[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2270-2431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-176]



[[Page 2269]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2270]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085]
[[MO 92210-0-0009]
[RIN 1018-AW88]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous 
United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, announcement of public hearing, and announcement 
of availability of draft economic analysis.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
revise the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout 
(Salvelinus confluentus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. In total, approximately 36,498 kilometers (km) (22,679 miles 
(mi)) of streams (which includes 1,585.7 km (985.30 mi) of marine 
shoreline area in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound), and 215,870 
hectares (ha) (533,426 acres (ac)) of reservoirs or lakes are being 
proposed for the revised critical habitat designation. The revised 
proposed critical habitat is located in Adams, Benewah, Blaine, Boise, 
Bonner, Boundary, Butte, Camas, Canyon, Clearwater, Custer, Elmore, 
Gem, Idaho, Kootenai, Lemhi, Lewis, Nez Perce, Owyhee, Shoshone, 
Valley, and Washington counties in Idaho; Deer Lodge, Flathead, 
Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, 
Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders counties in Montana; Baker, Clatsop, 
Columbia, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, 
Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman, 
Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler counties in Oregon; 
Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas, 
Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, 
Kittitas, Klickitat, Mason, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Pierce, Skagit, 
Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom, 
Whitman, and Yakima counties in Washington; and Elko county, Nevada.

DATES: Written Comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked 
on or before March 15, 2010. Because of the anticipated interest in 
this proposed designation, we are planning on holding a public hearing 
and several public meetings.
    Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing in Boise, Idaho on 
February 25, 2010, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.; and public meetings in:
     Bend, Oregon on February 2, 2010, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.;
     Chiloquin, Oregon on February 3, 2010, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.;
     LaGrande, Oregon on February 4, 2010, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 
p.m.;
     Post Falls, Idaho on February 11, 2010, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.;
     Missoula, Montana on February 16, 2010, 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.;
     Elko, Nevada on February 17, 2010, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.;
     Wenatchee, Washington on February 23, 2010, 6 p.m. to 8 
p.m.; and
     Boise, Idaho on February 25, 2010, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for docket FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085 and then follow the instructions 
for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
     Public Hearing: We will hold the public hearing at Boise 
Centre on the Grove, 850 W. Front Street, Boise, Idaho.
 Public Meetings: We will hold the public meetings at:
    o Hollingshead Barn, 1235 NE Jones Road, Bend Oregon;
    o Chiloquin Community Center, 140 S. 1st Street, Chiloquin, Oregon;
    o Blue Mountain Conference Center, 404 12th Street, la Grande, 
Oregon;
    o Red Lion Templins Inn, 414 East 1st Avenue, Post Falls, Idaho;
    o Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Headquarters, 3201 Spurgin 
Road, Missoula, Montana;
    o Elko Convention Center, Gold Room, 700 Moren Way, Elko, Nevada;
    o Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forest Headquarters, 215 Melody Lane, 
Wenatchee, Washington; and
     o Boise Centre on the Grove, 850 W. Front Street, Boise, Idaho.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Foss, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South 
Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83702; telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-
378-5262. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned government 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested 
parties concerning this proposed rule. Verbal testimony or written 
comments may also be presented during the public hearing (see the 
Public Hearing section below for more information). We will consider 
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree to 
which threats can be expected to increase due to the designation, and 
whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation;
    (2) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of bull trout habitat,
     What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain 
features essential to the conservation of the species should be 
included in the designation and why,
     Special management considerations or protections that the 
features essential to the conservation of the bull trout that have been 
identified in this proposal may require, including managing for the 
potential effects of climate change, and
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on proposed 
critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small 
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit 
these impacts;
    (5) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from 
critical habitat

[[Page 2271]]

outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering the potential impacts and 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation. Under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we 
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
including that particular area as critical habitat, unless failure to 
designate that specific area as critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the species. We request specific information on:
     The benefits of including specific areas in the final 
designation and supporting rationale,
     The benefits of excluding specific areas from the final 
designation and supporting rationale, and
     Whether any specific exclusions may result in the 
extinction of the species and why (see Exclusions section below).
    (6) Whether our exemptions under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of 
the lands on Department of Defense (DOD) land at the Bayview Acoustic 
Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface Warfare Center, Bayview Idaho; 
Naval Radio Station Jim Creek in western Washington; Naval Station 
Everett in western Washington; Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in 
western Washington, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation in western 
Washington, are or are not appropriate, and why;
    (7) Specific information on the following areas considered to be 
essential to the conservation of the species:
     Mainstem and tributary habitats within the White Salmon 
River Critical Habitat Subunit (CHSU) that are believed to be 
unoccupied, but which are considered essential for providing foraging, 
migration, and overwintering (FMO) habitat or spawning and rearing 
areas to reestablish a population within this system;
     Unoccupied tributaries within the Lake Pend Oreille, Pend 
Oreille River, and lower Priest River CHSU that are considered 
essential for providing spawning and rearing areas to reestablish a 
population within the Pend Oreille River; and
     Areas of mainstem habitat in the Yakima River (Yakima 
River Critical Habitat Unit (CHU)) and Touchet River (Walla Walla River 
Basin CHU) for which we have limited or no documented evidence of 
occupancy, but which are currently believed to be essential for 
providing connectivity to the mainstem Columbia River and Walla Walla 
River, respectively, for the fluvial life-history form;
    (8) Specific information on areas of habitat that were historically 
occupied, or areas for which we have limited evidence of occupancy, 
which we do not consider to be essential to the conservation of the 
species in this proposed rule. These areas include Okanogan River; Lake 
Chelan and Stehekin River; west side tributaries to Hood Canal (e.g., 
Dosewallips River, Duckabush River, Quilcene River); and Willapa River;
    (9) Specific information on areas believed to be unoccupied in the 
Klamath River basin, but essential for FMO habitat;
    (10) Specific information as to whether the six recovery units 
identified in the ``Critical Habitat Background'' section accurately 
reflect the conservation needs of bull trout;
    (11) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on bull trout, and any special management needs or 
protections that may be needed in the critical habitat areas we are 
proposing.
    (12) Information on the extent to which the description of 
potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate, and 
specifically:
     Whether regulatory protections and conservation activities 
already being implemented for salmon, steelhead, bull trout , other 
species, or other concerns (e.g., water quality) in areas proposed as 
critical habitat are appropriate to include as baseline costs (e.g., 
costs that would occur regardless of critical habitat designation for 
bull trout) for purposes of our economic analysis, and if not, why not;
     Whether there are incremental costs of critical habitat 
designation (e.g., costs attributable solely to critical habiatat 
designation) that have not been appropriately identified or considered 
in our economic analysis, including costs associated with future 
administrative costs or project modifications that may be required by 
Federal agencies related to section 7 consultation under the Act;
     Whether there are incremental economic benefits of 
critical habitat designation that have not been appropriately 
identified or considered in our economic analysis.
    (13) Information on whether existing special management 
considerations or protections being implemented in areas designated as 
critical habitat for salmon by the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NOAA Fisheries) are adequate for conserving essential bull trout 
habitat where proposed bull trout critical habitat overlaps, and if 
not, why not.
    (14) We have organized the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of 
bull trout critical habitat based on the life-history needs of the 
species. We are considering reorganizing the PCEs in order to improve 
clarity, into broad habitat attributes (water bodies and migratory 
corridors), and identify specific needs of bull trout within these 
broad categories. This approach would likely require repetition of 
specific features, but may be more understandable by making clear the 
relationships between the needs of the species and the specific 
locations where those needs are provided. We request comments on 
whether this reorganization would improve clarity of the PCEs.
    (15) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments; and
    (16) Specific information on ways to improve the clarity of this 
rule as it pertains to completion of consultations under section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information, in addition to the required items 
specified in the previous paragraphs, such as your street address, 
phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    We are holding a public hearing on the date listed in the DATES 
section at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. We are holding 
this public hearing to provide interested parties an opportunity to 
present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) or written comments 
regarding the proposed critical habitat designation and the associated 
Draft Economic Analysis. An informational session will precede the 
hearing from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. During

[[Page 2272]]

this session, Service biologists will be available to provide 
information and address questions on the proposed rule in advance of 
the formal hearing.
    People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and 
participate in the public hearings should contact Jeff Foss, Idaho Fish 
and Wildlife Office, at 208-378-5243 as soon as possible (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). In order to allow sufficient time 
to process requests, please call no later than one week before the 
hearing date.
    We are also holding public meetings on the dates listed in the 
DATES section at the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section. During 
the public meetings, Service biologists will be available to provide 
information and address questions on the proposed rule. However, we 
will not accept verbal testimony at these public meetings.
    Information regarding this notice is available in alternative 
formats upon request.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For further 
information on the bull trout biology and habitat, population abundance 
and trend, distribution, demographic features, habitat use and 
conditions, threats, and conservation measures, please see the Bull 
Trout 5-year Review Summary and Evaluation, completed April 25, 2008. 
This document is available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office web 
site at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1907.pdf.
Description, Distribution, Habitat and Recovery
    Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other 
salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 4). Habitat components that 
particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water 
temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing 
substrate conditions, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989, 
p. 138; Goetz 1989, p. 19; Watson and Hillman 1997, p. 247). This 
proposed rule identifies those physical and biological features 
essential to bull trout conservation.
    Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the family 
Salmonidae and are native to waters of western North America. Bull 
trout range throughout the Columbia River and Snake River basins, 
extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, into Canada, 
and in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. The 
distribution of populations, however, is scattered and patchy (Goetz 
1989, p. 4; Ziller 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 3; Light et 
al. 1996, p. 44; Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1176).
    Bull trout exhibit a number of life-history strategies. Stream-
resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary 
streams where they spawn and rear. Most bull trout are migratory, 
spawning in tributary streams where juvenile fish usually rear from one 
to four years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial) or 
lake (adfluvial) where they spend their adult life, returning to the 
tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133). Resident 
and migratory forms may be found together, and either form can produce 
resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2).
    Bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), 
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and some other species are commonly 
referred to as anadromous (fish that can migrate from saltwater to 
freshwater to reproduce). However, bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout, 
and some other species that enter the marine environment are more 
properly termed amphidromous. Unlike strictly anadromous species, such 
as Pacific salmon, amphidromous species often return seasonally to 
fresh water as subadults, sometimes for several years, before returning 
to spawn (Wilson 1997, p. 5). The amphidromous life-history form of 
bull trout is unique to the Coastal-Puget Sound population (64 FR 
58921; November 1, 1999). For additional information on the biology of 
this life form, see our June 25, 2004, proposed critical habitat 
designation for the Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint 
Mary-Belly River populations of bull trout (69 FR 35767).
    The decline of bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation 
and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, 
past fisheries management practices, impoundments, dams, water 
diversions, and the introduction of nonnative species (63 FR 31647; 
June 10, 1998; 64 FR 17112; April 8, 1999). Finalization of the 2002 
draft recovery plan was held in abeyance pending completion of the 5-
year review process, and was also affected by resource demands 
associated with the litigation discussed below. The bull trout 5-year 
review (Service 2008, p. 45) recommended that the recovery units 
identified in the 2002 draft recovery plan be updated throughout their 
range based on assemblages of bull trout core areas (metapopulations or 
interacting breeding populations) that retain genetic and ecological 
integrity and are significant to the distribution of bull trout 
throughout the conterminous United States. After consulting with 
biologists from states, Federal agencies, and Native American tribes, 
and applying the best scientific information available, we identified 
six recovery units for bull trout in the conterminous United States. 
Please refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section below for additional 
information on this topic.

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 29, 2002, we proposed to designate critical habitat for 
the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations (67 FR 
71235). On October 6, 2004, we finalized the critical habitat 
designation for the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout 
populations (69 FR 59995). On June 25, 2004, we proposed to designate 
critical habitat for the Jarbidge, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-
Belly River bull trout populations (69 FR 35767). On September 26, 
2005, we designated critical habitat for the Klamath River, Columbia 
River, Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River 
populations of bull trout (70 FR 56212). Please refer to the above-
mentioned rules for a detailed summary of previous Federal actions 
completed prior to publication of this proposed rule.
    On January 5, 2006, a complaint was filed in Federal district court 
by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild 
Swan, alleging the Service failed to designate adequate critical 
habitat, failed to rely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, failed to consider the relevant factors that led to listing, 
and failed to properly assess the economic benefits and costs of 
critical habitat designation. Other allegations included an inadequate 
analysis and the unlawful use of exclusions. On March 23, 2009, the 
Service provided notice to the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Oregon that we would seek remand of the final critical habitat rule for 
bull trout based on the findings of an Investigative Report by the 
Department of the Interior Inspector General (USDI 2008, pp. 10-38). On 
July 1, 2009, the court granted our request for a voluntary remand of 
the 2005 final rule and directed the Service to submit a new proposed 
rule to the Federal Register by December 31, 2009, and to submit a 
final decision on that proposed rule to the Federal Register by 
September 30, 2010 (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Allen, 2009 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 63122 (D. Or., July 1, 2009)). The court directed that the 
existing critical habitat rule shall remain in effect until completion 
of the remanded decision.

[[Page 2273]]

Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    Approximately 36,498 km (22,679 mi) of streams (which includes 
1,585.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine shoreline area, and 215,870 ha (533,426 
ac) of reservoirs or lakes) are being proposed as revised critical 
habitat in this rule. Areas that were proposed as critical habitat in 
the November 29, 2002, proposed designation for the Klamath River and 
Columbia River bull trout populations (67 FR 71235) and the June 25, 
2004, proposed designation for the Jarbidge, Coastal-Puget Sound, and 
Saint Mary-Belly River bull trout populations (69 FR 35767) are 
identified in Table 1 below. Based on better occupancy data and refined 
information on the importance of certain habitats, we are proposing to 
designate 3 percent more critical habitat in streams (measured on a 
linear basis) and 10 percent less critical habitat in lakes and 
reservoirs (measured by area) than were proposed in the combined 2002 
and 2004 proposed rules.

