile, Brownsworth, and Leonard 
creeks. In contrast, Long and Sun creeks have relatively little 
sediment delivery from roads in reaches occupied by bull trout (Light 
et al. 1996). Streamside roads inadequately constructed with

[[Page 31662]]

misplaced water bars and culverts still discharge sediment laden waters 
directly into streams. Over-road flow can lead to gullying and direct 
sediment delivery, as found in parts of Deming Creek (Light et al. 
1996). Streamside roads can also reduce large woody debris recruitment 
and vegetation shade by occupying the growing space next to streams. In 
addition, road construction may require stream straightening or channel 
reconfiguration next to roads, resulting in channelization as along 
Boulder and Deming creeks (Light et al. 1996; Dunsmoor and Bienz, in 
litt. 1997). Habitat degradation from channelization includes decreased 
pool habitat, decreased sediment transport, increased embeddedness, and 
reduced interstitial space in substrates (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 
1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

    Construction and improvement of Interstate 90 is a contributing 
factor to the decline and suppression of bull trout in Gold Creek, a 
tributary of the Yakima River, Washington (Craig and Wissmar 1993). In 
Montana, Interstate 90 and a railroad system parallel to the Clark Fork 
and St. Regis rivers has contributed to channelization and increased 
the risk of hazardous spills (MBTSG 1996b,c). Approximately 18 percent 
of the bull trout subpopulations in the Columbia River basin are 
affected by road construction and ongoing maintenance.

Mining

    Mining can degrade aquatic habitat by altering water acidity or 
alkalinity, changing stream morphology and flow, and causing sediment, 
fuel, and heavy metals to enter streams (Martin and Platts 1981; Spence 
et al. 1996). The types of mining that occur within the range of bull 
trout include extraction of hard rock minerals, coal, gas, oil, and 
nonminerals. Past and present mining activities have adversely affected 
bull trout and bull trout habitats in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and 
Washington (Martin and Platts 1981; Johnson and Schmidt 1988; Moore et 
al. 1991; WDW 1992; Platts et al. 1993; MBTSG 1995a,c, 1996b,c).

Klamath River Population Segment

    Mining effects are not known to be a factor affecting bull trout 
subpopulations in the Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

    Mining severely impacts large portions of the Spokane River basin. 
Effects include roading, stream diversion and alteration, watershed 
degradation from airborne emissions, and the discharge of massive 
quantities of waste materials, including the release into the South 
Fork Coeur d'Alene River of 72 million tons of hazardous mine wastes 
laden with heavy metals such as lead, zinc, and cadmium (Coeur d'Alene 
tribe of Idaho et al. 1991). During the early 1930s, the South Fork 
Coeur d'Alene River and about 20 miles of the lower Coeur d'Alene River 
were considered devoid of aquatic life due to mining waste discharge 
(Ellis 1940). Although some aquatic species have returned to the river, 
bull trout are not among them. In Montana, bull trout have not 
recolonized the upper mainstem Clark Fork River where mining-related 
stream degradation extirpated all fish prior to the turn of the century 
(MBTSG 1995a; Titan Environmental Corp. 1997). The lingering effects of 
mining done over the past century in the Butte and Anaconda reaches of 
the upper Clark Fork River has resulted in four Superfund sites being 
designated. Mining continues to impair water quality in 558 km (349 mi) 
of stream in these reaches (MDHES 1994). Eleven fish kills documented 
between 1959 and 1991 were attributed to mining contamination of the 
river (Titan Environmental Corporation 1997).
    Numerous abandoned mines, such as the Blackbird and Cinnabar mines 
in the Salmon River drainage, Idaho, degrade water quality where toxic 
heavy metals continue to leach from mine sites into streams or 
groundwater. Old mine tailings in the floodplains of Newsome Creek, 
American River, and Crooked River, tributaries to the Clearwater River 
in Idaho, continue to prevent recovery of riparian areas (N. Gearhardt, 
Nez Perce National Forest, pers. comm. 1997). In Idaho, mine tailings 
abandoned decades ago contaminated a tributary of the Middle Fork Boise 
River with heavy metals, including arsenic, during flood flows in 1997 
when migrating bull trout were present (R. Barker, Idaho Statesman, in 
litt. 1997: S. West, IDEQ, in litt. 1997). In Montana, historic mining 
in many tributaries of the Middle Clark Fork River has impaired water 
quality in 245 km (153 mi) of stream (MDHES 1994). The MBTSG (1995c) 
ranked mining in the Blackfoot River drainage as a limitation to bull 
trout restoration. Many mines exist in the western and southern 
portions of the Blackfoot River basin causing direct loss of bull trout 
habitat and contamination of waters from mine effluents (MBTSG 1995c). 
Fishes in the upper Blackfoot River are still affected by the washout 
of the Mike Horse tailings dam in 1975, which spilled contaminated 
tailings into the Blackfoot River (MBTSG 1995c). Research in the 
Blackfoot drainage demonstrated that heavy metal contaminants released 
in the headwaters affect chemical trends, metal concentrations, metal 
bioavailabilty, and fish for 25 km (15.6 mi) from the contaminant 
source (Moore et al. 1991).
    New open-pit mines using cyanide leach pads are planned for 
watersheds currently occupied by bull trout in the Middle Fork Boise 
River basin, Idaho, and in the Stibnite area of the East Fork South 
Fork Salmon River, Idaho (G. Visconty, Boise National Forest, in litt. 
1996; Payette National Forest (PNF), in litt. 1996). In Montana, a 
large underground copper-silver mine proposed for Rock Creek in the 
lower Clark Fork River basin is currently in the permitting process. 
Tailings would be stored at the confluence of Rock Creek and the Clark 
Fork River (MBTSG 1996b; R. Stewart, USDI, in litt. 1995). Rock Creek 
is one of only two bull trout ``core'' areas in this subpopulation 
(MBTSG 1996b). A proposal for a large open-pit gold mine using cyanide 
heap leach processing is proposed for the upper Blackfoot River basin, 
Montana. Much of the ore body occurs below the water table, requiring 
pumping of groundwater. Thus, the hydrology of the upper Blackfoot 
River system could be affected and an increase in contamination risks 
could result (S. Cody, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in litt. 
1997; K. McMaster, Service, in litt. 1997).
    The North Fork Flathead River headwaters in Canada contain a large 
coal deposit that could be developed (MBTSG 1995d). Mining this deposit 
could destroy spawning habitat and degrade water quality in the Montana 
portion of the Flathead River system (MBTSG 1995d).
    Approximately 20 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the 
Columbia River population segment are threatened by past, ongoing, or 
potential future mining activities.

Residential Development

    Residential development is rapidly increasing within portions of 
the range of bull trout. Development increases threaten to alter stream 
and riparian habitats through streambank modification and 
destabilization, increased nutrient loads, and increased water 
temperatures (MBTSG 1995b). Indirectly, urbanization within floodplains 
alters groundwater recharge by routing water into streams through 
drains rather than through more gradual subsurface flow (Booth 1991).

[[Page 31663]]

Klamath River Population Segment

    Residential development is not known to be factor affecting 
existing bull trout subpopulations in the Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

    In Montana, rural residential development is rapidly increasing, 
particularly in drainages of the Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Flathead 
rivers (MBTSG 1995b,c,d). The lower Bitterroot River is a major non-
point source of nutrient pollution, primarily from sewage effluent and 
land development (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 in 
MBTSG 1995b). Efforts to mitigate effects of rural development in the 
Blackfoot River basin have been encouraged by an active local group, 
the Blackfoot Challenge, which has been working to acquire conservation 
easements, among other projects. Residential development in the 
Flathead Lake system is considered a limitation for restoration of bull 
trout because of the threat to water quality from domestic sewage and 
changes to stream morphology (MBTSG 1995d).
    Approximately 26 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the 
Columbia River population segment are threatened by the effects of 
residential development.
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Declines in bull trout have prompted states to 
institute restrictive fishing regulations on all waters throughout bull 
trout range. Recent observations of increased numbers of adult bull 
trout in some areas have been attributed to more restrictive 
regulations. However, illegal harvest and incidental harvest still 
continue to threaten bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Legal harvest of bull trout in the Klamath River basin was 
eliminated in 1992 when ODFW imposed a fishing closure. Because 
recreational fishing for other trout species continues in the basin, 
incidental fishing mortality of bull trout likely occurs (OCAFS 1993). 
During recent ODFW angler surveys in the Klamath River basin, all 
anglers contacted were aware of the no harvest regulation for bull 
trout (D. Bertram, ODFW, in litt. 1995; Light et al. 1996). Incidental 
bull trout mortality due to angling is unknown, but is not suspected to 
be suppressing bull trout subpopulations in the Klamath River basin 
(Light et al. 1996). However, Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997) 
consider angling to be a factor negatively affecting bull trout, 
especially subpopulations with low numbers and proximity to highway 
access, such as Threemile Creek.

