[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