            Table 1.--Extent of Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat In The Combined 2002 and 2004 Proposed Rules (67 FR 71235; 69 FR 35767)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Stream length        Lakes, Reservoirs and Marshes      Marine shoreline
           Bull Trout  Population           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------          States
                                                  km           mi            ha              ac             km           mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath DPS................................          476          296          13,735          33,939  ...........  ...........  OR
Columbia River DPS (CDPS)..................       14,416        8,958          83,219         205,639  ...........  ...........  ID
CDPS.......................................        5,341        3,319          88,051         217,577  ...........  ...........  MT
CDPS.......................................        5,460        3,391          18,077          44,670  ...........  ...........  OR
CDPS.......................................        4,034        2,507          12,503          30,897  ...........  ...........  WA
Jarbidge...................................          211          131  ..............  ..............  ...........  ...........  ID/NV
Coastal-Puget Sound........................        3,685        2,290          21,262          52,540        1,585          985  WA
St. Mary-Belly.............................          142           88           2,548           6,295  ...........  ...........  MT
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................       33,765       20,980         239,395         591,577        1,585          985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule differs from the September 26, 2005, final 
critical habitat designation for bull trout (70 FR 56212) in the 
following ways:
    In the 2005 final rule, we designated approximately 6,161 km (3,828 
mi) of streams and 57,9578 ha (143,218 ac) of lakes in Idaho, Montana, 
Oregon, and Washington; and 1,585 km (985 mi) of shoreline paralleling 
marine habitat in Washington as critical habitat (70 FR 56212). No 
critical habitat was designated in the Jarbidge River basin (70 FR 
56249-56251). In this rule, we are proposing to designate 36,498 km 
(22,679 mi) of streams (which includes 1,585.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine 
shoreline area in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound), and 215,870 
ha (533,426 ac) of lakes and reservoirs as critical habitat, which 
includes 266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams in the Jarbidge River basin.
    In the 2005 final rule, we did not designate any unoccupied 
critical habitat because the Secretary concluded that it was not 
possible to make a determination that such lands were essential to the 
conservation of the species (70 FR 56232). In this rule, we are 
proposing to designate 1,495 km (929 mi) of streams (four percent of 
the total) that are outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it was listed that have been determined to be 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    In the 2005 rule, a variety of areas were exempted from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act or excluded from 
designation as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (70 FR 
56232). These areas included several DOD facilities; certain Tribal 
lands; Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge lands; lands subject to 
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs); lands subject to Federal or State 
management plans (including PACFISH, INFISH, Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project, Northwest Forest Plan, Southwest Idaho 
Land and Resource Management Plan, Southeast Oregon Resource Management 
Plan, Federal Columbia River Power System, Snake River Basin 
Adjudication); waters impounded behind dams; and all lands that were 
proposed as critical habitat in the Jarbidge River in Nevada.
    Federal agencies have an independent responsibility under section 
7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance of the Act and 
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation 
of endangered and threatened species. We consider the development and 
implementation of land management plans by Federal agencies to be 
consistent with this statutory obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the 
Act. For this reason, Federal land management plans, in and of 
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for excluding 
essential habitat, thus this rule does not propose to exclude any 
Federal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, in some areas, 
Federal land management agencies actively manage for bull trout and its 
habitat and conduct specific conservation actions for the species. 
Therefore, in this proposed rule, we are asking for specific 
information regarding whether the effects of these actions are such 
that the benefits of excluding these particular areas from critical 
habitat outweigh the benefits of including these area as critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act'' below).
    In addition, we are exempting several DOD facilities under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act based on existing Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plans that provide a benefit to bull trout, and we are 
considering excluding certain non-Federal lands under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act based on other conservation management considerations (see 
``Exemptions under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act'' and ``Application of 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below). We are also proposing to designate 
266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams in the Jarbidge River basin.
    Two economic analyses related to previous bull trout critical 
habitat proposed rules were prepared in 2004 and 2005, which followed a 
co-extensive analytical approach, consistent with recent court rulings. 
Those analyses considered conservation and protection activities for 
bull trout, without distinguishing between impacts associated with 
listing the species and those associated with the designation of 
critical habitat. The economic analysis prepared for this proposed rule 
does not follow the coextensive analytical approach, and differentiates 
between

[[Page 2274]]

baseline and incremental economic impacts. Under this approach, because 
of the conservation measures already in place for salmon, steelhead, 
the Klamath suckers, and other protected fish species, our analysis 
indicates that the incremental economic impact in areas occupied by 
bull trout will be small, and the most significant incremental effect 
will be in those areas not currently occupied (less than four percent 
of the areas being proposed as critical habitat). The majority of 
forecast incremental costs are associated with unoccupied critical 
habitat in the Upper Willamette River Basin and are associated with 
conservation efforts undertaken at flood control facilities. The 
discussion under ``Draft Economic Analysis'' below provides additional 
information in this regard.
    The PCEs in this rule are similar to those described in the 2005 
final designation (70 FR 56236); however, we are proposing an 
additional PCE related to the presence of nonnative fish that may prey 
on, compete with, or inbreed with, bull trout. In addition, we are 
considering reorganizing the PCEs, as noted above, into broad habitat 
attributes (water bodies and migratory corridors), and identify 
specific needs of bull trout within these broad categories. This 
reorganization would keep all of the PCEs presented in this proposal 
intact, but organizing them in such a way as to show the most important 
broad categories first, and then breaking them down into specific 
descriptions.
    A small proportion of critical habitat designated in the 2005 final 
rule is not being proposed as critical habitat in this revision. These 
areas include streams and lakes determined either not to include bull 
trout or any of their PCEs, or not to be essential to their 
conservation. For example, Sycan Marsh in the Klamath River basin no 
longer holds enough water to support bull trout, so we propose the 
stream channels through the marsh as critical habitat, allowing 
connectivity among populations, instead of the entire marsh. The 
remainder of the areas designated in the 2005 final rule would remain 
designated as critical habitat if this proposed revision is finalized. 
A similarly small proportion of habitat proposed in this rule was not 
designated in the 2005 final rule. These areas include streams and 
lakes since determined to be occupied by bull trout, to provide one or 
more PCEs, or as essential to their conservation. For example, the 
mainstem Columbia River and the lower portions of connecting 
tributaries such as the John Day River have been found to be more 
important for FMO habitat for bull trout than was previously 
understood. All areas known to contain the most important bull trout 
habitat and PCEs, or that may be unoccupied but essential to their 
conservation, are proposed in this rule.
    Copies of the previous proposed and final bull trout critical 
habitat rules and a map showing the relationship of the 2005 final rule 
and this proposed rule are available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife 
Office web site at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered 
or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided 
pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where a landowner 
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action 
that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply but even in the event of a 
destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal action 
agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or recover 
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features 
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify habitat areas that provide essential life 
cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the physical and 
biological features (PBFs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and 
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species), based on the 
best scientific data available. Under the regulation at 50 CFR 
424.12(e), we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed only 
when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species and that designation limited to those areas occupied at 
the time of listing would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of 
the species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate 
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An 
area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the 
time of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the 
species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria,

[[Page 2275]]

establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or 
personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat 
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species, based on scientific data not now available to 
the Service. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not 
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may 
not be required for recovery of the species.
    Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but 
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be 
subject to conservation actions Federal agencies implement under 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support populations are also 
subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) 
jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available 
scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally 
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their 
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings 
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the 
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will 
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation 
planning efforts if new information available at the time of these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Planning
    In developing this proposed rule, we considered the conservation 
relationship between the proposed critical habitat designation and 
recovery planning. Although recovery plans formulate the recovery 
strategy for a species, they are not regulatory documents, and there 
are no specific protections, prohibitions, or requirements afforded a 
species based solely on a recovery plan. Furthermore, although critical 
habitat designation can contribute to the overall recovery strategy for 
a species, it does not, by itself, achieve recovery plan goals. The Act 
states in section 3(5)(C), ``except in those circumstances determined 
by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire 
geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered 
species.'' In most cases, it is not the intent of the Act to designate 
critical habitat for every population and every documented historical 
location of a species. Instead, the focus of critical habitat 
designation is on habitat that contains the physical and biological 
features essential to conservation of the species.
    The 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 45) recommended, in part, that 
we update recovery units from the 2002 draft recovery plan for bull 
trout throughout their range (Service 2002), based on assemblages of 
bull trout core areas (metapopulations or interacting breeding 
populations) that retain genetic and ecological integrity and are 
significant to the distribution of bull trout throughout the 
conterminous United States. To complete the recovery unit update, we 
consulted with biologists from States, Federal agencies, and Native 
American tribes, using the best scientific information available. 
Factors that were considered in determining the geographic arrangement 
of the updated recovery units included ensuring (1) resiliency by 
protecting large areas of high-quality habitat; (2) redundancy by 
protecting multiple populations; and (3) representation by protecting 
diverse genetic and life-history aspects of bull trout populations 
distributed throughout the range of the listed entity (Tear et al. 
2005, p. 841).
    Bull trout are listed under the Act as ``Threatened'' throughout 
the coterminous United States primarily due to habitat threats. In 2008 
the Service completed a 5-year review of bull trout status and 
concluded in part that it should reevaluate the number of bull trout 
Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), and consider reclassifying bull 
trout into separate DPSs. The Service subsequently recommended not 
immediately pursuing reclassification due to time and cost constraints, 
but applied relevant factors in its 1996 DPS policy. As a result, six 
draft recovery units (RUs) were identified. Subsequent to identifying 
these six RUs, we evaluated each RU and determined that they were 
needed to ensure a resilient, redundant, and representative 
distribution of bull trout populations throughout the range of the 
listed entity. To accomplish these goals, we need to protect large 
areas of high-quality habitat, protect multiple populations, and 
protect diverse genetic and life-history aspects.
    The six draft recovery units identified for bull trout in the 
conterminous United States include: Mid-Columbia recovery unit; Saint 
Mary recovery unit; Columbia Headwaters recovery unit; Coastal recovery 
unit; Klamath recovery unit; and Upper Snake recovery unit (Figure 1). 
Conserving each RU is essential to conserving the listed entity as a 
whole. These six new biologically based recovery units will be proposed 
to replace the 27 recovery units previously identified in the bull 
trout draft recovery plan (Service 2002, Chapter 1, p. 3).
Figure 1. Map of bull trout draft recovery units

[[Page 2276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 2277]]

    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, may continue to be subject to conservation actions 
we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also subject to 
the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific 
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the conservation of bull trout. Data 
sources include research published in peer-reviewed journals and 
previous Service documents on the species, including the final listing 
determination (FR 64 58909-58933; November 1, 1999), the bull trout 
draft recovery plan (Service 2002), and the bull trout 5-year review 
(Service 2008). Additionally, we utilized regional Geographic 
Information System (GIS) shape files for area calculations and mapping.
Primary Constituent Elements
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied at the time of 
listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These features are the PCEs laid out in the appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. These 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
     (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    As discussed in greater detail below, we derived nine specific PCEs 
required for bull trout from the biological needs of the species as 
described or referred to in the Background section of this proposed 
rule and the following information. The nine PCEs relate to (1) water 
quality; (2) migration corridors; (3) food availability; (4) instream 
habitat; (5) water temperature; (6) substrate characteristics; (7) 
stream flow; (8) water quantity; and (9) nonnative species.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Streams and groundwater sources with high water quality and cold 
temperatures, complex habitat, and migratory corridors provide space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior for bull 
trout.
    Bull trout exhibit a number of life-history strategies. Stream-
resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary 
streams where they spawn and rear. Some bull trout are migratory, 
spawning in tributary streams where juvenile fish usually rear from one 
to four years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial form) 
or lake (adfluvial form) where they spend their adult life, returning 
to the tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133). 
These migratory forms occur in areas where conditions allow for 
movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream 
waters that contain greater foraging opportunities (Dunham and Rieman 
1999, p. 646). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and 
either form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and 
McIntyre 1993, p. 2). Where ocean environments are accessible to bull 
trout they may also migrate to and from salt water (amphidromy).
    The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull 
trout local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2; Gilpin 1997, 
p. 4; Rieman and Clayton 1997, p 6; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1121). Bull 
trout rely on migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing 
habitats to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Migratory 
bull trout become much larger than resident fish in the more productive 
waters of larger streams and lakes, leading to increased reproductive 
potential. Stream resident populations are associated with headwater 
streams in mountainous regions where cold water and velocity barriers 
are common. Typically, these streams are smaller and have higher 
gradients than those occupied by adfluvial and fluvial populations. In 
these headwater streams, resident bull trout are associated with deep 
pools and in-stream cover, and most stream-resident populations are 
dwarfed (McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 12). The use of migratory 
corridors by bull trout also results in increased dispersion, 
facilitating gene flow among local populations (interbreeding groups) 
when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or 
return to non-natal streams. Also, local populations that have been 
extirpated by catastrophic events may become reestablished because of 
movements by bull trout through migratory corridors (Rieman and 
McIntyre 1993, p. 7; MBTSG 1998, p. 45).
    Lakes and reservoirs also figure prominently in meeting the life-
cycle requirements of bull trout. For adfluvial (migrating between 
lakes and rivers or streams) bull trout populations, lakes and 
reservoirs provide an important component of the core FMO habitat and 
are integral to maintaining the adfluvial life-history strategy that is 
commonly exhibited by bull trout. When juvenile bull trout emigrate 
downstream to a lake or reservoir from the spawning and rearing streams 
in its headwaters, they enter a more productive lentic (still or slow-
moving water) environment that allows them to achieve rapid growth and 
energy storage.
    Some reservoirs may have adversely affected bull trout, while 
others have provided benefits. For example, the basin of Hungry Horse 
Reservoir has functioned adequately for 50 years as a surrogate home 
for stranded Flathead Lake bull trout trapped upstream of the dam when 
it was completed. While this is an artificial impoundment, the habitat 
the reservoir provides and the presence of an enhanced prey base of 
native minnows, suckers, and whitefish within the reservoir sustain a 
large adfluvial bull trout population. Additionally, while barriers to 
migration are often viewed as a negative consequence of dams, the 
connectivity barrier at Hungry Horse Dam has served an important, 
albeit unintended, function in restricting the proliferation of 
nonnative Salvelinus species (including brook trout (Salvelinus 
fontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)) from downstream 
areas upstream above the dam.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Bull trout are opportunistic feeders that prey upon other 
organisms. Prey selection is primarily a function of size