Columbia River Population Segment

    Overharvest of bull trout in the Columbia River basin, 
historically, likely contributed to their decline. In the past, harvest 
included legal recreational angling, poaching, and State-sponsored 
eradication programs (Thomas 1992). Bull trout were often targeted for 
removal by anglers and government agencies because bull trout preyed on 
salmon and other desirable species (Simpson and Wallace 1982; Bond 
1992). As recently as 1990, State and Federal agencies instituted 
programs to eradicate bull trout through bounties and poisoning of 
waterways (Ratliff and Howell 1992; ODFW 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; 
Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). For instance, during the 
1940's and 1950's in Oregon, several hundred bull trout migrating from 
Wallowa Lake to spawn in Wallowa River were trapped in a weir and 
exterminated (B. Smith, WDFW, in litt. 1997). Bull trout were recently 
re-introduced to Wallowa Lake in summer 1997 in an effort to re-
establish the fish.
    In recognition of the decline of bull trout, State management 
agencies in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon suspended harvest in 
the Columbia River basin except in Lake Billy Chinook (Oregon) and Swan 
Lake (Montana). State regulations still allow catch and release fishing 
for bull trout, and the harvest of other salmonid species is allowed in 
most bull trout waters. However, in Montana, (MFWP 1996), the revised 
regulations are believed to be partially responsible for increasing 
bull trout numbers in the Swan River basin where the taking or 
intentional fishing for bull trout is prohibited (MBTSG 1996a). 
Mortality from incidental catch and release angling of bull trout and 
harvest as a result of misidentification still continues under existing 
fishing regulations. For example, about half or fewer of anglers 
surveyed were able to correctly identify bull trout from other 
salmonids in west-central Montana (Kelly et al. 1996; M. Long and S.P. 
Whalen, MFWP, in litt. 1997). In 1997, the day after two radio tagged 
bull trout were released into Wallowa Lake, Oregon, one of the fish was 
unintentionally, but illegally harvested by a young angler. The MBTSG 
(1995d) is concerned with the catch and release mortality of bull trout 
as a result of intense fishing pressure on lake trout in Flathead Lake 
and the Flathead River. Legal and illegal harvest can seriously affect 
declining subpopulations already subjected to other factors such as 
competition, degraded habitat, and isolation (WDW 1992; Donald and 
Alger 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Swanberg and Burns 1997).
    Poaching of bull trout likely continues, and can be especially 
detrimental to small, isolated subpopulations of migratory fish (WDFW 
1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Long 1997). A 
study in the Metolius River suggested that 2 of 22 radio-tagged adult 
bull trout were illegally harvested (Ratliff et al. 1996). Illegal 
harvest of bull trout in northwest Montana has been a recurring problem 
for over 50 years, especially in drainages of the Blackfoot, Kootenai, 
South Fork Flathead, and Clark Fork rivers (MBTSG 1995e; Swanberg 1996; 
Long 1997). In response, the MFWP instituted a program in 1994 funded 
by the Bonneville Power Administration to reduce the illegal harvest of 
bull trout, disperse information to improve anglers' fish 
identification skills, and increase understanding of the importance of 
native species (Long 1994). Additionally, the Montana legislature 
increased the penalties for bull trout poaching, and the Bonneville 
Power Administration, until recently, funded increased enforcement (M. 
Racicot, Governor of Montana, in litt. 1995).
    Approximately 21 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the 
Columbia River population segment are threatened by the effects of 
poaching.
    C. Disease or predation. Although diseases affecting salmonids are 
likely present in both the Klamath River and Columbia River basins, 
they are not thought to be a major factor affecting bull trout. 
However, interspecific interactions, including predation, are thought 
to negatively affect bull trout where non-native salmonids have been 
introduced (Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997).

Klamath River Population Segment

    Diseases have not been documented affecting bull trout in the 
Klamath River basin. However, brook trout and brown trout have been 
introduced in the basin, and either one or both species co-exist with 
bull trout in all subpopulations except Deming Creek (Buchanan et al. 
1997). Brown trout predation on bull trout is evidenced by a direct 
observation in Boulder Creek (Light et al. 1996). Overall, bull trout 
co-occur with brown trout and brook trout in about half of the occupied 
habitat. Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that bull trout occupy 
approximately 34.1 km (20.5 mi) of streams. However, allopatric 
(occurring in different

[[Page 31664]]

geographic areas or in isolation) bull trout have been estimated to 
occupy only 13.4 to 15.7 km (8.3 to 9.8 mi) within the basin (Buchanan 
et al. 1997; Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

    Health samples from 207 juvenile bull trout collected from 8 
streams in the Flathead River basin in 1992 and 1993 were negative in 
tests for furunculus, enteric redmouth, bacterial kidney disease, and 
viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) or infectious pancreatic necrosis 
(IPN) (Fredenberg 1993). Bull trout are susceptible to whirling 
disease, caused by a protozoan parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis), and 
recently detected in bull trout waters in Montana (Montana Whirling 
Disease Task Force 1996). However, bull trout are less susceptible to 
whirling disease than rainbow trout (McDowell et al. 1997). Whirling 
disease is currently untreatable in the wild, and the parasite appears 
to be rapidly spreading into previously uninfected waters. The 
consequences of whirling disease on bull trout may not be apparent for 
years.
    Bull trout are most vulnerable to predation as juveniles. Several 
non-native fishes, such as lake trout, brown trout, brook trout and 
northern pike (Esox lucius) are considered potential predators (and 
competitors, see Factor E below) of many bull trout subpopulations in 
the Columbia River basin (Donald and Alger 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993; 
Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995d, 1996a; MFWP 1997).
    Dramatic declines in the Priest Lake, Idaho, bull trout harvest 
began about 20 years ago. Between 1956 and 1970, an annual average of 
1,200 fish were harvested. In 1978, a record 2,320 were harvested, 
declining in 1983 to 159 (Mauser et al. 1988). There has been no legal 
harvest of bull trout since 1984. Bull trout were extirpated from 
Priest Lake through interactions with introduced lake trout (Pratt and 
Huston 1993). Mauser et al. (1988) described bull trout in Priest Lake 
as ``functionally extinct as long as lake trout abundance is high.'' 
Similarly, lake trout introduced into Flathead Lake feed on juvenile 
bull trout entering the lake from the Flathead River, and are thought 
to be a factor in recent declines of the bull trout subpopulation 
(MBTSG 1995d). Introduced non-native fishes limit bull trout 
restoration in all the major drainages in Montana (MBTSG 1995a-e, 
1996a-f).
    For bull trout in the Columbia River population segment, disease is 
not considered a listing factor; however, approximately 62 percent of 
the subpopulations are threatened by introduced non-native fishes, 
including the effects of predation.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although 
efforts are underway to conserve bull trout (e.g., Batt, in litt. 1997; 
Joslin, in litt. 1997; Thomas, in litt. 1997), the implementation and 
enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve 
fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat 
have not prevented past and ongoing habitat degradation. This 
inadequacy has led to bull trout declines and isolation and is a factor 
in the determination to list bull trout population segments. Regulatory 
mechanisms, including the National Forest Management Act, the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal 
Power Act, State Endangered Species Acts and numerous State laws and 
regulations govern an array of land and water management activities 
that affect bull trout and their habitat.

National Forest Management Act

    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) require the USFS and BLM to develop 
and implement land and resource management plans (LRMPs) and Resource 
Management Plans (RMPs), respectively) to protect fish and wildlife 
resources and produce forest and range products. However, reviews by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) of LRMP monitoring and 
evaluation reports for 28 national forests indicate that many 
watersheds do not meet NFMA Forest Plan standards. Compliance with 
LRMPs and effectiveness of best management practices on current 
projects is improving, but, a majority of streams that had been 
affected by past practices were not healing as fast as anticipated 
(USDA 1995).
    Reviews of existing LRMPs implemented outside the range of the 
northern spotted owl, even as amended by the Environmental Assessment 
for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 
Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of 
California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995), have inadequately protected salmonid 
habitat on BLM and national forest lands (Henjum et al. 1994; R. 
Schmitten, NMFS, in litt. 1995; Espinosa et al. 1997). While the severe 
resource damage from forest management that occurred in the 1950s 
through the 1970s has ceased, the current LRMPs have not fully taken 
into account the habitat needs of salmonids and recovery of degraded 
habitats has not occurred as predicted. For example, most LRMPs were 
developed prior to listing the Snake River salmon stocks, and, 
consequently, the biological requirements of these fish are not fully 
considered under the parameters of the LRMPs. The NMFS noted that even 
though PACFISH provided some improvements in many standards and 
guidelines of the LRMPs, comprehensive, landscape-scale conservation 
strategies for salmonid survival and recovery are still lacking 
(Schmitten, NMFS, in litt, 1995). Espinosa et al. (1997) listed several 
reasons why the Clearwater National Forest Plan adopted in 1987 has 
failed to adequately protect salmonid habitats in forest watersheds. 
Reasons included for this failure were-- projected timber harvests and 
levels of associated road construction too high to achieve fish habitat 
quality standards; inaccurate riparian habitat inventories; watershed 
recovery following disturbance was slower than expected; and inaccurate 
inventories of the timber resources.
    Under the NFMA and the FLPMA, livestock grazing occurs on over 70 
percent of federally-administered western rangeland, or about 108.5 
million ha (268 million acres (ac)) of land in 16 western states 
(General Accounting Office (GAO) 1988). Ongoing livestock grazing on 
lands administered by the BLM and USFS continues to occur in watersheds 
occupied by bull trout (Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et al. 1994; USDA 
and USDI 1997). Technical solutions to improving riparian areas damaged 
by livestock grazing were available as early as 1988 (GAO 1988). 
However, the GAO (1988) noted that correcting damage from grazing was 
not readily solvable due to funding and political pressure to maintain 
the status quo grazing systems. Within the Interior Columbia River 
Basin, the BLM and USFS have had difficulty correcting practices that 
cause grazing damage to streams due to lack of funding, conflicting 
requirements of different laws, or budget allocations (USDA and USDI 
1997). However, in some areas supporting federally listed fish or 
designated critical habitat, the BLM and the USFS have been able to 
improve livestock management in riparian areas, including habitat for 
shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker 
(Deltistes luxatus) in the Klamath River basin, and the Lohontan 
cutthroat trout

[[Page 31665]]

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawii) of the Great Basin.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

    The USFS, BLM, EPA, NMFS, and Service are cooperating in 
development of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
(ICBEMP), a large-scale land management plan for lands administered by 
these agencies in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and western 
Montana. The alternatives described in the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) do not specifically address bull trout conservation in 
``depressed'' areas outside the range of steelhead and chinook salmon; 
the preferred alternative depends on subbasin review and ecosystem 
analysis at the watershed scale as the basis for decision-making within 
the Interior Columbia Basin (USDA and USDI 1997). The ICBEMP is in 
draft, and possible outcomes from implementing future bull trout 
conservation actions as part of an unapproved management alternative 
are not predictable. Funding and staffing to implement those components 
are also not secured.

Streamlined Consultation Procedures

    On March 8, 1995, the USFS, Service, BLM, and NMFS, issued a 
memorandum directing the agencies to participate in ``streamlined'' 
consultation procedures. These procedures were initiated to address 
forest health and salvage projects (T. Dwyer, Service, in litt. 1995). 
By May 31, 1995, these procedures were extended indefinitely to include 
all consultation efforts (Dwyer, in litt. 1995). These procedures apply 
to Federal land management activities in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 
Montana and California (California lands managed by BLM are subject to 
streamlined procedures only when forest ecosystem activities are 
involved). The purpose of the streamlined procedures is to improve the 
efficiency of the section 7 consultation process (C. Dunn, Service, in 
litt. 1997). Conservation and protection of bull trout habitat has been 
inconsistent due in part to the USFS and BLM discretionary option to 
review non-listed, candidate species or species of concern (R. 
Vizgirdas, Service, in litt. 1997; R. Strach, Service, in litt. 1997; 
P. Zenone, Service, in litt. 1997). In Idaho and eastern Oregon, 
Federal land management agencies have often not considered the effects 
of projects on bull trout through the streamlining process.

Endangered Species Act

    In the Klamath River basin, the Service listed the shortnose sucker 
and Lost River sucker under the Act as endangered on August 26, 1987 
(52 FR 32145), and proposed critical habitat for the species on 
December 1, 1994 (50 CFR 61744). Bull trout likely used portions of the 
proposed critical habitat in the past, including tributaries in the 
upper Klamath River, Crooked Creek, Sevenmile Creek, and Wood River. 
Although some of the earliest records of bull trout in the basin are 
from Fort Creek, a tributary of the Wood River (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in 
litt. 1997), bull trout do not presently occur within the habitat 
occupied by the two suckers. Therefore, conservation and recovery 
actions undertaken for the listed suckers will not directly benefit 
bull trout.
    In the Columbia River basin, three species of salmon in the Snake 
River are listed--sockeye salmon (endangered), spring/summer chinook 
salmon (threatened) and fall chinook salmon (threatened). Critical 
habitat for all three salmon was designated, including the Columbia 
River migration corridor, and historically accessible streams in the 
Snake River basin upstream of Hell's Canyon Dam in Idaho, Oregon and 
Washington (58 FR 68543-68554). Downstream of Hell's Canyon and 
Dworshak Dam, the designation extends to reaches historically 
accessible to salmon, below historically impassible barriers (58 FR 
68543-68554). The designation extends protection to bull trout habitat 
in areas where they co-occur with the salmon. However, in many areas 
bull trout tend to spawn and rear upstream of listed salmon habitats. 
For instance, Fall Creek, a tributary of the Salmon River, Idaho, has 
an impassible waterfall near its mouth, and habitat for the listed 
salmon ends at the impassible falls (58 FR 68543-68554), but bull trout 
spawn and rear above the falls. In this example, bull trout spawning 
and rearing habitat does not overlap with the listed salmon; thus, bull 
trout would not receive indirect protection under the Act.
    On August 18, 1997, five evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of 
steelhead were listed as threatened--three in California, one in 
Washington (Columbia River from the Yakima River to Grand Coulee Dam), 
and one in the Snake River basin in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (62 
FR 43937). Although protection for bull trout under the Act would be 
afforded where they co-occur with steelhead, measures to protect 
steelhead may be insufficient for bull trout due to differences in the 
life history between the species and lack of complete habitat overlap.

Northwest Forest Plan

    The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) addresses management of USFS and 
BLM lands within the range of the northern spotted owl, and 
implementation began in April 1994 (Tuchmann et al. 1996). The NWFP 
includes an aquatic conservation strategy, consisting of four inter-
related elements. The first element is riparian reserves, which is the 
system of lands along streams allocated toward the conservation and 
restoration of aquatic and riparian dependent species. The second is 
key watersheds, which are watersheds with special values and 
appropriate management standards. The third element is watershed 
analysis, which is required to help land managers understand the 
processes that maintain habitats and to manage to preserve these 
processes. The fourth element is watershed restoration projects, which 
are funded to move watersheds toward recovery. For instance, in 1994 
through 1996, 1675 watershed restoration projects (or groups of 
projects) were funded under the NWFP (Tuchmann et al. 1996). The 
conservation strategy generally addresses the maintenance of the four 
elements. Although the strategy does not specifically address bull 
trout needs, it contains objectives for riparian and stream 
conservation and maintenance that may facilitate conservation of bull 
trout habitat (W. Cole, Service, in litt, 1997). Additionally, the 
implementation of the NWFP is dependent on interagency collaboration to 
achieve resource conservation and a sampling of projects unaffected by 
the 1995 Salvage Rider (see below) indicates that bull trout are 
generally protected by the NWFP. However, the NWFP covers only a minor 
portion of bull trout habitat for the Columbia River population 
segment.

PACFISH and INfish

    The USFS and BLM developed the Interim Strategies for Managing 
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 
Idaho and Portions of California, known as PACFISH. PACFISH is intended 
to be an ecosystem-based, aquatic habitat and riparian-area management 
strategy for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout 
habitat on lands administered by the two agencies and outside the area 
subject to implementation of the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1995). PACFISH 
amended Regional Guides, forest plans and land use plans by applying 
management

[[Page 31666]]

measures for all ongoing and proposed or new projects that pose an 
unacceptable risk to anadromous fish involving the management of 
timber, roads, grazing, and other land uses. The Service is 
participating with NMFS, the USFS, and the BLM in reviewing action-
agency PACFISH screening efforts for anadromous fish. Within the area 
of PACFISH where the habitats of salmon and bull trout overlap, the 
screening effort is to protect both anadromous fish and bull trout from 
major effects. However, efforts to include bull trout in the PACFISH 
review are not always successful (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach, in 
litt. 1997; Zenone, in litt. 1997).
    The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INfish) was developed by the USFS 
to provide an interim strategy for inland native fish in eastern Oregon 
and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada (USDA and 
USDI 1995). It has not been determined whether INfish is an effective 
strategy for removing the threats for bull trout. In Idaho, the USFS 
does not place a priority on application of INfish and generally has 
determined that anadromous watersheds have a higher priority than bull 
trout watersheds (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach in litt. 1997; 
Zenone, in litt. 1997).