[[Page 2278]]

and life-history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout 
prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton, and small 
fish (Donald and Alger 1993, p. 244; McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 15). 
Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish 
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 3). Habitats must provide the necessary 
aquatic and adjacent terrestrial conditions to harbor prey species in 
sufficient quantity and diversity to meet the physiological 
requirements necessary to maintain bull trout populations. An abundant 
food base, including a broad array of terrestrial organisms of riparian 
origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish, supports 
individual and population growth and allows for normal bull trout 
behavior.
Cover or Shelter
    At all life stages, bull trout require complex forms of cover, 
including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools 
(Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 137-138; Watson and Hillman 1997, p. 
249). Juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream 
margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997, p. 
368). McPhail and Baxter (1996, p. 11) reported that newly emerged fry 
are secretive and hide in gravel along stream edges and side channels. 
They also reported that juveniles are found mainly in pools but also in 
riffles and runs, maintain focal sites near the bottom, and are 
strongly associated with instream cover, particularly overhead cover 
such as woody debris or riparian vegetation. Bull trout have been 
observed overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools containing large 
woody debris (Jakober 1995, p. 90). Adult bull trout migrating to 
spawning areas have been recorded as staying two to four weeks at the 
mouths of spawning tributaries in deeper holes or near logs or cover 
debris (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 137). Bull trout may also use lotic 
(swift-flowing water) and in some cases saltwater environments 
seasonally for reasons that include use as cover. Riparian vegetation; 
large wood; variable stream channel morphology including deep pools, 
side-channels, undercut banks and substrates; and in some cases access 
to downstream environments provide cover and shelter, which support 
individual and population growth and allow for normal bull trout 
behavior.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other 
salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 4). Habitat components that 
particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water 
temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing 
substrate conditions, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989, 
p. 138; Goetz 1989, p. 19; Watson and Hillman 1997, p. 247).
    Watson and Hillman (1997, p. 248) concluded watersheds must have 
specific physical characteristics to provide the necessary habitat 
requirements for bull trout spawning and rearing, and that the 
characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout the 
watersheds in which bull trout occur. The preferred spawning habitat of 
bull trout consists of low-gradient stream reaches with loose, clean 
gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133). Bull trout typically spawn 
from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures 
(Swanberg 1997, p. 735). However, migratory forms are known to begin 
spawning migrations as early as April and to move upstream as much as 
250 km (155 mi) to spawning areas (Fraley and Shepard 1989 p. 138; 
Swanberg 1997, p. 735).
    Fraley and Shepard (1989, p. 137) reported that initiation of 
spawning by bull trout in the Flathead River system appeared to be 
related largely to water temperature, with spawning initiated when 
water temperatures dropped below 10 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C) (50 
[deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F)). Goetz (1989, pp. 22-32) reported a 
temperature range from 4 to 10 [deg]C (39 to 50 [deg]F). Such areas 
often are associated with cold-water springs or groundwater upwelling 
(Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1121; Baxter et al. 1999, p. 137). Fraley and 
Shepard (1989, p. 137) also found that groundwater influence and 
proximity to cover are important factors influencing spawning site 
selection. They reported the combination of relatively specific 
requirements resulted in a restricted spawning distribution in relation 
to available stream habitat.
    Depending on water temperature, egg incubation is normally 100 to 
145 days (Pratt 1992, p. 5). Water temperatures of 1.2 to 5.4 [deg]C 
(34.2 to 41.7 [deg]F) have been reported for incubation, with an 
optimum (best embryo survivorship) temperature reported to be from 2 to 
4 [deg]C (36 to 39 [deg]F) (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 138; McPhail 
and Baxter 1996, p. 10). Juveniles remain in the substrate after 
hatching, such that the time from egg deposition to emergence of fry 
can exceed 200 days. During the relatively long incubation period in 
the gravel, bull trout eggs are especially vulnerable to fine sediments 
and water quality degradation (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 141). 
Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence 
(Pratt 1992, p. 6). Juveniles are likely also affected. High juvenile 
densities have been reported in areas characterized by a diverse cobble 
substrate and a low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984, p. 
6). Habitats with cold water temperature, appropriately-sized stream 
substrate, and stream substrate with a low level of fine material 
(i.e., less than 12 percent of fine substrate less than 0.85 millimeter 
(mm) (0.03 inch (in.)) in diameter) are necessary factors for egg 
incubation and juvenile rearing that supports individual and population 
growth (WFPB 1997, pp. 98, F-25).
Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historic, 
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    There are some habitats throughout the range of the species that 
are well protected from disturbance and representative of ideal 
ecological conditions of the species. These areas mainly include 
wilderness, national parks, and other public lands specifically 
protected from most human disturbance (e.g., State parks), and often 
constitute bull trout ``strongholds'' with robust, well-distributed 
populations. Some populations outside of these areas may still be well 
protected for other reasons (e.g., conservation easements, Habitat 
Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements), but many other populations 
are threatened by human actions.
    Water diversion and reservoir development can reduce stream flow, 
reduce the amount of water available in a stream channel, change water 
quality, and alter groundwater regimes. These changes may collectively 
impact habitat and passage for bull trout and can cause increases in 
water temperatures.
    Impoundments may also increase nonnative species predation and 
competition, which can significantly affect bull trout populations. 
Some nonnative fish species that prey on bull trout include lake trout, 
walleye (Sander vitreum), northern pike (Esox lucius), smallmouth bass 
(Micropterus dolomieu), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Brown trout or 
other introduced salmonids such as rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss), 
as well as smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye, and other species 
also compete with bull trout for limited resources. Brook trout 
commonly hybridize with bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992, p. 16; 
Leary et al. 1993, p. 857).

[[Page 2279]]

    The stability of stream channels and stream flows are important 
habitat characteristics for bull trout populations (Rieman and McIntyre 
1993, p. 5). The side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable 
cover for bull trout 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, p. 141; Pratt 1992, p. 6; 
Pratt and Huston 1993, p. 70). Streams with a natural hydrograph (those 
with normal discharge variations over time as a response to seasonal 
precipitation); permanent water; and an absence of nonnative species 
are representative of the highest quality ecological habitat of the 
species. Streams with these characteristics provide space for 
individual and population growth.
    We propose bull trout habitats of two primary use types: spawning 
and rearing (SR), and foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO). All 
nine PCEs listed below may be found in, or be essential to, bull trout 
in each of these two habitat use types. This proposed rule identifies 
over 3,500 water body segments as either SR or FMO habitat. Due to a 
lack of sufficiently detailed data, we do not identify the specific 
PCEs present for each water body segment. Future consultations with the 
Service on specific agency actions will help identify those PCEs that 
are most important in a specific water body segment. Factors such as 
time of year, seasonal precipitation, drought conditions, and other 
phenomenon can influence the essential physical and biological features 
present at any particular location at any particular time across its 
range given the variability of habitats used by bull trout. In 
addition, attributes such as stream flow and substrate size and 
composition are influenced by stream order and gradient. Accordingly, 
establishing an upper and lower range of conditions for specific 
attributes in some cases may be impracticable.
Primary Constituent Elements for Bull Trout
    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life-
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the characteristics of 
the habitat necessary to sustain the essential life-history functions 
of the species, we have identified the following PCEs for bull trout 
critical habitat.
     (1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water 
connectivity (hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and 
quantity and provide thermal refugia.
     (2) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water 
quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and 
freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to 
permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
     (3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of 
riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
     (4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline 
aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, 
side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a 
variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
     (5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 [deg]C (36 to 59 
[deg]F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at 
the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range 
will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; 
geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as 
that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.
     (6) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to 
ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, 
and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., 
less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in 
diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates 
are characteristic of these conditions.
     (7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base 
flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, 
they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.
     (8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal 
reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.
     (9) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, 
northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or 
competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of bull 
trout that may require special management considerations or protection, 
and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of 
listing that are essential for bull trout conservation (Service 2009; 
also see ``Previous Federal Actions'' section). The steps we followed 
in identifying critical habitat were:
    (1) Our initial step in identifying critical habitat was to 
determine, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological habitat 
features essential to the conservation of the species, as explained in 
the previous section. We reviewed the best available scientific data 
pertaining to the habitat requirements of this species, including 
consulting with biologists from partner agencies and entities including 
Federal, State, tribal, and private biologists; experts from other 
scientific disciplines such as hydrology and forestry; resource users; 
and other stakeholders with an interest in bull trout and the habitats 
they depend on for survival and recovery. We also reviewed available 
data concerning bull trout habitat use and preferences, habitat 
conditions, threats, limiting factors, population demographics, and 
known locations, distribution, and abundances of bull trout.
    (2) We then identified the geographical areas occupied by bull 
trout at the time of listing and areas not occupied that may be 
essential for the conservation of bull trout. We used data gathered 
during the bull trout recovery planning process and the bull trout 
draft recovery plan (Service 2002), and supplemented that data with 
recent data developed by State agencies, tribes, the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS), and other entities. This data was used to update bull 
trout status and distribution data for purposes of the proposed 
critical habitat designation. For areas where we had data gaps, we 
solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable fisheries biologists in 
the local area. Material reviewed included data in reports submitted 
during section 7 consultations, reports from biologists holding section 
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, research published in peer-reviewed 
scientific journals, academic theses, State and Federal government 
agency reports, and regional GIS overlays.
    (3) We identified specific areas within each of the six new draft 
recovery units described above that contain the physical and biological 
features essential to bull trout conservation, considering 
distribution, abundance, trend, and connectivity needs. The objective 
was to ensure the areas proposed for designation as critical

[[Page 2280]]

habitat would effectively serve the goals we believe are important for 
recovery: (a) conserve the opportunity for diverse life-history 
expression; (b) conserve the opportunity for genetic diversity; (c) 
ensure that bull trout are distributed across representative habitats; 
(d) ensure sufficient connectivity among populations; (e) ensure 
sufficient habitat to support population viability (e.g., abundance, 
trend indices); (f) address threats (see ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' below), including climate change (see 
below); and (g) ensure sufficient redundancy in conserving population 
units. The above recovery goals take into account the threats and 
physical and biological needs of the species throughout its range, and 
focus on its range-wide recovery needs.
    All critical habitat areas being proposed occur within the six new 
draft recovery units described above. Some areas contained the physical 
and biological features, but did not meet one or more of the above 
recovery goals because those features were not present in an 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement. Accordingly, we 
determined that such areas are not essential to bull trout 
conservation. For example, some areas contained spawning habitat (PCEs 
5 and 6), but are disconnected from other populations and not large 
enough to support viable bull trout populations. Other areas were not 
included in this proposal because of limited habitat, marginal habitat, 
low bull trout density, or only sporadic presence of bull trout 
recorded.
    Predicted global climate change appears likely to pose additional 
threats to bull trout in many parts of their range in the coterminous 
United States; downscaled regional climate models for the Columbia 
River basin predict a general air temperature warming of 1.0 to 2.5 
[deg]C (33.8 to 36.5 [deg]F) or more by 2050 (Reiman et al. 2007, p. 
1,552). This predicted temperature trend will have important effects on 
the regional distribution and local extent of habitats available to 
salmonids (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,552). The optimal water 
temperatures for bull trout appear to be substantially lower than those 
for other salmonids (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,553). Coldwater fish do 
not physically adapt well to thermal increases (McCullough et al. 2009, 
pp. 96-101). Instead, they are more likely to change their behavior, 
alter the timing of certain behaviors, experience increased physical 
and biochemical stress, and exhibit reduced growth and survival 
(McCullough et al. 2009, pp. 98-100). Bull trout spawning and initial 
rearing areas are currently largely constrained by low fall and winter 
water temperatures, and existing thermally suitable habitat patches are 
often isolated from one another (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,553). With a 
warming climate, thermally suitable bull trout spawning and rearing 
areas are predicted to shrink during warm seasons, in some cases very 
dramatically, becoming even more isolated from one another under 
moderate climate change scenarios (Rieman et al. 2007, pp. 1,558-1,562; 
Porter and Nelitz 2009, pp. 5-7).
    Climate change will likely interact with other stressors, such as 
habitat loss and fragmentation (Rieman et al. 2007, pp. 1,558-1,560; 
Porter and Nelitz 2009, p. 3); invasions of nonnative fish (Rahel et 
al. 2008, pp. 552-553); diseases and parasites (McCullough et al 2009, 
p. 104); predators and competitors (McMahon et al. 2007, pp. 1,313-
1,323; Rahel et al. 2008, pp. 552-553); and flow alteration (McCullough 
et al. 2009, pp. 106-108), to render some current spawning, rearing, 
and migratory habitats marginal or wholly unsuitable. For example, 
introduced congeneric populations of brook trout are widely distributed 
throughout the range of bull trout. McMahon et al. (2007, p. 1,320) 
demonstrated the presence of brook trout has a marked negative effect 
on bull trout, an effect that is magnified at higher water temperatures 
(16-20 [deg]C (60-68 [deg]F)). Changes and complex interactions are 
difficult to predict at a spatial scale relevant to bull trout 
conservation efforts, and key gaps exist in our understanding of 
whether bull trout (and other coldwater fishes) can behaviorally adapt 
to climate change.
    We considered probable effects of climate change on bull trout by 
first qualitatively screening core areas to assess those which might be 
most vulnerable to climate change effects, and highlighting them in our 
2008 update of status and threats data in the core area template 
documents (Service 2008, p. 15). For example, in many locations we 
prioritized cold water spring habitats for conservation because they 
may be among the most resistant habitats to climate change effects. In 
other locations we deemphasized protection of some already low-
elevation, warmer, marginal bull trout habitats, anticipating that they 
would become even less valuable for the future conservation of bull 
trout. Over a period of decades, climate change may directly threaten 
the integrity of the essential physical and biological features 
described in PCEs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Protecting bull trout 
strongholds and cold water refugia from disturbance and ensuring 
connectivity among populations were important considerations in 
addressing this potential impact.
    Over 30 years of research into wildlife population sizes required 
for long-term viability (avoiding extinction) suggests that a minimum 
number of 5,000 individuals may be needed in light of rapidly changing 
environmental conditions such as accelerated climate change (Traill et 
al. 2009, p. 3). Although the minimum number of individuals may vary 
depending on the species involved, for bull trout, we have included 
additional unoccupied habitats in those areas where occupied habitats 
currently support far less than this number of individuals, so there 
are adequate PCEs for those small populations to recover. For example, 
in the Klamath basin where bull trout status is weak and threats are 
high (that is, where there are low number of individuals or 
populations, and poor habitat quality), we are proposing to designate 
all occupied habitat and some unoccupied habitat to ensure sufficient 
connectivity among existing bull trout populations. Unoccupied habitat 
proposed for protection is in FMO habitat, and is intended to ensure 
connectivity among existing, currently isolated bull trout populations. 
Conversely, examples of occupied areas that are not proposed as 
critical habitat include those where bull trout occur in low densities 
in very isolated or tenuous populations, areas where bull trout are 
heavily compromised by nonnative species, or areas where available 
habitat is restricted.
    (4) In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, we 
considered factors specific to each river system, such as size (i.e., 
stream order), gradient, channel morphology, connectivity to other 
aquatic habitats, and habitat complexity and diversity, as well as 
range-wide recovery considerations. We took into account the fact that 
bull trout habitat preference ranges from small headwater streams used 
largely for spawning and rearing, to downstream mainstem portions of 
river networks used for rearing, foraging, migration, or overwintering.
    To help determine which of these specific areas are essential to 
bull trout conservation, we considered the species' status in each 
recovery unit by evaluating whether: (a) bull trout are rare and 
exposed to threats, such that recovery needs include removing threats 
from essentially all existing occurrences and restoring bull trout to 
portions of their historic range, or (b) bull trout are declining and 
exposed to threats, such that recovery needs include stopping the 
decline and eliminating threats

[[Page 2281]]

across key portions of their range, such as currently occupied 
strongholds.
    NatureServe is a nonprofit conservation organization whose mission 
is to provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action. 
The NatureServe database is sometimes used as one of several factors in 
identifying species which may warrant listing under the Act, but in 
other cases the information in the NatureServe database is limited in 
its usefulness for that purpose. Additionally, NatureServe has 
developed a computer spreadsheet tool used world-wide for evaluating a 
suite of factors related to rarity, trends, and threats to assess the 
extinction or extirpation risk of species and ecosystems. We did use 
this spreadsheet tool in analyzing the data we have for the bull trout. 
The protocol for assigning a conservation status rank to a species or 
population of a species is based on using biological data to derive a 
score for each of ten conservation status factors, which are grouped 
into three categories based on the characteristic of the factor: rarity 
(six factors such as population size or habitat area), trends (two 
factors), and threats (two factors) (Master et al. 2007, pp. 6-11). By 
inserting extensive biological data for bull trout collected by the 
Service and its partners through 2007 into the NatureServe status 
assessment ranking tool spreadsheet for each of 118 bull trout core 
areas or watersheds throughout their range, we were able to determine 
the relative status and threats within each of the 118 bull trout core 
areas or watersheds and each of the 6 draft recovery units.
    The proposed critical habitat designation identifies specific areas 
essential to the conservation of the bull trout local populations and 
spawning and rearing streams of highest conservation value. Factors 
taken into account at the smaller local population scale included the 
largest areas or populations, most highly connected populations, and 
areas with the highest conservation potential (i.e., the quantity and 
quality of physical and biological features present). At the larger 
core area scale, the proposed designation also focuses on areas having 
the highest conservation value by applying the factors that were 
applied at the local population scale. At both the local population and 
core area scales, the proposed designation emphasizes essential FMO 
habitats of highest conservation value, such as habitats that connect 
local populations and core areas and provide required space for life-
history functions. In some areas, specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by bull trout at the time of listing have 
been determined to be essential for the conservation of the species and 
are being proposed as critical habitat. In those areas, bull trout 
habitat and population loss over time necessitates reestablishing bull 
trout in currently unoccupied habitat areas to achieve recovery.
    Based on the considerations described above, we propose a greater 
proportion of occupied habitat and more unoccupied habitat for 
protection in areas where bull trout demonstrate less resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation, and less critical habitat elsewhere. We 
find that areas occupied at the time of listing are inadequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are proposing 
additional areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time it is listed. For example, in the Klamath Basin Recovery 
Unit where threats to bull trout are greatest, we are proposing to 
designate all habitat known to be occupied at the time of listing that 
contains the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection, and we propose designating a substantial 
proportion of unoccupied habitat outside of the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing that has been determined 
to be essential for bull trout conservation. Our primary consideration 
in proposing critical habitat for occupied areas is to protect species 
strongholds for spawning and rearing and FMO habitats. Our primary 
consideration for most unoccupied areas is restoring connectivity among 
populations by protecting FMO habitats.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this 
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas 
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures 
because such lands lack physical and biological features essential for 
bull trout. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features 
in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we 
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient PBFs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species and lands outside of the geographical area 
occupied at the time of listing that we have determined are essential 
for the conservation of bull trout.
    We are proposing to designate 32 critical habitat units (CHUs) 
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing. These units have an appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement of physical and biological features present that supports 
bull trout metapopulations, life processes, and overall species 
conservation. Twenty-nine of the units contain all of the physical and 
biological features identified in this proposed rule, supporting 
multiple life-history requirements. Three of the mainstem river units 
in the Columbia and Snake River basins contain most of the physical and 
biological features necessary to support the bull trout's particular 
use of that habitat, other than those associated with PCEs 5 and 6, 
which relate to breeding habitat. Lakes and reservoirs within these 
units also contain most of the physical and biological features 
necessary to support bull trout, other than those associated with PCEs 
1, 4, and 6. Marine nearshore habitats within the Olympic Peninsula and 
Puget Sound CHUs contain only a subset of the identified physical and 
biological features for bull trout (PCEs 2, 3, 5, and 8). However, 
these habitats are important to conserving a diverse life-history 
expression and representative habitats.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
    The term critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, 
in part, as geographical areas on which are found those physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protections. 
Accordingly, when designating critical habitat, we assess whether the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing contain features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. Although the determination that special 
management considerations or protection may be required is not a 
prerequisite to designating critical

[[Page 2282]]

habitat in areas essential to the conservation of the species that were 
unoccupied at the time of listing, all areas being proposed as critical 
habitat require some level of management to address current and future 
threats to bull trout, to maintain or enhance the physical and 
biological features essential to its conservation, and to ensure the 
recovery of the species.
    The primary land and water management activities impacting the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of bull 
trout which may require special management considerations within the 
proposed critical habitat units include timber harvest and road 
building (forest management practices), agriculture and agricultural 
diversions, livestock grazing, dams, mining, and nonnative species 
presence or introduction (Beschta et al. 1987, p. 194; Chamberlin et 
al. 1991, p. 194; Furniss et al. 1991, p. 297; Meehan 1991, pp. 6-10; 
Nehlsen et al. 1991, p. 4; Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 6; Craig and 
Wissmar 1993, p. 18; Frissell 1993, p. 350; Henjum et al. 1994, p. 6; 
McIntosh et al. 1994, p. 37; Wissmar et al. 1994, p. 28; MBTSG 1995a, 
p. i; MBTSG 1995b, p. i; MBTSG 1995c, p. i; MBTSG 1995d, p. 1; USDA and 
USDI 1995, p. 8, 1997, pp. 132-144; Light et al. 1996, p. 6; MBTSG 
1996a, p. ii; MBTSG 1996b, p. 1; MBTSG 1996c, p. i; MBTSG 1996d, p. i; 
MBTSG 1996e, p. i; MBTSG 1996f, p. 1; MBTSG 1996g, p. 7; MBTSG 1996h, 
p. 7). Urbanization and residential development may also impact the 
physical and biological features, and these features may require 
special management considerations or protections due to these 
development impacts.
    Timber harvest and road building in, or close to, riparian areas 
can immediately reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, and 
large woody debris recruitment, and it can increase sedimentation and 
peak stream flows (Chamberlin et al. 1991, p. 180). These activities 
can subsequently lead to increased stream temperatures and bank erosion 
and decreased long-term stream productivity. The effects of road 
construction and associated maintenance account for a majority of 
sediment loads to streams in forested areas. In addition, stream 
crossings also can impede fish passage (Shepard et al. 1984, p. 1; 
Cederholm and Reid 1987, p. 392; Furniss et al. 1991, p. 301). 
Sedimentation affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering 
substrate composition, reducing interstitial space, and causing 
braiding of channels (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 6), which reduce 
carrying capacity. Sedimentation negatively affects bull trout embryo 
survival and juvenile bull trout rearing densities (Shepard et al. 
1984, p. 6; Pratt 1992, p. 6). An assessment of the interior Columbia 
Basin ecosystem revealed that increasing road densities were associated 
with declines in four nonanadromous salmonid species (bull trout; 
Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki bouvieri); westslope 
cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi); and redband trout (O. mykiss ssp.)) 
within the Columbia River basin, likely through a variety of factors 
associated with roads. Bull trout were less likely to use highly roaded 
basins for spawning and rearing and, if present, were likely to be at 
lower population levels (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1183). These 
activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the 
essential physical and biological features described in PCEs 1-6. 
Special management considerations or protections that may be needed for 
the essential features include the implementation of best management 
practices that could result in project modifications specifically 
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout, 
particularly in spawning and rearing habitat. Such best management 
practices could result in project modifications that require measures 
to ensure that road stream crossings do not impede fish migration or 
occur in or near spawning/rearing areas, or increase road surface 
drainage.
    Agricultural practices and associated activities adjacent to 
streams and in upland portions of watersheds also can adversely affect 
the physical and biological features essential to bull trout 
conservation. Irrigation withdrawals, including diversions, can dewater 
spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and migration, and 
entrain fish into the irrigation ditch from the river. Discharging 
pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals, animal waste, and 
sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also detrimental (Spence 
et al. 1996, p. 128). Agricultural practices regularly include stream 
channelization and diking, large woody debris and riparian vegetation 
removal, and bank armoring (Spence et al. 1996, p. 127). Improper 
livestock grazing can promote streambank erosion and sedimentation and 
limit the growth of riparian vegetation important for temperature 
control, streambank stability, fish cover, and detrital input (Platts 
1991, pp. 397-399). In addition, grazing often results in increased 
organic nutrient input in streams (Platts 1991, p. 423). These 
activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the 
essential physical and biological features described in PCEs 1-8. 
Special management for the essential features could include best 
management practices that could include project modifications 
specifically designed to reduce these types of impacts in streams with 
bull trout, such as fencing livestock from streamsides, moving animal 
feeding operations away from surface waters, using riparian buffer 
strips near crop fields, minimizing water withdrawal from streams, 
avoiding stream channel and spring head manipulation, and avoiding 
stream dewatering.
    Dams constructed without fish passage features, or with poorly 
designed fish passage features, create barriers to migratory bull 
trout, precluding access to suitable spawning, rearing, and migration 
habitats. Dams disrupt the connectivity within and between watersheds 
essential for maintaining aquatic ecosystem function (Naiman et al. 
1992, p. 127; Spence et al. 1996, p. 141) and bull trout subpopulation 
interaction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 15). Natural recolonization 
of historically occupied sites can be precluded by migration barriers 
(e.g., McCloud Dam in California). These activities can directly and 
immediately threaten the integrity of the essential physical and 
biological features described in PCEs 2-7 and 9. Special management 
considerations that may be needed for the essential features include 
the implementation of best management practices that could result in 
project modifications, such as providing fish passage, specifically 
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout.
    Mining can degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy 
metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream 
channels and flow (Martin and Platts 1981, p. 2). These activities can 
directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the essential 
physical and biological features described in PCEs 1, 6, 7, and 8, even 
if they occur some distance upstream from critical habitat. Special 
management for these essential features could require best management 
practices that could result in project modifications specifically 
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout, such as 
avoiding surface water impacts from mining activities and neutralizing 
or containing toxic materials generated.
    Introductions of nonnative species by the Federal Government, State 
fish and game departments, and unauthorized private parties across the 
range of bull trout have resulted in predation,

[[Page 2283]]

declines in abundance, local extirpations, and hybridization of bull 
trout (Bond 1992, p. 3; Howell and Buchanan 1992, p. viii; Donald and 
Alger 1993, p. 245; Leary et al. 1993, p. 857; Pratt and Huston 1993, 
p. 75; MBTSG 1995b, p. 10; MBTSG 1995d, p. 21; Platts et al. 1995, p. 
9; MBTSG 1996g, p. 7; Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt.1997, p. 29). 
Nonnative species may exacerbate stresses on bull trout from habitat 
degradation, fragmentation, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman 
and McIntyre 1993, p. 3). These activities can, over time, directly 
threaten the integrity of the essential physical and biological 
features described in PCE 9. Special management needs and 
considerations for this essential feature could require the 
implementation of best management practices that could result in 
project modifications specifically designed to reduce these impacts in 
streams with bull trout, such as avoiding future introductions, 
eradicating or controlling introduced species, and managing habitat to 
favor bull trout over other species.
    Urbanization and residential development in watersheds has led to 
decreased habitat complexity (uniform stream channels and simple 
nonfunctional riparian areas), impediments and blockages to fish 
passage, increased surface runoff (more frequent and severe flooding), 
and decreased water quality and quantity (Spence et al. 1996, pp. 130-
134). In nearshore marine areas, urbanization and residential 
development has led to significant loss or physical alteration of 
intertidal and shoreline habitats, as well as led to the contamination 
of many estuarine and nearshore areas (PSWQAT 2000, p. 47; BMSL et al. 
2001, ch. 10, pp. 1-27 ; Fresh et al. 2004, p. 1). Activities 
associated with urbanization and residential development can 
incrementally threaten the integrity of the essential physical and 
biological features described in PCEs 1-5, 7, and 8. Special management 
for these essential features could require best management practices 
that could result in project modifications specifically designed to 
reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout, such as setting back 
developments from riparian areas, minimizing water runoff from urban 
areas directly to streams, minimizing hard surfaces such as pavement in 
watersheds, and minimizing impacts related to fertilizer application.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing 32 critical habitat units in 6 recovery units for 
bull trout. Each CHU is comprised of a number of specific streams or 
reservoir/lake areas, which are identified as subunits in this proposed 
rule.
    In freshwater areas, critical habitat includes the stream channels 
within the designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by 
the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the 
opposite bank. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the 
ordinary high-water line determines the lateral extent of critical 
habitat. The lateral extent of critical habitat in lakes is defined by 
the perimeter of the water body as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale 
topographic maps. In marine nearshore areas, the inshore extent of 
critical habitat is the mean higher high-water (MHHW) line, including 
tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. Critical habitat 
extends offshore to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 feet (ft)) relative 
to the mean low low-water (MLLW) line.
    The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for bull trout. A total of 36,497.70 km (22,678.5 mi) of streams (which 
includes 1,587.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine shoreline area (Table 2), and 
215,870.1 ha (533,426.4 ac) of reservoir and lake surface area (Table 
3) are proposed as bull trout critical habitat. A total of 1,495 km 
(929 mi; four percent) of stream and marine shoreline distance was 
unoccupied at the time of listing, with the remainder occupied. A total 
of 17,422 km (10,825 mi; 48 percent) of stream habitat is used for 
spawning and rearing, with the remainder--and all reservoirs and 
lakes--used for FMO. Tables 4 and 5 present total stream shoreline 
distance and reservoir and lake surface area proposed in each state. 
Table 6 presents the ownership for all stream shoreline distances 
proposed as critical habitat.

  Table 2.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by Critical Habitat Unit and Referencing Recovery
                                  Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Critical habitat
         Recovery Unit                 unit        Kilometers    Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal.......................  1.Olympic             1,292.9      803.4
                                 Peninsula.
                                1.Olympic               673.8      418.7
                                 Peninsula
                                 (Marine).
                                2.Puget Sound....     2,737.3    1,700.8
                                2.Puget Sound           911.9      566.6
                                 (Marine).
                                3.Lower Columbia        360.9      224.3
                                 River Basins.
                                4.Upper                 304.9      189.5
                                 Willamette River.
                                5.Hood River.....       113.1       70.3
                                6.Lower Deschutes       463.2      287.8
                                 River.
                                7.Odell Lake.....        27.4       17.0
                                8.Mainstem Lower        342.2      212.6
                                 Columbia River.
Klamath.......................  9.Klamath River         440.0      273.4
                                 Basin.
Mid-Columbia..................  10.Upper Columbia     1,125.9      699.6
                                 River Basins.
                                11.Yakima River..     1,191.4      740.3
                                12.John Day River     1,176.4      731.0
                                13.Umatilla River       211.8      131.6
                                14.Walla Walla          452.7      281.3
                                 River Basin.
                                15.Lower Snake          284.2      176.6
                                 River Basins.
                                16.Grande Ronde       1,057.7      657.2
                                 River.
                                17.Imnaha River..       285.7      177.5
                                18.Sheep and             47.9       29.7
                                 Granite Creeks.
                                19.Hells Canyon         399.3      248.1
                                 Complex.
                                20.Powder River         404.3      251.2
                                 Basin.
                                21.Clearwater         2,702.1    1,679.0
                                 River.
                                22.Mainstem Upper       522.7      324.8
                                 Columbia River.
                                23.Mainstem Snake       552.2      343.1
                                 River.