Clean Water Act

    Under sections 303 and 304 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), States or 
EPA set water quality standards, which combine designated beneficial 
uses and criteria established to protect those uses. Water bodies that 
are identified as failing water quality standards are designated by 
States under section 303(d) as water quality limited (MDHES 1994; EPA 
1994; ODEQ 1996), and subject to development of management plans to 
restore water quality and protect designated uses. These management 
plans, or total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), address both point and 
non-point sources of pollutants within a watershed. Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) are used with TMDLs to address non-point sources of 
pollution, such as mining, forestry, and agriculture; however, 
regulatory authority to enforce the BMPs varies among the states. It is 
estimated that 10 percent of total length of streams within the ICBEMP 
assessment area, including the Klamath River and Columbia River basins, 
are listed as water quality limited. This may underestimate the true 
extent and distribution of streams with impaired water quality 
potentially affecting bull trout (USDA and USDI 1997). In the Klamath 
River basin, stream reaches designated as water quality limited (i.e., 
cited on the 303(d) list of Oregon for various water quality standards 
(ODEQ 1996)) are estimated to apply to six of the seven bull trout 
subpopulations. In the Columbia River basin, water bodies designated as 
water quality limited by Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana are 
estimated to apply to at least 64 of the 141 bull trout subpopulations.
    Relative to water temperature, Oregon established a water quality 
criterion of 10 deg. C (50 deg. F) as a weekly average based on daily 
maximum temperatures in bull trout spawning and rearing waters (OAR 
340-41-685 and OAR 340-41-026); however, water bodies where these 
criteria would apply have not been identified. In Washington, 
temperature criteria for waters vary among the different 
classifications that are assigned to each waterbody, and range from 16 
to 22 deg. C (60.8 to 71.6 deg. F) (Chapter 173-201 WAC). Washington is 
reviewing these standards with the intent of creating more appropriate 
water quality standards; however, whether the criteria specifically are 
for bull trout is unknown. In Idaho, EPA disapproved the state's 
temperature criteria applications within the geographic range of bull 
trout (EPA 1997). The EPA determined that the criteria did not provide 
adequate protection for bull trout relative to two designated uses--
cold water biota and salmonid spawning (maximum daily average of 
13 deg. C (55.5 deg. F) and 9 deg. C (48.2 deg. F) for each respective 
use). In July 1997, EPA promulgated a temperature criterion of 10 deg. 
C (50 deg. F) during June through September in designated stream areas, 
as a weekly average based on daily maximum temperatures for spawning 
and rearing of bull trout (EPA 1997). To date, the State has not 
adopted EPA's promulgated criterion, but has adopted 12 deg. C as a 
daily average during June-August for juvenile rearing and 9 deg. C for 
September and October for spawning. Additionally, Idaho has established 
a geographical area where these criteria would apply. It is unknown 
whether EPA will approve the State's criteria and withdraw the 
promulgated rule. In Montana, the temperature criterion applied to 
waters with bull trout is 19 deg. C (66 deg. F); temperature can be 
raised 0.6 deg. C (1 deg. F) by discharges, but water temperature may 
not exceed 19.5 deg.C (67 deg.F) (Administrative Rules of Montana 
1996).
    In accordance with Section 319 of the CWA, States also develop 
programs to address non-point sources of pollution such as agriculture, 
forestry, and mining. The effectiveness of controlling water pollution 
from these activities has been mixed. The State of Washington monitored 
the effectiveness in meeting water quality criteria for temperature in 
riparian areas on forest lands and concluded that regulations for 
stream shading were inadequate to meet criteria (Sullivan et al. 1990).
    In summary, it is uncertain whether the CWA can provide sufficient 
protective measures for conservation of bull trout. Temperature regime 
is one of the most important factors affecting bull trout distribution 
(Adams and Bjornn 1997, Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Given the known 
temperature requirements of bull trout (Buchanan and Gregory 1997), 
criteria developed by the four States may not be conducive to either 
spawning, incubation, rearing, migration, or combinations of these 
life-history stages.

State Regulations and Conservation Planning Efforts

    All four States within the range of the Klamath River and Columbia 
River population segments of bull trout have regulations affecting bull 
trout and their habitat. Idaho, Montana, and local or county 
organizations have recently developed or are developing conservation 
plans to maintain and restore bull trout, primarily through stream 
habitat protection.
    In 1995, Idaho Governor Phil Batt initiated a conservation plan to 
restore bull trout populations in Idaho. The mission of the Governor's 
Plan, approved in July 1996, is to ``. . . maintain and/or restore 
complex interacting groups of bull trout populations throughout their 
native range in Idaho'' (Batt, in litt. 1997). A recent status report 
of implementation of the Plan stated that advisory groups, which will 
develop water quality and bull trout conservation measures, have formed 
only in some areas. Although the harvest of bull trout is closed 
throughout Idaho and State-sponsored survey and monitoring has 
increased (S. Mealey, IDFG, in litt. 1997), few on-the-ground recovery 
actions for bull trout have been implemented to date.
    Other efforts include a 1994 conservation agreement (CA) between 
the Idaho Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Service to 
protect bull trout (USDI and IDOT, in litt. 1994), and recent 
conservation activities by the IDFG that were funded by Section 6 of 
the Act. The IDOT finished only one passage restoration project under 
the CA, and recently declined to renew the CA (R. Howard, Service, 
pers. comm. 1997). Since 1994, IDFG has used Section 6 funds to begin 
several habitat restoration actions in northern and southwestern Idaho. 
Aside from enacting restrictive fishing regulations,

[[Page 31667]]

few protective or restoration projects have been completed that 
substantially reduce threats to bull trout throughout the Columbia 
River.
    Beginning in 1992 and 1993, several interagency bull trout working 
groups were formed in Oregon (R. Rosen, ODFW, in litt. 1995). These 
working groups have been instrumental in gathering additional status 
information and developing preliminary conservation strategies for bull 
trout in their respective basins. These efforts are encouraging for 
bull trout conservation in the future, but the outcome has not yet been 
demonstrated.
    In March 1997, Oregon also adopted the Oregon Coastal Salmon 
Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997) (Oregon Plan). The Oregon Plan is 
designed to ``. . . restore salmon to a level at which they can once 
again be part of people's lives . . .'' in coastal Oregon. The Oregon 
Plan's initial focus is on areas within the range of Oregon coastal 
coho salmon, and does not overlap with presently occupied bull trout 
habitat. Oregon recently acknowledged support for developing future 
bull trout conservation measures by including bull trout in the Oregon 
Plan (J. Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon, in litt, 1997), although no 
conservation measures specific to bull trout have been completed to 
date.
    The Upper Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy (Light et 
al. 1996) was developed by the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Working Group 
in response to the limited and shrinking distribution and number of 
bull trout. The Working Group, formed in 1993, is composed of 
representatives from the Service, ODFW, Fremont and Winema National 
Forests, Crater Lake National Park, PacifiCorp, USBR, Sprague River 
Water Users Association, Klamath Basin Water Users Protective 
Association, U.S. Timberlands, and Klamath Tribes. The defined goals of 
this group as identified in the Conservation Strategy are--(1) secure 
existing bull trout populations and (2) restore populations to some of 
their former distribution (Light et al. 1996). Phase 1 has concentrated 
on addressing threats to bull trout from non-native salmonids, 
including eradication of brook trout and brown trout above barriers 
where isolated subpopulations of bull trout are found. Stream 
temperatures and sedimentation problems are being addressed concurrent 
with eradication of exotic species. Phase 2 will involve expanding the 
number of subpopulations by reestablishing bull trout in high quality 
headwater habitats, effectively increasing the size of the Klamath 
River metapopulation and making it more resilient to natural 
disturbance, variation in breeding success, disease outbreaks, and 
other environmental factors (Light et al. 1996). Future objectives 
likely will include establishing natural movement corridors between 
adjacent headwater streams.
    All habitats currently occupied by bull trout in the Klamath River 
basin are managed by Working Group members. From 1993 through 1996, 
conservation actions (phase 1) were implemented by the Working Group, 
including--watershed assessments; fish distribution, abundance, and 
spawning surveys; collection of stream temperature and sediment data to 
help identify limiting factors; brook trout eradication efforts in 
Long, Sun, and Threemile creeks; reduction or elimination of grazing 
along bull trout habitat owned by U.S. Timberlands; road system 
improvements, closures, and rehabilitation; and barrier management to 
prevent access of non-native fishes (Johnson in litt. 1997; Buchanan et 
al. 1997). Habitat improvement projects have also been implemented in 
areas historically occupied by bull trout, such as the 9,700 ha (24,000 
ac) Nature Conservancy preserve at Sycan Marsh ( P. Rexroat, The Nature 
Conservancy, in litt. 1997) and the Sun Pass State Forest on lower Sun 
Creek. These ongoing conservation efforts have been complicated by 
recent private land ownership changes and lack of an approved recovery 
plan that identifies specific conservation tasks and actions.
    In addition to the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Working Group, a 
federally-authorized, interagency and entity group, the Upper Klamath 
Basin Working Group, was established in 1994. This group, composed of 
Federal, State, county, city, tribal, environmental, local business, 
agricultural-ranching, and local community members, works on a 
consensus-based approach to Klamath basin ecosystem issues. The group 
focuses on ecosystem restoration projects and has funded bull trout 
conservation efforts, a high group priority, such as riparian fencing 
and road maintenance and obliteration projects.
    Other State regulations and policies affect bull trout and their 
habitat in Oregon. For instance, Oregon has a policy ``to prevent the 
serious depletion of any indigenous species'' (ORS 496.012). As such, 
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Wildlife Diversity Plan 
(OAR 635-100) provides for a Sensitive Species List. The Sensitive 
Species List (OAR-635-100-040) is maintained by ODFW, and is updated 
biennially. The Sensitive Species List is intended as a ``watch list'' 
of species potentially eligible for listing as endangered or 
threatened, and constitutes an early warning system for land managers 
and the public (ODFW 1996). There are no regulatory protections for 
species listed as sensitive, nor is the habitat on which they depend 
protected under OAR 635-100.
    The Sensitive Species List has four categories--``critical'' 
(species for which listing is appropriate or pending); ``vulnerable'' 
(species for which listing is not imminent and can be avoided via 
adequate protective measures); ``peripheral or naturally rare'' 
(occurring in Oregon at the edge of their range, in naturally low 
numbers due to limited in-state distribution); and ``undetermined'' 
status (species for which status is unclear). Bull trout is listed in 
the ``critical'' category (ODFW 1993).
    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife released the final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Wild Salmonid Policy in 
September 1997 (WDFW 1997). Although the environmental impact statement 
(IS) focused on salmon and steelhead, referring to bull trout and other 
wild salmonids in an ancillary manner, it described problems and 
challenges facing the recovery of anadromous and resident salmonids 
throughout Washington. The IS presented five alternatives ranging from 
continuation of current management (i.e., policy generally based on 
maximum sustainable yield) to alternatives providing more protection 
for wild salmonids. Each alternative addressed harvest, hatcheries, and 
habitat relative to wild salmonids, and presented obstacles to recovery 
and possible actions to facilitate recovery. Regardless of the 
alternative ultimately selected by the Washington State Fish and 
Wildlife Commission as the Wild Salmonid Policy, implementation of the 
policy will suggest guidelines for actions taken by the WDFW and will 
not be binding on other State, tribal, and private entities. Because of 
uncertainties concerning implementation of the policy, the effect of 
the policy on bull trout conservation in Washington is unknown.
    In Montana, Governor Marc Racicot appointed the Bull Trout 
Restoration Team in 1994 to produce a plan that maintains, protects, 
and increases bull trout populations. The team appointed a scientific 
group that has subsequently prepared eleven basin-specific status 
reports and two technical, peer-reviewed papers. A third technical

[[Page 31668]]

paper is presently undergoing peer review. A Montana Bull Trout 
Recovery Plan, including a recovery goal, is also nearing completion. 
Watershed groups are being established in some areas to lead local bull 
trout restoration efforts. As of October 1997, some localized habitat 
restoration projects, such as removal of fish passage barriers, 
screening irrigation diversions, riparian fencing, stream restoration 
projects, and habitat monitoring, had been completed or were underway 
(Graham and Clinch, in litt. 1997). Because of uncertainties concerning 
implementation of the restoration plan, the effect of the plan on 
future bull trout conservation in Montana is unknown.
    Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana each have adopted a Forest 
Practice Act (FPA) or other legislation consisting of rules and 
regulations addressing forest management on State, Federal, and private 
lands. In general, the legislation establishes best management 
practices (BMPs) to be implemented on forests, such as streamside 
management zones (Montana Department of State Lands 1994), activities 
allowed in riparian areas, restrictions on harvest adjacent to streams, 
and location of road construction. The application of BMPs is voluntary 
in some States. Although audits show that compliance with BMPs is high 
in Idaho (H. Malany, Idaho Forest Practice Act Advisory Committee 
Member, in litt. 1997) and Montana (Mathieus 1996), the Service is not 
aware of evaluations of various States' BMPs relative to the protection 
of bull trout habitat and processes affecting water quality, such as 
sediment delivery, water temperature, recruitment of woody debris, and 
bank stability. In Idaho, half of timber sales audited resulted in 
contributions of sediment to streams, largely from inadequately 
maintained roads (Zaroban et al. 1996). Even with high implementation 
rates, Idaho's forestry BMPs have been ineffective at maintaining 
beneficial uses, including cold water biota (McIntyre 1993). In 
Montana, McGreer (1994) noted that the Montana legislation may 
adequately provide for woody debris and bank stability, but it may be 
inadequate for temperature control and sedimentation. The MDNRC has 
discontinued timber harvest and grazing in areas directly adjacent to 
streams containing bull trout (P. Flowers, MDNRC, in litt. 1996). Based 
on current information, the Service is unable to conclude that State 
FPAs and related legislation are adequate to protect bull trout 
habitat.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued 
existence. Natural and manmade factors affecting the continued 
existence of bull trout include--previous introductions of non-native 
species that compete or hybridize with bull trout; fragmentation and 
isolation of bull trout subpopulations from habitat changes caused by 
human activities, and subpopulation extirpations due to naturally 
occurring events such as droughts and floods.

Introduced Non-native Species

    Introductions of non-native species by the Federal government, 
State fish and game departments, and private parties, across the range 
of bull trout has resulted in declines in abundance, local 
extirpations, and hybridization of bull trout (Bond 1992; Howell and 
Buchanan 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and Alger 1993; Pratt and 
Huston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al 1995; Palmisano and 
Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-native species may exacerbate stresses 
on bull trout from habitat degradation, fragmentation, and isolation 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Introduced species, such as rainbow trout, 
may benefit large adult bull trout by providing supplemental forage 
(Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993). However, 
introductions of non-native game fish can be detrimental due to 
increased angling and subsequent incidental catch and illegal harvest 
of bull trout (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; WDW 1992; MBTSG 1995d).
    Non-native fish also threaten bull trout in relatively secure and 
physically unaltered habitats, including roadless areas, wilderness, 
and national parks. For instance, brook trout occur in tributaries of 
the Middle Fork Salmon River within the Frank Church-River of No Return 
Wilderness, including Elk, Camas, Loon, and Big creeks (Thurow 1985; S. 
Achord, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in litt. 1994) and 
Sun Creek in Crater Lake National Park (Light et al. 1996). Glacier 
National Park has self-sustaining populations of introduced non-native 
species, including lake trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, Yellowstone 
cutthroat trout, lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and northern 
pike (MBTSG 1995d). Although stocking in Glacier National Park was 
terminated in 1971, only a few headwaters lakes contain exclusively 
native species, including bull trout. The introduction and expansion of 
lake trout into the relatively pristine habitats of Kintla Lake and 
Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park nearly extirpated the bull trout 
subpopulation from predation and competition (L. Marnell, NPS, in litt. 
1995; MBTSG 1995d).
    Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through hybridization, 
competition, and possibly predation (Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992; 
WDW 1992; Clancy 1993; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996). 
Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in 
Montana (MBTSG 1995a,b, 1996a,c,e; Hansen and DosSantos 1997), Oregon 
(Markle 1992; Ratliff and Howell 1992), Washington (WDFW 1997), and 
Idaho (Adams 1996; T. Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997). Hybridization 
results in offspring that are frequently sterile (Leary et al. 1993), 
but some hybrids show gonadal development (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 
1997), raising concern of potential introgression. Hybrids may be 
significant competitors; Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997) noted that 
hybrids are aggressive and larger than resident bull trout, suggesting 
that hybrids may have a competitive advantage. Brook trout mature 
faster and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This 
difference may favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur 
together, often leading to replacement of bull trout with brook trout 
(Leary et al. 1993; Clancy 1993; MBTSG 1995b). The threat of 
hybridization and replacement is likely exacerbated where larger, more 
fecund migratory forms of bull trout have been eliminated (Rieman and 
McIntyre 1993). The magnitude of threats from non-native fishes is 
highest for subpopulations supporting only resident fish because 
resident bull trout typically are small in number and isolated where 
the effects of interspecific interactions are likely more intense.
    Brook trout apparently adapt better to degraded habitats than bull 
trout (Clancy 1993; Rich 1996). Brook trout likely have higher 
survival-to-emergence than bull trout in areas with elevated sediment 
(MBTSG 1996h), and brook trout also tend to occur in streams with 
higher water temperatures (Adams 1994; MBTSG 1996h). Because elevated 
water temperatures and sediments are often indicative of degraded 
habitat, bull trout may be subject to stresses from both interactions 
with brook trout and degraded habitat (MBTSG 1996h). Watson and Hillman 
(1997) found an inverse relationship between bull trout occurrence and 
the presence of brook trout. Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997) noted 
that brook trout have a high probability of displacing bull trout in 
the Klamath River basin due to degraded bull trout habitat.
    Introduced brown trout are established in several areas within the 
range of bull trout and likely compete with bull trout (Ratliff and 
Howell 1992;

[[Page 31669]]