[[Page 2284]]

 
Upper Snake...................  24. Malheur River       250.7      155.8
                                 Basin.
                                25.Jarbidge River       266.9      165.9
                                26.Southwest          2,716.7    1,688.1
                                 Idaho River
                                 Basins.
                                27.Salmon River       8,119.4    5,045.1
                                 Basin.
                                28.Little Lost          206.6      128.4
                                 River.
Columbia Headwaters...........  29.Coeur d'Alene        819.6      509.3
                                 River Basin.
                                30.Kootenai River       587.0      364.7
                                 Basin.
                                31.Clark Fork         5,332.1    3,313.2
                                 River Basin.
Saint Mary....................  32.Saint Mary           116.8       72.6
                                 River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Total............    36,497.7   22,678.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3.--Area of Reservoirs or Lakes Proposed for Designation as Bull
             Trout Critical Habitat by Critical Habitat Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Critical habitat unit                Hectares      Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Olympic Peninsula...........................      3,366.2      8,318.1
2.Puget Sound.................................     17,890.5     44,208.3
3.Lower Columbia River Basins.................      4,856.1     11,999.7
4.Upper Willamette River......................      3,601.5      8,899.6
5.Hood River..................................         36.9         91.1
6.Lower Deschutes River.......................      1,670.2      4,127.3
7.Odell Lake..................................      1,387.1      3,427.6
9.Klamath River Basin.........................      3,775.5      9,329.5
10.Upper Columbia River Basins................      1,033.2      2,553.1
11.Yakima River...............................      6,285.2     15,531.0
16.Grande Ronde River.........................        605.2      1,495.5
21.Clearwater River...........................      6,721.9     16,610.2
24.Malheur River Basin........................        715.9      1,768.9
26.Southwest Idaho River Basins...............     15,540.2     38,400.6
27.Salmon River Basin.........................      1,659.5      4,100.6
29.Coeur d'Alene River Basin..................     12,606.9     31,152.2
30.Kootenai River Basin.......................     12,089.2     29,873.1
31.Clark Fork River Basin.....................    119,473.5    295,225.5
32.Saint Mary River Basin.....................      2,555.4      6,314.5
 
        Total.................................    215,870.1   533,426.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 4.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
                     Trout Critical Habitat by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     State                       Kilometers     Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho.........................................     15,563.4      9,670.6
Montana.......................................      4,978.8      3,093.7
Nevada........................................        137.3         85.3
Oregon........................................      4,988.3      3,099.6
Oregon/Idaho..................................        273.8        170.1
Washington....................................      8,421.1      5,232.6
Washington Marine.............................      1,585.7        985.3
Washington/Idaho..............................         59.9         37.2
Washington/Oregon.............................        489.0        303.9
 
        Total.................................    36,497.30    22,678.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 5.--Area of Reservoirs or Lakes Proposed for Designation as Bull
                     Trout Critical Habitat by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     State                        Hectares      Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho.........................................     80,093.2    19,7914.7
Montana.......................................     90,553.3    22,3762.2
Oregon........................................     11,792.3     29,139.5
Washington....................................     33,431.2     82,610.3
 
        Total.................................    215,870.1   533,426.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2285]]


  Table 6.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
                   Trout Critical Habitat by Ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ownership                     Kilometers     Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal.......................................       21,276       13,220
Federal/Private...............................          422          262
Federal/State.................................            4            2
State.........................................          889          552
Tribal........................................          683          424
Private.......................................       13,223        8,216
 
        Total.................................       36,497       22,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present a brief description of all critical habitat designated 
in each of 32 units below, organized by recovery unit. Maps depicting 
the units and subunits are included with the proposed amendatory 
language below. For a more detailed textual and graphic description of 
all units and subunits, please see our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout, or contact the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). The areas being proposed as 
critical habitat below satisfy each of the above ``Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat'' considerations, and will conserve the 
opportunity for diverse life-history expression and genetic diversity; 
ensure that bull trout are distributed across representative habitats; 
ensure sufficient connectivity among populations; ensure sufficient 
habitat to support population viability; address threats; and ensure 
sufficient redundancy in conserving population units. The 
characteristics of each Critical Habitat Unit, Subunit, and in some 
cases water body segment that establish why a specific area is 
essential to the conservation of bull trout are identified in the 
reference (Service 2009). Examples of attributes that were considered 
include habitat use (FMO, spawning and rearing), occupancy data, 
geographic limits, accessibility, presence or absence of barriers, 
genetic analysis (used in metapopulation context), population data, 
habitat condition, and presence of anadromous salmonids.

Coastal Recovery Unit

Unit 1: Olympic Peninsula Unit
    The Olympic Peninsula CHU is located in northwestern Washington. 
Bull trout populations inhabiting the Olympic Peninsula comprise the 
coastal component of the Coastal-Puget Sound population. The unit 
includes approximately 1,292.9 km (803.4 mi) of stream, 3,366.2 ha 
(8,318.1 ac) of lake surface area, and 673.8 km (418.7 mi) of marine 
shoreline proposed as critical habitat. This CHU is bordered by Hood 
Canal to the east, Strait of Juan de Fuca to the north, the Pacific 
Ocean to the west, and the Lower Columbia River Basins and Puget Sound 
CHUs to the south. It extends across portions of Grays Harbor, Clallam, 
Mason, Pacific, and Jefferson Counties. All of the major river basins 
initiate from the Olympic Mountains. The Olympic Peninsula CHU is 
divided into 10 CHSUs. Although delta areas and small islands are 
difficult to map and may not be specifically identified by name, 
included within the critical habitat proposal are delta areas where 
streams form sloughs and braids and the nearshore of small islands 
found within the proposed marine areas. The State of Washington has 
assigned most streams a stream catalog number. Typically, if an unnamed 
stream or stream with no official U.S. Geological Survey name is 
proposed for critical habitat within the Puget Sound CHU, the stream 
catalog number is provided for reference. In those cases where 
tributary streams do not have a catalog number, they are referred to as 
``unnamed'' or a locally accepted name is used. The subunits within 
this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, 
and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and 
subunits, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some 
cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 9-11), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 2: Puget Sound Unit
    The Puget Sound CHU includes approximately 2,737.3 km (1,700.8 mi) 
of streams; 17,890.5 ha (44,208.3 ac) of lake surface area; and 911.9 
km (566.6 mi) of marine shoreline proposed as critical habitat. The CHU 
is bordered by the Cascade Range to the east, Puget Sound to the west, 
Lower Columbia River Basins and Olympic Peninsula CHUs to the south, 
and the U.S.-Canada border to the north. The CHU extends across 
Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Island Counties 
in Washington. The major river basins initiate from the Cascade Range 
and flow west, discharging into Puget Sound, with the exception of the 
Chilliwack River system, which flows northwest into British Columbia, 
discharging into the Fraser River. The Puget Sound CHU is divided into 
13 CHSUs. The subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, 
foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a 
detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification of 
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies 
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 11-13), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 3: Lower Columbia River Basins Unit
    The Lower Columbia River Basins CHU consists of portions of the 
Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers and associated tributaries in 
southwestern and south-central Washington. The CHU extends across 
Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Skamania, and Yakima Counties. Approximately 
360.9 km (224.3 mi) of stream and 4,856.1 ha (11,999.7 ac) of reservoir 
surface area are proposed as critical habitat. There are three bull 
trout local populations in the Lewis River watershed and one in the 
Klickitat River watershed. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 14), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 4: Upper Willamette River Unit
    The Upper Willamette River CHU includes 304.9 km (189.5 mi) of 
streams and 3,601.5 ha (8,899.6 ac) of lake surface area is proposed as 
critical

[[Page 2286]]

habitat in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River 
subbasins of western Oregon. This unit is located primarily within Lane 
County, but also extends into Linn County.
    There are three known bull trout local populations in the McKenzie 
River subbasin and one bull trout local population in the Middle Fork 
Willamette River subbasin. With the exception of a short reach of the 
mainstem Willamette River and the mainstem Middle Fork Willamette River 
(including reservoirs) below Hills Creek Dam, segments proposed as 
critical habitat are occupied by bull trout. The stream segments that 
make up the Willamette River Unit are described below. This unit 
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and 
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 14-15), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 5: Hood River Unit
    The Hood River CHU includes the mainstem Hood River and three major 
tributaries: Clear Branch Hood River, West Fork Hood River, and East 
Fork Hood River. A total of 113.1 km (70.3 mi) of stream and 36.9 ha 
(91.1 ac) of lake surface is proposed as critical habitat. Portions of 
the mainstem Columbia River utilized as FMO by Hood River bull trout 
are discussed in the Lower Mainstem Columbia River section of this 
document.
    The Hood River CHU, located on the western slopes of the Cascades 
Mountains in northwest Oregon, lies entirely within Hood River County, 
Oregon. There are two local populations identified as essential: (1) 
Clear Branch Hood River above Clear Branch Dam and (2) Hood River and 
tributaries below Clear Branch Dam. This unit provides spawning and 
rearing habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 15), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 6: Lower Deschutes River Unit
    The Lower Deschutes River CHU is located in Wasco, Sherman, 
Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook Counties in central Oregon. There are 
five known local population in the lower Deschutes River basin: (1) 
Warm Springs River; (2) Shitike Creek; (3) Whitewater River; (4) 
Jefferson Creek-Candle Creek Complex; and (5) Jack Creek-Canyon Creek-
Heising Spring Complex.
    The Lower Deschutes River CHU includes (1) the Metolius River 
basin, consisting of Canyon Creek, Jack Creek, Heising Spring, Candle 
Creek, Jefferson Creek, Whitewater River, the mainstem Metolius River, 
and Lake Billy Chinook; (2) the mainstem Deschutes River from Lake 
Billy Chinook to Big Falls; (3) Whychus Creek upstream to the USFS 6360 
Road crossing; (4) Crooked River from its confluence with Lake Billy 
Chinook upstream to Highway 97; (5) Shitike Creek; (6) Warm Springs 
River; and (7) mainstem Deschutes River from the Pelton Regulating Dam 
downstream to the Columbia River.
    Approximately 463.2 km (287.8 mi) of streams and 1,670.2 ha 
(4,127.3 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area in the lower Deschutes 
River basin are proposed as critical habitat. A portion of the reaches 
occur on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs lands. The following 
stream segments are included in the Lower Deschutes River CHU. This 
unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and 
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 15), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 7: Odell Lake Unit
    The Odell Lake CHU lies entirely within the Deschutes National 
Forest in Deschutes and Klamath Counties, Oregon. Total proposed 
critical habitat in this unit includes 27.4 km (17.0 mi) of streams and 
1,387.1 ha (3,427.6 ac) of lake surface area. The single Odell Lake 
bull trout population has been isolated from the Deschutes River 
population by a lava flow that impounded Odell Creek and formed Davis 
Lake approximately 5,500 years ago. Odell Lake is the only remaining 
natural adfluvial population of bull trout in Oregon. The following 
lake area and stream segments are included in this CHU. This unit 
provides spawning and rearing habitat. For a detailed description of 
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in 
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, 
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 
16), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 8: Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit
    The Mainstem Lower Columbia River CHU extends from the mouth of the 
Columbia River to John Day Dam and is located in the states of Oregon 
and Washington. It includes Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Hood River, 
Wasco, and Sherman Counties in Oregon and Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, 
Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat Counties in Washington. A total of 342.2 
km (212.6 mi) of stream are being proposed as critical habitat. This 
unit provides connecting habitat. For a detailed description of this 
unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some 
cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 16), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
    Unit 9: Klamath River Basin Unit (Klamath Recovery Unit)
    The Klamath River Basin CHU is located in south-central Oregon and 
includes three CHSUs: (1) Upper Klamath Lake CHSU; (2) Sycan River 
CHSU; and (3) Upper Sprague River CHSU. It includes portions of Klamath 
and Lake Counties in Oregon. Total proposed critical habitat in this 
unit includes 440.0 km (273.4 mi) of streams and 3,775.5 ha (9,329.5 
ac) of lake surface area. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 16-18), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
    Unit 10: Upper Columbia River Basins Unit (Mid-Columbia Recovery 
Unit)
    The Upper Columbia River Basins CHU includes the entire drainages 
of three CHSUs in central and north-central Washington on the east 
slopes of the Cascade Range and east of the Columbia River between 
Wenatchee, Washington, and the Okanogan River drainage: (1) Wenatchee 
River CHSU in Chelan County; (2) Entiat River CHSU in Chelan County; 
and (3) Methow River CHSU in Okanogan County. The Upper Columbia River 
Basins CHU also includes the Lake Chelan basin (with some proposed 
critical habitat and Okanogan River basin) which historically provided 
spawning and rearing and FMO habitat. But it is unclear what role these 
drainages may play in recovery. A total of 1,125.9 km

[[Page 2287]]

(699.6 mi) of streams and 1,033.2 ha (2,553.1 ac) of lake surface area 
in this CHU are proposed as critical habitat to provide for spawning 
and rearing, FMO habitat to support three core areas essential for 
conservation and recovery. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 18-19), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 11: Yakima River Unit
    The Yakima River CHU supports adfluvial, fluvial, and resident 
life-history forms of bull trout. This CHU includes the mainstem Yakima 
River and tributaries from its confluence with the Columbia River 
upstream from the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to its 
headwaters at the crest of the Cascade Range. The Yakima River CHU is 
located on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in south-central 
Washington and encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located 
between the Klickitat and Wenatchee Basins. The Yakima River basin is 
one of the largest basins in the State of Washington; it drains 
southeast into the Columbia River near the town of Richland, 
Washington. The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas Counties, 
about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County. 
This CHU does not contain any subunits because it supports one core 
area. A total of 1,191.4 km (740.3 mi) of stream habitat and 6,285.2 ha 
(15,531.0 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area in this CHU are 
proposed as critical habitat. One of the largest populations of bull 
trout (South Fork Tieton River population) in central Washington is 
located above the Tieton Dam and supports the core area. This CHU 
supports two potential resident local populations identified in the 
U.S. Fish and Service's 2008 five year review (Service 2008, p. 6). 
This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, 
and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 19-20), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 12: John Day River Unit
    The John Day River CHU in the John Day River basin in eastern 
Oregon includes portions of the mainstem John Day River, North Fork 
John Day River, Middle Fork John Day River, and their tributary streams 
within Wheeler, Grant, and Umatilla Counties in Oregon. A total of 
1,176.4 km (731.0 mi) of streams are proposed as critical habitat.
    Four CHSUs are defined for the John Day River CHU: Lower Mainstem 
John Day River, Upper Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day 
River, and Middle Fork John Day River. The latter three generally 
correspond to core areas. All proposed critical habitat designations 
are essential to the long-term conservation of the species. The 
subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, 
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed 
description of this unit and subunits, for justification of why this 
CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are 
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 20), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 13: Umatilla River Unit
    The Umatilla River CHU is located in northeastern Oregon in 
Umatilla and Union Counties. There are two local populations in this 
unit: one in the North Fork Umatilla River and one in North Fork 
Meacham Creek. Bull trout in this basin are primarily fluvial migrants 
that overwinter in middle and lower sections of the mainstem Umatilla 
River.
    Approximately 211.8 km (131.8 mi) of stream is proposed as critical 
habitat for bull trout in the Umatilla River basin. Approximately 48.7 
km (30.3 mi) of stream within the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 
Indian Reservation lands is being proposed as critical habitat. The 
stream segments that make up the Umatilla River CHU are described 
below. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, 
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of 
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in 
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, 
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 
21), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 14: Walla Walla River Basin Unit
    The Walla Walla River Basin CHU straddles the Oregon-Washington 
State line in the eastern part of both States and includes two CHSUs. 
The unit includes 452.7 km (281.3 mi) of stream, extending across 
portions of Umatilla and Wallowa Counties in Oregon and Walla Walla and 
Columbia Counties in Washington. There are five known bull trout local 
populations in this unit: two in the Walla Walla River basin and three 
in the Touchet River basin. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 21), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 15: Lower Snake River Basins Unit
    The Lower Snake River Basins CHU is located in southeast Washington 
and contains two CHSUs: (1) Tucannon River basin CHSU located in 
Columbia and Garfield Counties and (2) Asotin Creek basin CHSU within 
Garfield and Asotin Counties. Approximately 284.2 km (176.6 mi) of 
stream are proposed as critical habitat for bull trout within this 
unit. The subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, 
foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a 
detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification of 
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies 
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 21-22), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 16: Grande Ronde River Unit
    The Grande Ronde River CHU is located in northeast Oregon and 
southeast Washington and includes the Grande Ronde core area and the 
Little Minam core area. The Grande Ronde core area includes large 
portions of Union and Wallowa Counties and a small portion of Umatilla 
County in Oregon and about one-third of Asotin County and small 
portions of Columbia and Garfield Counties in Washington. The Little 
Minam core area is located entirely within the Eagle Cap Wilderness on 
the western edge of the Wallowa subbasin in both Union and Wallowa 
Counties in Oregon.
    The Grande Ronde River CHU contains at least ten local populations 
in the Grande Ronde River basin: (1) Upper Grande Ronde; (2) Catherine; 
(3) Indian; (4) Minam/Deer; (5) Lostine/Bear; (6) Upper Hurricane; (7) 
North Fork Wenaha; (8) South Fork Wenaha; (9) Butte and West Fork 
Butte; and (10) Lookingglass. The Little Minam River, a separate core 
area and a tributary to the Minam River, encompasses tributaries 
containing one local population located above a barrier falls at 
approximately