Platts et al. 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993). Brown trout tend to spawn 
in the same areas as bull trout, though later in the season, and may 
compete for spawning and rearing areas and superimpose redds on bull 
trout redds (Pratt & Huston 1993; Light et al. 1996; MBTSG 1996h). 
Additionally, brown trout are typically more aggressive than native 
trout, and can displace brook trout and other native trout species 
(Fausch and White 1981; Wang and White 1994). Bull trout and brown 
trout rear in similar areas and may compete for food and space. 
Elevated water temperatures may favor brown trout over bull trout in 
competitive interactions (MBTSG 1996h). Brown trout are thought to have 
been a secondary factor in the decline and eventual extirpation of bull 
trout in the McCloud River, California, after dam construction altered 
bull trout habitat (Rode 1990).
    Non-native lake trout also negatively affect bull trout (Donald and 
Alger 1993; MBTSG 1996h). A study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and 
British Columbia found lake trout likely limit foraging opportunities 
and reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in 
mountain lakes (Donald and Alger 1993). Illegal introductions of lake 
trout and other species have occurred in more than 50 northwest Montana 
waters in recent years (J. Vashro, MFWP, in litt. 1995). The potential 
for illegal introduction of lake trout into the Swan River basin and 
Hungry Horse Reservoir on the South Fork Flathead River, both in 
Montana, is considered a threat to bull trout (MBTSG 1995e, 1996a), 
potentially affecting up to six subpopulations. In Idaho, lake trout 
and habitat degradation were factors in the decline of bull trout from 
Priest Lake (Mauser et al. 1988; Pratt and Huston 1993). Juvenile lake 
trout are also using river habitats in Montana, possibly competing with 
bull trout (MBTSG 1996h). State plans to manage lake trout to reduce 
interactions with bull trout are unknown.
    Non-native northern pike (Esox lucius), bass (Micropterus spp.), 
and opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) are also thought to negatively 
affect bull trout. Northern pike were illegally introduced into Swan 
Lake in the 1970s (MFWP 1997), and predation on juvenile bull trout has 
been documented (S. Rumsey, MFWP, pers comm. in MBTSG 1996a). 
Management of Swan Lake emphasizes protection of native salmonids, 
particularly bull trout, and control of northern pike to minimize 
effects on native species (MFWP 1997). Northern pike were also 
illegally introduced into Salmon, Inez, Seeley, and Alva lakes in the 
Clearwater River basin, a tributary to the Blackfoot River, Montana 
(MFWP 1997). Northern pike numbers have increased in Salmon Lake and 
Lake Inez, having a negative effect on bull trout (Berg, pers. comm. 
1997). Northern pike in Seeley Lake and Lake Alva are also expected to 
increase in numbers (Berg, pers. comm. 1997).
    Introduced bass may negatively affect bull trout where the species 
co-occur (MFWP 1997). In the Clark Fork River, Montana, Noxon Rapids 
Reservoir supports fisheries for both smallmouth bass (Micropterus 
dolomieui) and largemouth bass. Both are high priority species in 
current management of Noxon Rapids Reservoir unless more suitable bull 
trout habitat is created as a result of dam relicensing. The fishery 
management objective for Cabinet Gorge Reservoir, downstream of Noxon 
Rapids Reservoir, is to enhance bull trout while managing the existing 
bass fishery (MFWP 1997).
    Opossum shrimp, a crustacean native to the Canadian Shield area, 
was widely introduced in the 1970s as supplemental forage for kokanee 
and other salmonids in several lakes and reservoirs across the 
northwest (Nesler and Bergerson 1991). The introduction of opossum 
shrimp in Flathead Lake changed the lake's trophic dynamics, and is 
widely believed to have been partially responsible for the expanding 
the lake trout population, resulting in increased competition and 
predation on bull trout (T. Weaver, MFWP, in litt. 1993) Thus, opossum 
shrimp have had an indirect, negative effect on bull trout. Conversely, 
in Swan Lake, Montana, opossum shrimp and kokanee have become 
established and increased the availability of forage for bull trout, 
contributing to the significant increase in bull trout numbers in the 
Swan River basin (MBTSG 1996a). Thus, the effects of introduced species 
on bull trout involve complex interactions that are dependent on 
several factors.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Bull trout have been displaced by brook trout in portions of the 
Klamath River basin (Light et al. 1996), and hybrids of the two species 
have been verified in several of the streams (Ratliff and Howell 1992). 
Either brook trout, brown trout, or both species occur with bull trout 
in six of seven subpopulations. Where brook trout or brown trout co-
occur with bull trout, the distribution of bull trout has contracted 
and that of introduced salmonids expanded (e.g., Brownsworth, Leonard, 
and Long creeks) (Buchanan et al. 1997). Only four subpopulations exist 
in the absence of brook trout, and these are the most abundant (Ratliff 
and Howell 1992; Ziller 1992). In 1992, chemical eradication of brook 
trout was initiated in Sun Creek (Buktenica 1997). The chemical 
treatment apparently killed a number of bull trout due to the 
difficulty of removing fish prior to treatment (Buktenica 1997). Other 
eradication programs relying on chemical treatments would likely have 
similar effects on bull trout. Ongoing management actions in Threemile 
and Long creeks focus on brook trout eradication via selective 
electrofishing, snorkel-spearing, trapping, and chemical treatments 
with the objective of expanding bull trout range. Brook trout have 
declined in Threemile Creek, but there has been no measurable change in 
brook trout numbers in Long Creek (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

    Within the upper Columbia River basin in Montana, brook trout are 
found in approximately 65 percent of the stream reaches where bull 
trout occur (J. Hutten, MFWP, in litt. 1993). Brook trout are found in 
all major basins in Montana that support bull trout except the South 
Fork of the Flathead River. Brook trout and bull trout hybridization 
was first documented in the early 1980s in South Fork Lolo Creek in the 
Bitterroot River basin, Montana (Clancy 1993; MBTSG 1996h). Bull trout 
have largely been replaced by brook trout.
    Introduced brook, brown, and rainbow trout are present in the 
Bitterroot drainage in Montana (Clancy 1996). The presence of non-
native fish may have been a factor causing the fragmentation of bull 
trout range in the Bitterroot drainage by restricting migratory 
movements by bull trout (Rich 1996). Brook trout appeared to be 
replacing bull trout in some streams in the Bitterroot. Bull trout-
brook trout hybrids have been documented in at least nine tributaries 
(MBTSG 1995b). Rich (1996) found a strong negative correlation between 
the presence of bull trout and brook trout in tributaries of the 
Bitterroot River.
    The MBTSG concluded that introduced species, particularly in the 
lower Clark Fork River pose a high threat to bull trout (MBTSG 1996b). 
Non-native fishes have been introduced throughout the Clark Fork River 
system and brook trout are found throughout. Bull trout-brook trout 
hybrids exist in the Middle and upper Clark Fork systems (MBTSG 1995a; 
Hansen and DosSantos 1997).
    In Idaho, bull trout densities in Mica Creek, Spokane River basin, 
during 1972

[[Page 31670]]

ranged from 0.03 to 0.23 fish/100 m\2\ (0.003 to 0.023 fish/100 ft\2\) 
(Mauser et al. 1972 in Platts et al. 1993). Extensive electrofishing 
surveys in Mica Creek during 1993 did not find bull trout, but brook 
trout were numerous at one transect (Martin 1994). Brook trout are 
present or accessible to most of the Clearwater River basin in Idaho, 
with hybridization and competition the primary threat to bull trout (A. 
Espinosa, Clearwater National Forest, pers. comm. 1993; D. Johnson, Nez 
Perce Tribe, pers. comm. 1995). For example, Meadow Creek, a tributary 
to the North Fork Clearwater River, contained numerous bull trout in 
1987 and 1988, but, currently, high numbers of brook trout occur and 
bull trout numbers have been sharply reduced (Johnson, pers. comm., 
1995).
    Negative effects of interactions with introduced non-native species 
may be the most pervasive threat to bull trout throughout the Columbia 
River basin. Of the 141 subpopulations of bull trout in the Columbia 
River population segment, approximately 62 percent were threatened by 
competition, predation, or displacement by non-native species. Often 
one or more non-native species have been introduced into bull trout 
habitats; interactions with bull trout are likely exacerbated by 
factors such as habitat conditions, water temperature, and isolation. 
The MBTSG concluded that non-native species pose a limitation to bull 
trout restoration (MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-f). The MBTSG is reviewing 
recommendations for removing or suppressing non-native fishes to 
benefit bull trout, but success of such an effort on a large scale is 
questionable (MBTSG 1996h).

Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation

    Bull trout are widely distributed over a large geographic area, and 
exhibit a patchy distribution due, in part, to specific habitat 
requirements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). However, the effects of human 
activities over the past 100 years have resulted in reductions in the 
overall distribution of bull trout. In general, habitat fragmentation 
results in reduction in available habitat and increased isolation from 
conspecifics (Saunders et al. 1991). In studies of extinction in 
fragmented landscapes, Burkey (1989) concluded that when species are 
isolated by fragmented habitats, low rates of population growth are 
typical in each local population (i.e., subpopulations) and their 
probability of extirpation is directly related to the degree of 
isolation and fragmentation. Without sufficient immigration, overall 
growth for subpopulations may be low and the overall probability of 
extirpation for subpopulations is high (Burkey 1989, 1995). Moreover, 
habitat fragmentation that isolates subpopulations may increase a 
species' susceptibility to both demographic and naturally occurring 
events (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
    Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory are 
applicable to the bull trout (Reiman and McIntyre 1993). A 
metapopulation is an interacting network of local populations with 
varying frequencies of migration and gene flow among them (Meffe and 
Carroll 1994). Subpopulations may be extirpated, but can be 
reestablished by individuals from other subpopulations. Metapopulations 
are thought to provide a mechanism for spreading risk because the 
simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely. Migratory 
corridors can also allow individuals access to unoccupied but suitable 
habitats, foraging areas, and refuges from perturbations (Saunders et 
al. 1990). Relative to bull trout, maintenance of migratory corridors 
is essential to provide connectivity among subpopulations thought to be 
sources and sinks, and enables the reestablishment of extirpated 
subpopulations. Where migratory bull trout are not present, disjunct 
subpopulations cannot be replenished when a disturbance makes local 
habitats unsuitable (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; USDA and USDI 1997). 
Moreover, limited downstream movement was observed for resident bull 
trout in the Bitterroot River basin (Nelson 1996) suggesting low 
probability that extirpated bull trout would be reestablished by 
resident fish residing nearby. Of the 141 subpopulations in the 
Columbia River population segment, approximately 79 percent are 
unlikely to be reestablished if extirpated; and 50 percent are at risk 
of extirpation from naturally occurring events.
    Passage barriers, degraded habitat, absence of migratory fish, and 
intensified stream perturbations, such as forest fires, floods, and 
droughts, reduce the ability of isolated bull trout subpopulations to 
persist following disturbances to streams (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; 
USDA and USDI 1997). Bull trout evolved with habitat perturbations to 
streams that were likely factors in shaping bull trout life history 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Historically, areas suitable for bull trout 
spawning were likely distributed in a disjunct pattern (Fraley and 
Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995; USDA and USDI 1997) maintained 
by natural perturbations. Although the amount and distribution of 
spawning areas vary through time, sufficient spawning areas were 
accessible to bull trout to maintain the species (Rieman and McIntyre 
1995; USDA and USDI 1997). Migratory bull trout tend to show fidelity 
to spawning streams, but they have been documented to spawn in 
different tributaries from one year to the next, including tributaries 
not previously known to have recent spawning (Ratliff et al. 1996). 
Thus, migratory bull trout have the ability to reestablish an area 
where extirpated previously as long as suitable migratory corridors 
exist (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
    Today, bull trout exhibiting migratory life histories have declined 
or are absent in many river systems (Bond, 1992; Schill 1992; Ziller 
1992; Pratt and Huston 1993; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Newton and 
Pribyl 1994; MBTSG 1995a,b; 1996b,c,e; USDA and USDI 1997). Passage 
barriers (e.g., dams and diversions) and other habitat alterations 
prevent bull trout migration from following historical patterns. 
Additionally, suitable spawning areas are more fragmented across the 
landscape than historically (USDA and USDI 1997). With fewer and more 
compressed spawning and rearing areas available, bull trout 
increasingly persist as small, isolated resident populations instead of 
few, large connected subpopulations (Bond, 1992; Schill 1992; Thomas 
1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996 Newton and 
Pribyl 1994; MBTSG 1995a,b; 1996b,c,d,e; USDA and USDI 1997).
    As discussed in Factor A, evidence suggests that landscape 
disturbances, such as floods and fires, have increased in frequency and 
magnitude of effects within the range of bull trout (Henjum et al. 
1994; USDA and USDI 1997). Where recolonization is prevented by passage 
barriers and suitable habitat, bull trout subpopulations may be 
extirpated by perturbations (USDA and USDI 1997). Also, isolated 
subpopulations are typically small, and more likely to be extirpated by 
local events than larger populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Small 
populations may be at risk of impaired genetic fitness, as in Gold 
Creek, Washington (Craig and Wissmar 1993).
    An example of the effects of naturally occurring events, such as 
fire, on bull trout habitat is the Entiat River basin of central 
Washington. ``Historical and current influences have been significant 
and include: localized compaction from sheep grazing and trailing; fire 
exclusion; timber salvage/road building from the early 1970's to 
present; and recreation. A portion of this (transitional or bull trout) 
zone has recently been impacted by a large, moderate high

[[Page 31671]]

intensity fire'' (Wenatchee National Forest, in litt. 1996). This 
transitional or bull trout zone in the mainstem Entiat River has had a 
30 to 60 percent loss of pools since initially surveyed by the U.S. 
Bureau of Fisheries during 1935 through 1937 (Wenatchee National 
Forest, in litt. 1996). Both bull trout densities and recruitment are 
depressed in the mainstem Entiat in response to habitat degradation.
    Conversely, most bull trout recruitment in the Entiat River basin 
is now occurring in the transitional zone in the Mad River. Pool 
frequencies have increased dramatically, 85 percent in one reach 
surveyed, 1,000 percent in the other, since the 1935 through 1937 
surveys (Wenatchee National Forest, in litt. 1996). A large fire 
occurred in the Mad River basin in 1888, and the basin had splash dams 
and log drives early in this century. It has taken 60 years for the 
habitat to recover.
    Floods or high flows have also been altered by land management 
(USDA and USDI 1997). Roads and clear cutting forested areas tend to 
magnify the effects of floods, leading to higher flows, erosion and 
bedload that scour channels (Furniss et al. 1991; McIntosh et al. 1994; 
USDA and USDI 1997), and degrade bull trout habitat (Henjum et al. 
1994). Erosion from road landslides increases bedload to high stream 
flows over bedload levels without roads (Furniss et al. 1991). 
Increased bedload increases the scouring effect of the high water, 
increasing channel instability, leading to a loss of habitat diversity, 
especially pools (Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et al. 1994). Bull trout 
eggs and fry in the gravels during the scouring likely survive at lower 
rates (Henjum et al. 1994). For instance, hundreds of landslides 
associated with roads on the Clearwater National Forest and Panhandle 
National Forests (R. Patten and J. Pengkover, Panhandle National 
Forests, in litt. 1996) resulted from high water in 1995, and the 
effects of flooding on isolated bull trout populations is unknown. 
Habitat degradation has reduced the number and size of bull trout 
spawning areas (USDA and USDI 1997).
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats to bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River 
distinct population segments of bull trout in developing this final 
rule. Based on this evaluation the preferred action is to list the 
Klamath River and the Columbia River population segments of bull trout 
as threatened.

Klamath River Population Segment

    Bull trout are currently limited to seven geographically isolated 
subpopulations that occupy only a fraction of the historical habitat. 
The species distribution and numbers have declined due to habitat 
degradation, isolation, loss of migratory corridors, poor water 
quality, and the introduction of non-native species. Six of seven bull 
trout subpopulations are small in number, and unlikely to persist over 
the next 100 years unless conservation and other corrective actions are 
taken. Remaining Klamath River bull trout subpopulations are threatened 
by the effects of past, present and future land and water management 
practices. Most subpopulations also face more than one threat.
    Despite the bull trout's current status, the Service is encouraged 
that recent conservation and recovery actions are being initiated at 
Federal, State and local levels to begin to reverse the long-term 
declining trend for bull trout in the Klamath River basin. Progress has 
already been made toward improving habitat conditions for bull trout. 
Although the Service proposed the Klamath River population segment as 
endangered based on the 1994 administrative record, new information 
indicates that interagency conservation programs are being implemented 
and have begun to reduce threats to bull trout. Included are efforts of 
the Klamath Basin Working Group to eradicate brook trout in Long, Sun 
and Threemile Creeks, reduce livestock grazing along bull trout 
streams, and monitor watershed conditions and bull trout status. 
Moreover, bull trout conservation in the Klamath Basin has benefitted 
from habitat restoration activities of the Upper Klamath Basin Working 
Group which began in 1994. Habitat improvements derived from these two 
programs have just begun to be realized. Thus the final determination 
is to list the Klamath River population of bull trout as threatened 
because it is no longer in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 
future and threats have been reduced.

Columbia River Population Segment

    Bull trout in the Columbia River basin, despite their relatively 
widespread distribution, have declined in both their overall range and 
numbers. Numerous extirpations of local subpopulations have been 
reported, with bull trout eliminated from areas ranging in size from 
relatively small tributaries of currently occupied, though fragmented 
habitat, to large river systems comprising a substantial portion of the 
species' previous range. Bull trout in the Columbia River population 
segment are currently limited to 141 isolated subpopulations, which 
indicates habitat fragmentation and geographic isolation. Many 
remaining bull trout occur as isolated subpopulations in headwater 
lakes or tributaries with migratory life histories lost or restricted. 
Few bull trout subpopulations are considered ``strong'' in terms of 
relative abundance and subpopulation stability. These remaining 
important strongholds tend to be found in large areas of contiguous 
habitats in the Snake River basin of central Idaho Mountains, upper 
Clark Fork and Flathead rivers in Montana, and the Blue Mountains in 
Washington and Oregon. The decline of bull trout is due to habitat 
degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor 
water quality, past fisheries management practices and the introduction 
of non-native species. Most bull trout subpopulations are affected by 
one or more threats.
    Recent activities to address threats and reverse the long-term 
decline of bull trout are being initiated at Federal, State and local 
levels (e.g., restrictive angling regulations, adoption of various land 
management rules, and development of conservation strategies and 
plans). While these efforts are important to the long term conservation 
and recovery of bull trout, threats continue and subpopulation 
improvement throughout the Columbia River has yet to be demonstrated. 
Because bull trout in the Columbia River basin are still a wide-ranging 
species, with some ``strongholds'' in relatively protected areas, the 
Columbia River population segment is not in immediate danger of 
extinction. Therefore the Service's final determination is to list the 
Columbia River population segment of bull trout as threatened.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific area within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the 
species and (II) that may require special management considerations or 
protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to 
bring the species to the point at

[[Page 31672]]

which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is not 
determinable if information sufficient to perform required analysis of 
impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of the 
species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an 
area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the 
Service to consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating 
a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from 
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in 
the extinction of the species.
    The Service finds that the designation of critical habitat is not 
determinable for these distinct population segments based on the best 
available information. When a ``not determinable'' finding is made, the 
Service must, within 2 years of the publication date of the original 
proposed rule, designate critical habitat, unless the designation is 
found to be not prudent. The Service reached a ``not determinable'' 
critical habitat finding for the proposed rule based on the 1994 
administrative record. In the proposed rule the Service specifically 
requested comments on this issue. While the Service received a number 
of comments advocating critical habitat designation, none of these 
comments provided information that added to the Service's ability to 
determine critical habitat. Additionally, no new information regarding 
specific physical and biological features essential for bull trout in 
the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout population segments was 
obtained during the open comment period including the five public 
hearings. The biological needs of bull trout in the two population 
segments are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of 
areas as critical habitat. Insufficient information is available on the 
number of individuals or spawning reaches required to support viable 
subpopulations throughout the distinct population segment. In addition, 
the extent of habitat required and specific management measures needed 
for recovery of these fish have not been identified. This information 
is considered essential for determining critical habitat for these 
population segments. Therefore, the Service finds that designation of 
critical habitat for the Klamath River and the Columbia River 
population segments is not determinable at this time. Protection of 
bull trout habitat will be addressed through the recovery process and 
through section 7 consultations to determine whether Federal actions 
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, 
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions 
against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages and 
results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private 
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the states and requires that recovery 
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
Part 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to insure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    The Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout population segments 
occur on lands administered by the USFS and BLM; various State-owned 
properties in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana; and private lands. 
Federal agency actions that may require consultation as described in 
the preceding paragraph include Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
involvement in projects such as the construction of roads and bridges, 
and the permitting of wetland filling and dredging projects subject to 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission licensed hydropower projects authorized under the 
Federal Power Act; USFS and BLM timber and grazing management 
activities; EPA authorized discharges under the National Pollutant 
Discharge System of the Clean Water Act; and U.S. Housing and Urban 
Development projects.
    On January 27, 1998, an interagency memorandum between the USFS, 
BLM and the Service outlined a process for bull trout section 7 
conferencing/consultation in recognition of the possibility of an 
impending listing. The process considers both programmatic actions 
(e.g., land management plans) and site-specific actions (e.g., timber 
sales and livestock grazing allotments) and incorporates conferencing/
consultation at the watershed level. The process uses a matrix to 
determine the environmental baseline and the effects of projects on the 
environmental baseline of bull trout. The goal of this strategy is to 
complete conferences for all ongoing actions and proposed actions by 
the effective date of listing through a system of batching and 
aggregating of projects to the watershed level. A programmatic LRMP/RMP 
biological assessment would be used to assess ongoing projects for up 
to 9 months post-listing that result from implementation of Forest 
Plans/Resource Management Plans as amended in INFISH, PACFISH and the 
Northwest Forest Plan. The Service would determine in a programmatic 
biological opinion whether these issues would jeopardize the continued 
existence of bull trout, and would authorize incidental take. Part of 
the project description and evaluation process would stipulate that an 
ongoing project would be completed by May 10, 1999. For projects that 
are proposed after the initial 9 month post-listing period, the 
watershed approach, using the bull trout matrix incorporating local 
watershed biological data, would be project-specific applied in the 
section 7 process.
    The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and 
17.31 set forth a series of general trade prohibitions and exceptions 
that apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, 
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or 
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been

[[Page 31673]]

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and 
State conservation agencies.
    Permits, authorized under section 10(a)(1) of the Act, may be 
issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving 
endangered and threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22, 17.23 and 17.32. 
Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, 
permits are also available for zoological exhibition, educational 
purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purpose of the Act. 
Private landowners seeking permits under section 10 of the Act for 
incidental take are a means of protecting bull trout habitat through 
the voluntary development of habitat conservation plans. Information 
collections associated with these permits are approved under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of 
Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094. For additional 
information concerning these permits and associated requirements, see 
50 CFR 17.32.
    It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would 
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent 
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range. 
The Service believes the following actions would not be likely to 
result in a violation of section 9, provided the activities are carried 
out in accordance with any existing regulations and permit 
requirements--
    (1) Actions that may affect bull trout in the Klamath and Columbia 
River basins and are authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal 
agency when the action is conducted in accordance with an incidental 
take statement issued by the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act;
    (2) Possession of Columbia River basin bull trout caught legally in 
accordance with authorized State fishing regulations (see Special Rule 
section);
    (3) State, local and other activities that have been approved by 
the Service through development of Conservation Plans and special rules 
under section 4(d) and section 6(c)(1) of the Act.
    With respect to both the Klamath River and Columbia River bull 
trout population segments, the following actions likely would be 
considered a violation of section 9--
    (1) Take of bull trout without a permit, which includes harassing, 
harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, 
capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions, except in 
accordance with applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws 
and regulations within the Columbia River bull trout population 
segment;
    (2) To possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship illegally 
taken bull trout;
    (3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across 
State and international boundaries) and import/export of bull trout (as 
discussed in the prohibition discussion earlier in this section);
    (4) Introduction of non-native fish species that compete or 
hybridize with, or prey on bull trout;
    (5) Destruction or alteration of bull trout habitat by dredging, 
channelization, diversion, in-stream vehicle operation or rock removal, 
or other activities that result in the destruction or significant 
degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate composition, 
temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging, 
cover, migration, and spawning;
    (6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other 
pollutants into waters supporting bull trout that result in death or 
injury of the species; and
    (7) Destruction or alteration of riparian or lakeshore habitat and 
adjoining uplands of waters supporting bull trout by timber harvest, 
grazing, mining, hydropower development, or other developmental 
activities that result in destruction or significant degradation of 
cover, channel stability, substrate composition, temperature, and 
migratory corridors used by the species for foraging, cover, migration, 
and spawning.
    Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may 
be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider 
these lists to be exhaustive and provides them as information to the 
public.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Supervisor of the 
Service's Snake River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations concerning listed species and inquiries 
regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, 
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503 231-6241; facsimile 503 231-
6243).

Special Rule

    Section 4(d) of the Act provides authority for the Service to 
promulgate special rules for threatened species that would relax the 
prohibition against taking. The Service finds that statewide angling 
regulations have become more restrictive in an attempt to protect bull 
trout throughout Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and are 
adequate to protect the species from excessive taking. The Service 
intends to continue to work with the States and Tribes in developing 
management plans and agreements with the objective of recovery and 
eventual delisting of the Klamath River and Columbia River distinct 
population segments. This special rule allows for take of bull trout 
within the Klamath River and Columbia River distinct population 
segments when it is in accordance with applicable State and Native 
American Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations, as 
constituted in all respects relevant to protection of bull trout. The 
Service believes that this special rule will allow for more efficient 
management of the species, thereby facilitating its conservation.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A 
notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information other 
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget 
clearance number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning 
permit and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR 
17.32.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Snake River Basin Office (see Addresses section).

[[Page 31674]]

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this final rule are: John Bowerman, Klamath 
Basin Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, OR; Timothy Cummings, 
Columbia River Fisheries Office, Vancouver, WA; Stephen Duke, Snake 
River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Michael Faler, Idaho Fisheries Resource 
Office, Ahsahka, ID; Robert Hallock, Upper Columbia River Basin Office, 
Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, Snake River Basin Office, Boise, Idaho; Lori 
Nordstrom, Helena Field Office, Helena, MT; and Ron Rhew, Oregon State 
Office, Portland, OR.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below--
    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical 
order under FISHES, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                   Vertebrate                                                              
----------------------------------------------------                         population where                  When      Critical                       
                                                        Historic range        endangered or       Status      listed      habitat       Special rules   
         Common name              Scientific name                               threatened                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
FISHES                                                                                                                                                  
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
Trout, bull..................  Salvelinus            U.S.A. (Pacific NW),  Klamath R. (U.S.A.-          T         637          NA   17.44 (v)           
                                confluentus.          Canada (NW            OR)                                                                         
                                                      Territories).                                                                                     
    Do.......................      do..............      do..............  Columbia R.                  T         637          NA       Do.             
                                                                            (U.S.A.--ID, MT,                                                            
                                                                            OR, WA) mainstem                                                            
                                                                            and its                                                                     
                                                                            tributaries,                                                                
                                                                            excluding Jarbidge                                                          
                                                                            R., NV, and east                                                            
                                                                            of Continental                                                              
                                                                            Divide, MT.)                                                                
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Sec. 17.44  Special rules--fishes.

* * * * *
    (v) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Columbia River and Klamath 
River population segments.
    (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (v)(2) of this 
section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR 
17.32 shall apply to the bull trout Columbia River and Klamath River 
population segments within the contiguous United States.
    (2) Exceptions. No person shall take this species, except in 
accordance with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and 
wildlife conservation laws and regulations, as constituted in all 
respects relevant to protection of bull trout in effect on June 10, 
1998.
    (3) Any violation of applicable State and Native American Tribal 
fish and wildlife conservation laws or regulations with respect to the 
taking of this species is also a violation of the Endangered Species 
Act.
    (4) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export, any means whatsoever, any such species taken in 
violation of this section or in violation of applicable State and 
Native American Tribal fish and game laws and regulations.
    (5) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in 
paragraphs (v) (2) through (4) of this section.

    Dated: June 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-15319 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P