[[Page 2288]]

9.0 km (5.6 mi) upstream, as well as the Little Minam River below the 
barrier to its confluence with the Minam River. The Grande Ronde River 
CHU includes 1,057.7 km (657.2 mi) of streams and 605.2 ha (1,495.5 ac) 
of lakes and reservoirs proposed as critical habitat. This unit 
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and 
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 22-23), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 17: Imnaha River Unit
    The Imnaha River CHU extends across Wallowa, Baker, and Union 
Counties in northeastern Oregon. The CHU contains approximately 285.7 
km (177.5 mi) of river proposed as critical habitat and four local 
populations: (1) Mainstem Imnaha River; (2) Big Sheep Creek and 
tributary streams (Big Sheep Creek is considered to be one local 
population above and below the Wallowa Valley Irrigation Canal); (3) 
Little Sheep Creek and tributary streams; and (4) McCully Creek, which 
could be considered one or two local populations depending if Big Sheep 
Creek above and below the diversion are separated. This unit provides 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of 
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies 
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 23), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 18: Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit
    This CHU is located within Adams and Idaho Counties in Idaho, 
approximately 21.0 km (13.0 mi) east of Riggins, Idaho. In the Sheep 
and Granite Creeks CHU, 47.9 km (29.7 mi) of streams are proposed as 
critical habitat. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, 
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed 
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included 
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as 
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see 
Service (2009 p. 23), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 19: Hells Canyon Complex Unit
    The Hells Canyon Complex is located in Adams County, Idaho, and 
Baker County, Oregon. This CHU contains 399.3 km (248.1 mi) of streams 
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 23-24), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 20: Powder River Basin Unit
    The Powder River Basin CHU includes approximately 404.3 km (251.2 
mi) of stream proposed as critical habitat and is located within Baker, 
Union, and Wallowa Counties in northeastern Oregon. This unit is 
thought to contain 10 local populations of bull trout and 1 potential 
local population. Several unoccupied sections of the Powder River 
mainstem have been proposed to provide connectivity and recovery 
opportunities for local populations. The stream segments that make up 
the Powder River Basin CHU are described below. This unit provides 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of 
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies 
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 24), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 21: Clearwater River Unit
    The Clearwater River CHU is located east of Lewiston, Idaho, and 
extends from the Snake River confluence at Lewiston on the west to 
headwaters in the Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho-Montana border 
on the east in Nez Perce, Latah, Lewis, Clearwater, Idaho, and Shoshone 
Counties. This unit includes five CHSUs: Lower/Middle Fork Clearwater 
River; North Fork Clearwater River (and Fish Lake); South Fork 
Clearwater River; Lochsa River (and Fish Lake); and the Selway River. 
In the Clearwater River CHU, 2,702.1 km (1,679.0 mi) of streams and 
6,721.9 ha (16,610.2 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area are 
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 24-26), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 22: Mainstem Upper Columbia River Unit
    The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU includes the Columbia River 
from John Day Dam upstream 522.7 km (324.8 mi) to Chief Joseph Dam. The 
Columbia River generally flows south from Canada, southwest through 
Washington, and west through Oregon. The Columbia River drains from its 
headwaters in Alberta, Canada, and the west slopes of the Rocky 
Mountains in Montana. This reach of river is heavily influenced by 
Grand Coulee Dam operations, which provide hydroelectricity and 
irrigation water. The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU supports FMO 
habitat for fluvial bull trout; several accounts exist of bull trout in 
the Columbia River between the Yakima and John Day Rivers. The Mainstem 
Upper Columbia River CHU provides connectivity to the Mainstem Lower 
Columbia River CHU and 13 additional CHUs (Clearwater River, Powder 
River Basin, Imnaha River, Grande Ronde River, Walla Walla River Basin, 
Umatilla River, John Day River, Yakima River, Mainstem Snake River, 
Lower Snake River Basins, Hells Canyon Complex, Sheep and Granite 
Creeks, and Upper Columbia River Basins). The Mainstem Upper Columbia 
River CHU is located in north-central, central, and south-central 
Washington and north-central and northeast Oregon. This CHU is within 
Klickitat, Franklin, Benton, Grant, Yakima, Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas, 
and Okanogan Counties in Washington and Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and 
Umatilla Counties in Oregon. Several dams, all of which have reports of 
bull trout using their ladders, are located throughout this portion of 
the Columbia River, including John Day, McNary, Priest Rapids, Wanapum, 
Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and Wells Dams. For a justification of why 
this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are 
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 26), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 23: Mainstem Snake River Unit
    The Mainstem Snake River CHU is located from the confluence with 
the Columbia River upstream to the head of Brownlee Reservoir. The 
Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbia River and forms 
the border between Washington and Idaho from Clarkston/Lewiston 
upstream to Oregon. The Snake River also forms the boundary between 
Idaho and Oregon, and at that

[[Page 2289]]

point upstream to the upper limit of Brownlee Reservoir, forms this 
CHU. The Snake River is within Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, 
Whitman, and Asotin Counties in Washington; Wallowa, Whitman, Baker, 
and Malheur Counties in Oregon; and Nez Perce, Idaho, Adams, and 
Washington Counties in Idaho.
    In the lower section of the Snake River are a series of dams and 
locks built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Lower 
Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor Dams generate 
hydroelectric power and provide barge traffic navigation to Lewiston, 
Idaho. The major features in the Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex 
reach of the Snake River are Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee Dams and 
their reservoirs. These projects are owned and operated by the Idaho 
Power Company to produce electrical power. The Mainstem Snake River CHU 
includes 552.2 km (343.1 mi) of streams proposed as critical habitat. 
This unit provides foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of 
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies 
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 26), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 24: Malheur River Basin Unit (Upper Snake Recovery Unit)
    The Malheur River Basin CHU is in eastern Oregon within Grant, 
Baker, Harney, and Malheur Counties. A total of 250.7 km (155.8 mi) of 
streams and 715.9 ha (1,768.9 ac) of reservoir surface area are 
proposed as critical habitat. There are two local bull trout 
populations (Upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur Rivers (Service 2002, 
pp. 34-35)). The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan also identified several 
streams, including Bosonberg Creek, McCoy Creek, and Corral Basin 
Creek, for expansion of bull trout range within the upper Malheur River 
local population (Service 2002, pp. 34-35). Summit Creek is considered 
potential suitable bull trout habitat and is included in the proposed 
designation. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, 
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of 
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in 
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, 
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 
27), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 25: Jarbidge River Unit
    The Jarbidge River CHU encompasses the Jarbidge and Bruneau River 
basins, which drain into the Snake River within C.J. Strike Reservoir 
upstream of Grand View, Idaho. The Jarbidge River CHU is located 
approximately 70 miles north of Elko within Owyhee County in 
southwestern Idaho and Elko County in northeastern Nevada.
    The Jarbidge River CHU includes 266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams 
proposed as critical habitat. The Jarbidge River CHU contains six local 
populations of resident and migratory bull trout and the stream 
segments in the Jarbidge River CHU provide either FMO or spawning and 
rearing habitat. These habitats maintain the population and the 
migratory life-history form essential to the species' long-term 
conservation and provide habitat necessary for the recovered 
distribution of bull trout (Service 2004b, pp. 7-9). The stream 
segments that make up the Jarbidge Unit are described below. This unit 
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and 
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 27), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 26: Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit
    The Southwest Idaho River Basins CHU is located in southwest Idaho 
in the following counties: Adams, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, 
Valley, and Washington. This unit includes eight CHSUs: Anderson Ranch, 
Arrowrock Reservoir, South Fork Payette River, Deadwood River, Middle 
Fork Payette River, North Fork Payette River, Squaw Creek, and Weiser 
River. The Southwest Idaho River Basins CHU includes approximately 
2,716.7 km (1,688.1 mi) of streams and 15,540.2 ha (38,400.6 ac) of 
lake and reservoir surface area proposed as critical habitat. The 
subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, 
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed 
description of this unit and subunits, for justification of why this 
CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are 
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by 
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 27-28), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 27: Salmon River Basin Unit
    The Salmon River basin extends across central Idaho from the Snake 
River to the Montana-Idaho border. The Salmon River Basin CHU extends 
across portions of Adams, Blaine, Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Nez Perce, and 
Valley Counties in Idaho. There are 10 CHSUs: Little-Lower Salmon 
River, Opal Lake, Lake Creek, South Fork Salmon River, Middle Salmon-
Panther River, Middle Fork Salmon River, Middle Salmon Chamberlain 
River, Upper Salmon River, Lemhi River, and Pahsimeroi River. The 
Salmon River Basin CHU includes 8,119.4 km (5,045.1 mi) of stream and 
1,659.5 ha (4,100.6 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area proposed as 
critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide spawning, 
rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. 
For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification 
of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water 
bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of 
occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 29-30), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 28: Little Lost River Unit
    Located within Butte, Custer, and Lemhi Counties in east-central 
Idaho, near the town of Arco, Idaho, designated critical habitat in the 
Little Lost River CHU includes 206.6 km (128.4 mi) of streams proposed 
as critical habitat. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, 
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed 
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included 
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as 
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see 
Service (2009 p. 30), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 29: Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit (Columbia Headwaters Recovery 
Unit)
    Located in Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah, Bonner, and Latah Counties 
in Idaho, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin CHU includes the entire Coeur 
d'Alene Lake basin in northern Idaho. A total of 819.6 km (509.3 mi) of 
streams and 12,606.9 ha (31,152.2 ac) of lake surface area are proposed 
as critical habitat. There are no subunits within the Coeur d'Alene 
River Basin CHU. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, 
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed 
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included 
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as 
critical habitat, and for

[[Page 2290]]

documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 31), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 30: Kootenai River Basin Unit
    The Kootenai River Basin CHU is located in the northwestern corner 
of Montana and the northeastern tip of the Idaho panhandle and includes 
the Kootenai River watershed upstream and downstream of Libby Dam. The 
Kootenai River flows in a unique horseshoe configuration, entering the 
United States from British Columbia, Canada, and then traversing across 
northwest Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle before returning to 
British Columbia from Idaho where it eventually joins the upper 
Columbia River drainage. The Kootenai River Basin CHU includes two 
CHSUs: the downstream Kootenai River CHSU in Boundary County, Idaho, 
and Lincoln County, Montana, and the upstream Lake Koocanusa CHSU in 
Lincoln County, Montana. The entire Kootenai River Basin CHU includes 
587.0 km (364.7 mi) of streams and 12,089.2 ha (29,873.1 ac) of lake 
and reservoir surface area proposed as critical habitat. The subunits 
within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, 
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of 
this unit and subunits, for justification of why this CHU, included 
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as 
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see 
Service (2009 pp. 31-32), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 31: Clark Fork River Basin Unit
    The Clark Fork River Basin CHU includes the northeastern corner of 
Washington (Pend Oreille County), the panhandle portion of northern 
Idaho (Boundary, Bonner, and Kootenai Counties), and most of western 
Montana (Lincoln, Flathead, Sanders, Lake, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, 
Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, Granite, and Deer Lodge Counties). This unit 
includes 12 CHSUs, organized primarily on the basis of major 
watersheds: Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest 
River (Lake Pend Oreille); Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest 
Lakes); Lower Clark Fork River; Middle Clark Fork River; Upper Clark 
Fork River; Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes 
(Flathead); Swan River and Lakes (Swan); Hungry Horse Reservoir, South 
Fork Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead); 
Bitterroot River; Blackfoot River; Clearwater River and Lakes; and Rock 
Creek. The Clark Fork River Basin CHU includes 5,332.1 km (3,313.2 mi) 
of streams and 119,473.5 ha (295,225.5 ac) of 45 lakes and reservoirs 
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide 
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering 
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 32-36), 
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 32: Saint Mary River Basin Unit (Saint Mary Recovery Unit)
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat for bull trout in 
identified stream segments and lakes in the Saint Mary River Basin CHU 
in Montana. The entire U.S. portion of the Saint Mary River drainage, 
which forms the Saint Mary River Basin CHU, is located in Glacier 
County, Montana. The total stream distance proposed for designation as 
critical habitat in Montana is about 116.8 km (72.6 mi), and the five 
lakes have a surface area of about 2,555.4 ha (6,314.5 ac).
    Most high-elevation waters in Glacier National Park were 
historically fishless. Due to natural migration barriers, bull trout 
occupancy in the headwaters of the Belly River drainage (directly west 
of and adjacent to the Saint Mary River drainage) was confined to only 
a very minor portion of the U.S habitat near the international border. 
Due to this restricted U.S. distribution and the fact that all FMO 
habitat for these populations is in Alberta, Canada, the Belly River 
headwaters in unroaded backcountry of Glacier National Park are not 
included in this proposed critical habitat designation. This unit 
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and 
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for 
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases 
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for 
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 36), or 
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have 
invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9\th\ Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5\th\ Cir. 
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing 
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine 
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with 
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical 
habitat would remain functional (or retain those physical or biological 
features that relate to the ability of the area to periodically support 
the species) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Federal activities that may affect bull trout or its designated 
critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act. 
Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a 
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands that are 
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 
consultation.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure the activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its 
critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or 
its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 
our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
     (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely

[[Page 2291]]

modify critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define 
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative 
actions identified during consultation that:
     Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action;
     Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
     Are economically and technologically feasible; and
     Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which consultation has been completed, if those 
actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Jeopardy'' and ``Adverse Modification'' Standards

Jeopardy Standard
    Currently, the Service applies an analytical framework for bull 
trout jeopardy analysis that relies heavily on the importance of known 
core area populations to the survival and recovery of bull trout. The 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act analysis is focused not only on these 
populations, but also on the habitat conditions that support them.
    The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery 
needs of bull trout in a qualitative fashion without making 
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is 
necessary for recovery. Generally, the jeopardy analysis focuses on the 
range-wide status of bull trout, the factors responsible for that 
condition, and what is necessary for this species to survive and 
recover. An emphasis is also placed on characterizing the condition of 
bull trout in the area affected by the proposed Federal action and the 
role of affected populations in the survival and recovery of bull 
trout. That context is then used to determine the significance of 
adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed Federal action and any 
cumulative effects for purposes of making the jeopardy determination. 
Core areas form the building blocks that provide for conserving the 
bull trout's evolutionary legacy as represented by major genetic 
groups. The jeopardy analysis also considers any conservation measures 
that may be proposed by a Federal action agency to minimize or 
compensate for adverse project effects to the bull trout or to promote 
its recovery.
    If a proposed Federal action is incompatible with the viability of 
the affected core area population(s), inclusive of associated habitat 
conditions, a jeopardy finding may be warranted, because of the 
relationship of each core area population to the survival and recovery 
of the species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
    The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9, 
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for 
Federal actions affecting bull trout critical habitat. The key factor 
related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with 
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical 
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the 
species, or retain those physical and biological features that relate 
to the ability of the area to periodically support the species. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are 
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that 
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for bull 
trout. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support 
the life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation 
of the species. Generally, the conservation role of bull trout critical 
habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
    Since the primary threat to bull trout is habitat loss or 
degredation, the jeopardy analysis under section 7 of the Act for a 
project with a Federal nexus will most likely evaluate the effects of 
the action on the conservation or functionality of the habitat for the 
bull trout. Because of this, we believe that in many cases the analysis 
of the project to address designated critical habitat will be 
comparable. As such, we do not anticipate, for many circumstances, that 
the outcome of the consultation to address critical habitat will result 
in any significant additional project modifications or measures.
    When consulting under section 7(a)(2) in designated critical 
habitat, independent analyses are conducted for jeopardy to the species 
and adverse modification of critical habitat. In occupied bull trout 
habitat, any adverse modification determination would likely also 
result in a jeopardy determination for the same action. As such, 
project modifications that may be needed to minimize impacts to the 
species would coincidentally minimize impacts to critical habitat. 
Accordingly, in occupied critical habitat it is unlikely that an 
analysis would identify a difference between measures needed to avoid 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat from 
measures needed to avoid jeopardizing the species. Alternatively, in 
unoccupied critical habitat, we would not conduct a jeopardy analysis, 
however, measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification may 
be necessary to ensure that the affected critical habitat area can 
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species, or 
retain the physical and biological features related to the ability of 
the area to periodically support the species.
    The adverse modification analysis focuses on the range-wide status 
of critical habitat, the factors responsible for that condition, and 
what is necessary for critical habitat to provide the necessary 
conservation value to the bull trout. An emphasis is placed on 
characterizing the functional condition of critical habitat PCEs in the 
area affected by the proposed Federal action. This analysis then 
addresses how the critical habitat PCEs will be affected, and in turn, 
how this will influence the conservation role of critical habitat units 
in support of viable core area populations. That context is then used 
to determine the significance of adverse and beneficial effects of the 
proposed Federal action and any cumulative effects for purposes of 
making the adverse modification determination at the range-wide scale. 
If a proposed Federal action would alter the physical or biological 
features of critical habitat to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation function of critical habitat for the bull trout, an 
adverse modification finding for the proposed action is considered to 
be warranted. The intended purpose of critical habitat to support 
viable core areas establishes a sensitive scale for relating effects of 
an

[[Page 2292]]

action on CHUs or subunits to the conservation function of the entire 
designated critical habitat.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized 
by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, result 
in consultation for the bull trout include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Detrimental alteration of the minimum flow or the natural flow 
regime of any of the designated stream segments. Possible actions would 
include groundwater pumping, impoundment, water diversion, and 
hydropower generation. We note that such flow alterations resulting 
from actions affecting tributaries of the designated stream reaches may 
also destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    (2) Alterations to the designated stream segments that could 
indirectly cause significant and detrimental effects to bull trout 
habitat. Possible actions include vegetation manipulation, timber 
harvest, road construction and maintenance, prescribed fire, livestock 
grazing, off-road vehicle use, powerline or pipeline construction and 
repair, mining, and development. Riparian vegetation profoundly 
influences instream habitat conditions by providing shade, organic 
matter, root strength, bank stability, and large woody debris inputs to 
streams. These characteristics influence water temperature, structure 
and physical attributes (useable habitat space, depth, width, channel 
roughness, cover complexity), and food supply.
    (3) Detrimental alteration of the channel morphology of any of the 
designated stream segments. Possible actions would include 
channelization; impoundment; road and bridge construction; deprivation 
of substrate source; destruction and alteration of aquatic or riparian 
vegetation; reduction of available floodplain; removal of gravel or 
floodplain terrace materials; and excessive sedimentation from mining, 
livestock grazing, road construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle 
use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. We note that such 
actions in the upper watershed (beyond the riparian area) may also 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For example, timber 
harvest activities and associated road construction in upland areas can 
lead to changes in channel morphology by altering sediment production, 
debris loading, and peak flows.
    (4) Detrimental alterations to the water chemistry in any of the 
designated stream segments. Possible actions would include release of 
chemical or biological pollutants into the surface water or connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed releases (nonpoint).
    (5) Proposed activities that are likely to result in the 
introduction, spread, or augmentation of nonnative species in any of 
the designated stream segments. Possible actions would include fish 
stocking, use of live bait fish, aquaculture, improper construction and 
operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.
    (6) Proposed activities that are likely to create significant 
instream barriers to bull trout movement. Possible actions would 
include water diversions, impoundments, and hydropower generation where 
effective fish passage facilities, mechanisms, or procedures are not 
provided.
    We consider all 32 CHUs to contain features essential to the 
conservation of the bull trout. All units are within the geographic 
range of the species, and portions of all units were occupied by the 
species at the time of listing (based on observations made within the 
last 20 years). All units are likely to be used by the bull trout for 
foraging, migrating, overwintering, spawning, or rearing.
    Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
currently occupied by the bull trout to ensure that their actions do 
not jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout. These 
agencies may need to request reinitiation on some of their existing 
activities if the agency has continued discretional involvement or 
control and if the activity may affect designated critical habitat. 
However, we anticipate the burden of reinitiation will be minor because 
of the aforementioned similarity between measures needed to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and measures 
needed to avoid jeopardizing the species. In addition, consultation 
tools such as streamlining and programmatic consultations are commonly 
implemented to minimize the administrative costs associated with 
consultation within the range of the bull trout. We expect these tools 
will continue be used for any reinitiations of consultation for bull 
trout critical habitat, thereby minimizing any additional 
administrative costs associated with designating the critical habitat.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. Sec.  
670a) required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
     An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
     A statement of goals and priorities;
     A detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
    A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Publ. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation of 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. Sec.  1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides, ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.  
670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a 
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
Columbia and Coastal-Puget Sound populations of bull trout and which 
contain those features essential to the species' conservation, to 
determine if these installations may warrant consideration for 
exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Each of the

[[Page 2293]]

Department of Defense (DOD) installations identified below has been 
conducting surveys and habitat management to benefit the bull trout, 
and reporting the results of their efforts to the Service. Cooperation 
between the DOD installations and the Service on specific conservation 
measures continues.

Approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans

    We have examined the INRMPs for each of these military 
installations to determine whether they provide benefits to bull trout.
Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface Warfare Center
    The Bayview Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Bayview, Idaho, has an approved INRMP. This property 
includes approximately 9.0 ha (22.0 ac) of developed land on the shore 
of Lake Pend Oreille and 7.0 ha (17.3 ac) of lake area. There are no 
tributary streams within this area utilized by bull trout for spawning 
or early life rearing, but the lake area does contain important FMO 
habitat for bull trout.
    Bayview ARD's INRMP outlines protection and management strategies 
for natural resources on the center, including fish species and their 
habitats. The plan benefits bull trout through the protection of 
kokanee salmon spawning habitat, a primary food source for bull trout. 
The Bayview ARD property in Scenic Bay hosts from 40 to 70 percent of 
the kokanee spawning activity in Lake Pend Oreille, depending on the 
year. The INRMP includes measures to minimize impacts to kokanee 
habitat by limiting facility boat traffic during spawning periods 
(November-December) and implementing sediment control measures. 
Furthermore, interpretive signs have been placed throughout the 
property to educate employees and the public regarding various aspects 
of the region's natural resources, threatened or endangered species 
(including bull trout), and geological history. The INRMP requires the 
natural resource manager to provide ARD INRMP awareness training to 
facilitate INRMP implementation.
    Based on the above considerations and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Bayview ARD INRMP and that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to bull trout occurring 
in habitats within or adjacent to Bayview ARD. Therefore, lands within 
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 7 ha (16 
ac) of habitat in this proposed critical habitat designation because of 
this exemption.
Naval Radio Station Jim Creek, Naval Station Everett, Naval Air Station 
Whidbey Island, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation
    Naval Radio Station Jim Creek in western Washington has an approved 
INRMP. The Naval Radio Station Jim Creek occurs in the Jim Creek 
watershed. The lower reaches of Jim Creek provide foraging habitat for 
subadult and adult bull trout. The Naval Radio Station Jim Creek INRMP 
provides benefits to bull trout through (1) restoration of riparian 
buffers along Jim Creek, (2) protection of Jim Creek from erosion and 
sedimentation, and (3) protection of Jim Creek from contaminants and 
herbicides.
    Naval Station Everett in western Washington has an approved INRMP. 
The Naval Station Everett property includes land on or near the shores 
of Puget Sound that contain important foraging and migration habitat 
for amphidromous (fish that move between fresh and salt water but not 
to breed) bull trout. The Naval Station Everett's INRMP benefits bull 
trout by providing (1) protection to bull trout in the marine 
environment from oil spills around berthing naval vessels; (2) 
bioswales to prevent the release of toxins, contaminants, and oils from 
reaching the water column through storm drains; and (3) restoration of 
riparian habitat on Navy lands located along the Middle Fork Quilceda 
Creek.
    Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in western Washington has an 
approved INRMP. The Naval Station Whidbey Island property includes land 
on or near the shores of Puget Sound that contain important foraging 
and migration habitat for amphidromous bull trout. Naval Aviation 
Station Whidbey Island's INRMP benefits bull trout through (1) 
monitoring and managing livestock grazing, (2) managing road building 
and maintenance to prevent erosion and sedimentation of bull trout 
habitat, (3) assuring proper disposal of hazardous materials, and (4) 
implementation of their Integrated Pest Management Plan's best 
management practices to protect aquatic environments.
    The U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation (Fort Lewis) located in 
western Washington has an approved INRMP. Fort Lewis borders the 
Nisqually River and Puget Sound near important foraging and migration 
habitat for amphidromous bull trout. The INRMP for Fort Lewis benefits 
bull trout through (1) protecting and enhancing wetlands (e.g., all 
wetlands-marshes, lakes, rivers, and streams are protected with 300-
foot-wide riparian buffers to maintain cold water temperatures, prevent 
sediment from entering the streams, and to provide for woody debris); 
(2) controlling invasive plant species that often diminish water 
quality and impact native plants and animals; and (3) restoring salmon 
spawning habitat and access to increase salmon productivity, which 
contributes to and enhances the bull trout prey base.
    Habitat features essential to bull trout conservation are present 
within or immediately adjacent to each of these DOD installations, and 
each installation has an approved INRMP. Activities occurring on these 
installations are being conducted in a manner that provides a benefit 
to bull trout. In addition, these installations already consult with us 
under section 7 of the Act on their actions (including those occurring 
in the open water training and testing areas) that may adversely affect 
bull trout and their habitat.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands 
are subject to the Naval Radio Station Jim Creek, Naval Station 
Everett, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis 
Installation INRMPs and that conservation efforts identified in the 
INRMPs will provide a benefit to bull trout occurring in habitats 
within or adjacent to DOD installations. Therefore, lands within these 
installations are exempt from critical habitat designation under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately a total 
of 40 km (24.9 mi) of habitat determined to contain features essential 
to the conservation of the bull trout in this proposed critical habitat 
designation because of these exemptions.
    .

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific

[[Page 2294]]

data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts to 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must 
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, 
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and 
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then 
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in the overall conservation of the bull trout through the continuation, 
strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships and the implementation 
of management plans or programs that provide equal to or more 
conservation for the bull trout than could be achieved through a 
designation of critical habitat.
    In the case of bull trout, where there may be little additional 
regulatory effects in areas occupied by the species resulting from the 
designation, the benefits of critical habitat include educational 
benefits resulting from identification of the features essential to the 
conservation of bull trout and the delineation of the areas important 
for its recovery. Further, there may be additional benefits realized by 
providing landowners, stakeholders, and project proponents greater 
certainty about which specific areas are important for bull trout that 
should be effectively addressed through coordination and consultation 
of activities that may affect those areas or essential features 
contained therein. Thus, critical habitat designation increases public 
awareness of bull trout presence and the importance of habitat 
protection and, in cases where a Federal nexus exists, increases 
habitat protection for bull trout due to the protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of factors 
including, but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it 
provides for the conservation of the essential physical and biological 
features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    The Secretary can consider the existence of conservation agreements 
and other land management plans with Federal, private, State, and 
Tribal entities when making decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 
The Secretary may also consider voluntary partnerships and conservation 
plans, and weigh the implementation and effectiveness of these against 
that of designation. Consideration of relevant impacts of designation 
or exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited to, 
any of the following factors: (1) whether the plan provides specific 
information on how it protects the species and the physical and 
biological features, and whether the plan is at a geographic scope 
commensurate with the species; (2) whether the plan is complete and 
will be effective at conserving and protecting of the physical and 
biological features; (3) whether a reasonable expectation exists that 
conservation management strategies and actions will be implemented, 
that those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of 
achieving the objectives, that an implementation schedule exists, and 
that adequate funding exists; (4) whether the plan provides assurances 
that the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e., 
identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and 
is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan); (5) whether the 
plan has a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective; (6) the degree to which the record 
supports a conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair 
the benefits of the plan; (7) the extent of public participation; (8) 
demonstrated track record of implementation success; (9) level of 
public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative efforts and 
encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and (10) the effect 
designation would have on partnerships.
    After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the 
benefits of excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its 
inclusion in critical habitat. If we determine that the benefits of 
excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its inclusion, 
then the Secretary can exercise his discretion to exclude the area, 
provided that the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate 
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat may be appropriate 
for exclusion from the final designation. If our analysis results in a 
determination that the benefits of excluding particular areas from the 
final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those areas as 
critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the particular areas from the final designation.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant 
impacts, including economic impacts. In addition to economic impacts 
(discussed in Economics Analysis section below), we consider a number 
of factors in a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we consider 
whether there are lands owned by the DOD where a national security 
impact might exist. We also consider whether Federal or private 
landowners or other public agencies have developed management plans or 
HCPs for the area or whether there are conservation partnerships that 
would be encouraged or discouraged by designation of, or exclusion 
from, critical habitat in an area. In addition, we look at the presence 
of tribal lands or Tribal trust resources that might be affected, and 
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States 
with the tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that 
might occur because of the designation. To ensure that our final 
determination is based on the best available information, we are 
inviting comments on any foreseeable economic, national security, or 
other potential impacts resulting from this proposed designation

[[Page 2295]]

of critical habitat from governmental, business, or private interests 
and, in particular, any potential impacts on small businesses.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. The Navy conducts essential training and 
testing within the marine waters of Crescent Harbor and Dabob Bay in 
western Washington. These activities are conducted in open marine 
waters not controlled by the military and are not included in adjacent 
military INRMPs. However, because these training and testing activities 
may be essential for national security, we are evaluating whether it 
may be appropriate to consider the particular areas where these 
activities occur for exclusion from the final designation of critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national 
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    Most federally-listed species in the United States will not recover 
without cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of 
the United States is privately owned (Lubowski et al. 2006, p. 35), and 
at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur either 
partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al.2002, p. 720). Stein 
et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 percent of listed 
species were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 100 
percent of their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and 
that 50 percent of federally-listed species are not known to occur on 
Federal lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to 
landownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the 
United States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide 
variety of entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal 
landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al.2002, p. 720; 
James 2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary 
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of 
species on non-Federal lands and necessary to implement recovery 
actions, such as the reintroduction of listed species, habitat 
restoration, and habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing 
to endangered species recovery. Conservation agreements with non-
Federal landowners, safe harbor agreements, other conservation 
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations enhance species 
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available 
through section 7 consultations. We encourage non-Federal landowners to 
enter into conservation agreements based on a view that we can achieve 
greater species conservation on non-Federal land through such 
partnerships than we can through regulatory methods (61 FR 63854).
    Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of attracting endangered species to their property. 
Mounting evidence suggests that some regulatory actions by the 
government, while well intentioned and required by law, can (under 
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the 
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al.1996, pp. 5-6; 
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp. 
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al.2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many 
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or 
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or 
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered 
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception 
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats 
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic 
opportunities (Main et al.1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al.2003, pp. 
1644-1648).
    According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat 
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners 
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al.1999, p. 
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al.2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude 
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where 
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management, 
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation 
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe the judicious exclusion of specific 
areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations 
can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of 
conservation than critical habitat alone.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus, 
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or 
voluntary conservation efforts can, in specific circumstances, be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands with Habitat Conservation Plans
    The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical 
habitat designation include relieving landowners, communities, and 
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a 
result of the critical habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to 
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery 
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many 
conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted 
sensitive species.
    A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from 
critical habitat designation is that it can make it easier for us to 
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range 
of species, including species that are not State and federally-listed 
and would otherwise receive little protection from development. By 
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and 
encourage additional future conservation actions.
    We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP 
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered 
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy 
standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see 
definition of

[[Page 2296]]

``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat 
designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may affect the 
listed species would still require consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, and we would review these actions for possible significant 
habitat modification in accordance with the definition of harm 
referenced above.
    For the reasons discussed under the ``Application of Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this rule, if the Secretary decides to 
exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have 
identified certain areas that we are considering excluding from the 
final revised critical habitat designation for bull trout. However, we 
solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such particular areas 
(see Public Comments section). During the development of the final 
revised designation, we will consider economic impacts, public 
comments, and other new information. As a result, additional particular 
areas, in addition to those identified below for potential exclusion in 
this proposed rule, may be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    We consider a current plan to be appropriate for consideration for 
exclusion from a final critical habitat designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act if:
    (1) It provides for the conservation of the essential physical and 
biological features;
    (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; and
    (3) the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be 
effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or 
adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new 
information.
    Below is a brief description of each plan and the lands proposed as 
critical habitat covered by each plan that we are considering for 
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act.
Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat occurring 
on lands managed under the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation 
Plan in the Kootenai and Clark Fork CHUs in the Columbia Headwaters 
draft recovery unit in Montana. Plum Creek Timber Company initiated an 
effort in 1997 to develop a conservation strategy for native salmonids 
(including bull trout) occurring on 647,500 ha (1.6 million ac) of Plum 
Creek's timberlands in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. The stated 
purpose of the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan (NFHCP) 
was to help conserve native salmonids and their ecosystems while 
allowing Plum Creek to continue to conduct commercial timber harvest 
within a framework of long-term regulatory certainty and flexibility. 
The NFHCP was permitted in 2000; Plum Creek no longer owns any of the 
lands that were covered under that HCP in the States of Idaho and 
Washington.
    Currently, there are 392,393 ha (969,624 ac) of remaining Plum 
Creek land in Montana that are still covered by the original permit 
under the NFHCP. The NFHCP provisions cover approximately 550,700 ha 
(1.4 million ac) in western Montana and within its headwaters of the 
Columbia River basin (Clark Fork and Kootenai River watersheds). In 
2003-2004, when the Stimson Lumber Company (Stimson) acquired about 
32,650 ha (80,681 ac) of lands previously owned by Plum Creek, Stimson 
legally assumed all of the Plum Creek NFHCP commitments in that area by 
executing an assignment and assumption agreement. In 2008, the Montana 
Working Forests Project was initiated, which will result in the 
transfer of over 125,580 ha (310,312 ac) of Plum Creek NFHCP lands to 
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Funds for the acquisition were obtained 
through a provision within the 2008 Farm Bill, and most of those lands 
are destined to eventually be transferred to either the Service or the 
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and 
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP). Phase III of the Montana 
Working Forests Project is expected to close at the end of 2010 and 
will include an additional 28,135 ha (69,522 ac). Similar to Stimson, 
and through an agreement, TNC assumed the NFHCP commitments on 
previously owned Plum Creek lands for the first two phases of the 
Montana Working Forests Project and is anticipated to do the same for 
Phase III.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Habitat 
Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat occurring 
on 175,263 ha (433,084 ac) of lakes managed under the proposed DNRC 
Habitat Conservation Plan in the Kootenai, Clark Fork and Saint Mary 
CHUs in the Columbia Headwaters draft recovery unit, contingent on the 
compatibility of timing between the final HCP and the final bull trout 
revised critical habitat rule. The DNRC is developing an HCP for forest 
management activities on its forested State trust lands in Montana, 
which are managed by the Trust Lands Management Division (TLMD). The 
mission of the TLMD is to manage trust land resources to produce 
revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental 
factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the 
land. Under its forest management program, the TLMD generates revenues 
for trust beneficiaries through timber harvest on classified forest 
trust lands. DNRC manages its forested trust lands in accordance with 
the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP) (DNRC 1996) and the 
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARMs) for Forest Management (ARMs 
36.11.401-456) (Forest Management ARMs). DNRC's forested trust lands 
also support Federally-listed threatened species. The ARMs direct DNRC 
to confer with the Service to develop habitat mitigation measures to 
address the needs of listed species.
    This proposed HCP is a programmatic plan that identifies DNRC's 
proposal for managing federally-listed species on DNRC's forested trust 
lands. Species covered under the HCP include bull trout, westslope 
cutthroat trout, Columbia redband trout, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), 
and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). DNRC has proposed that a permit be 
issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act by the Service for a period 
of 50 years, and views the HCP as a long-term program for addressing 
and improving habitat needs across the landscape. DNRC evaluated which 
trust lands to include in the HCP by assessing where species overlapped 
with trust lands containing appreciable amounts of manageable forest 
area. This approach was adopted to ensure those lands facing the 
greatest risk of impacts from forest management actions were included 
in the plan so risks could be mitigated.
    The HCP project area includes primarily forested trust lands, but 
it contains other non-forested trust lands that are portions of, or are 
needed to access, forested parcels included in the HCP project area. 
The DNRC HCP would cover forest management activities on forested trust 
lands that provide habitat for the HCP species and include timber 
harvest (commercial timber, salvage harvest, and silvicultural 
treatments such as thinning); other forest management activities (slash 
disposal, prescribed burning, site preparation, reforestation, 
fertilization, forest inventory, and access to forested lands for weed 
control); roads (forest management road construction,

[[Page 2297]]

reconstruction, maintenance, use, and associated gravel quarrying for 
forest road surface materials, as well as installation, removal, and 
replacement of stream crossing structures); and livestock grazing 
(grazing licenses on classified forest trust lands).
    The public comment period for the DNRC HCP closed October 6, 2009; 
the current schedule calls for publishing the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) in October 2010. The Record of Decision (ROD) 
would be finalized 30 days after publication of the FEIS, and a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit could be issued at that time, if the Service 
determines that issuance of a permit is appropriate. To be considered 
for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat for the 
bull trout, the DNRC HCP will need to be completed and finalized prior 
to the finalization of critical habitat, which is due by September 30, 
2010.
Washington Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding lands managed under the 
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) HCP in the Coastal 
Recovery Unit: Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and Lower Columbia CHUs. 
The WDNR HCP covers State forest trust lands within the range of the 
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the State of 
Washington. The majority of the lands covered by the HCP (approximately 
526,100 ha (1.3 million ac) is west of the Cascade Crest and includes 
the Olympic Peninsula and southwest Washington. The remainder of the 
lands are on the east side of the Cascade Range within the range of the 
northern spotted owl. The HCP covers activities primarily associated 
with commercial forest management. West of the Cascade Crest, the HCP 
covers all species, including bull trout and other salmonids. On the 
east side of the Cascade Crest, bull trout and other aquatic species 
are not covered under the HCP, and DNR follows State forest practice 
rules for riparian management and other forestry activities. The DNR 
HCP lands on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula are managed as the 
Olympic Experimental State Forest. The multispecies portion of the HCP 
depends upon several broad-scale conservation approaches: spotted owl 
conservation, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) conservation, 
riparian conservation, certain species-specific protection measures, 
protection of uncommon habitats, and provisions to maintain a range of 
forest types across the HCP landscape.
Green Diamond Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands 
managed under the Green Diamond Habitat Conservation Plan in Coastal 
Recovery Unit, Olympic Peninsula CHU. In October 2000, Simpson Timber 
Company (now Green Diamond), completed an HCP, and we issued a permit 
authorizing incidental take associated with forestry operations on the 
company's Washington timberlands located on or adjacent to the Olympic 
Peninsula in Mason, Thurston, and Grays Harbor Counties. The HCP is 
designed to conserve riparian forests, improve water quality, prevent 
management-related hill-slope instability, and address hydrological 
maturity of small subbasins. The HCP addresses five listed species, 
including bull trout, and 46 non-listed species. The HCP covers the 
land owned by Green Diamond along the lower reaches of the North and 
South Fork Skokomish Rivers, the upper South Fork Skokomish River, West 
Fork Satsop River, and Canyon River.
City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands 
managed under the City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed HCP in the 
Coastal Recovery Unit, Puget Sound CHU. In April 2000, the City of 
Seattle completed an HCP, and we issued an incidental take permit 
authorizing water withdrawal and water supply activities affecting 
flows in the lower Cedar River and reservoir levels in Chester Morse 
Lake. The plan provides for forestry restoration activities, including 
riparian thinning, road abandonment, and timber stand improvement in 
the upper Cedar River Watershed in King County. The HCP is designed to 
provide adequate fish flows in the lower Cedar River for the spawning 
and rearing of several salmonid species, manage water levels in Chester 
Morse Lake and Masonry Dam Reservoir to benefit instream flows in the 
lower Cedar River and bull trout spawning access to lake tributaries, 
and manage these lands in the upper Cedar River as an ecological 
reserve. Several research actions are directed at understanding how all 
life stages of bull trout use Chester Morse Lake and Masonry Pool and 
how adult bull trout use tributaries to the lake for spawning. The HCP 
covers 83 species of fish and wildlife, including bull trout and 6 
other listed species.
Tacoma Water Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed 
Protection Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands 
managed under the Tacoma Green River Water Supply Operations and 
Watershed Protection HCP in the Coastal Recovery Unit, Puget Sound CHU. 
The Tacoma Water Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed 
Protection HCP was completed in July 2001, addressing upstream and 
downstream fish passage issues, flows in the Middle and lower Green 
River, and timber and watershed management activities on Tacoma-owned 
land in the upper Green River Watershed. The HCP covers 32 species 
(including bull trout), and includes an upstream fish passage facility 
that will open up 57,000 ha (140,800 ac) of previously blocked fish 
habitat, sponsorship and funding for a downstream fish-passage facility 
at the Corps of Engineers' Howard Hanson Dam, water-flow improvements, 
improved riparian forest management on Tacoma's lands, and several 
major habitat restoration projects.
Washington State Forest Practices Rules and Forest Practices 
Regulations
    The Service is considering excluding all public and private lands 
in the State of Washington that would be managed under the Washington 
forest practice rules. These lands occur in the Coastal Recovery Unit 
(Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and Lower Columbia CHUs), Mid-Columbia 
Recovery Unit (Snake River Basin, Walla Walla River Basins, Yakima 
River, and Upper Columbia River CHUs), and the Columbia Headwaters 
Recovery Unit (Clark Fork River Basin CHU). Beginning in late 1996, 
faced with the imminent listing of several salmonid species under the 
Act, including bull trout, a diverse group of stakeholders in 
Washington State agreed to address emerging riparian habitat issues. 
The effort resulted in the Forests and Fish Report (FFR) in April 1999. 
Later that year, the Washington State Legislature passed the Forest 
Practices Salmon Recovery Act (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2091), 
which directed the Washington Forest Practices Board to adopt new 
rules, encouraging the Forest Practices Board to follow the 
recommendations of the FFR. To further the purpose of regulatory 
stability, the Forest Practices Salmon Recovery Act also limited future 
changes to the new rules so that, outside of a court order or 
legislative directive, new rules could be adopted by the Forest 
Practices Board only if the changes or new rules are consistent with

[[Page 2298]]

the recommendations resulting from the scientifically based adaptive 
management process included in the FFR. The language further solidified 
the adaptive management process as a key component of the FFR 
conservation program.
    Following the passage in 1999 of emergency forest practices rules 
based on the FFR, the Washington Forest Practices Board adopted new 
permanent rules in May 2001. Effective July 2001, these rules cover a 
wide variety of forest practices and include (1) a new, more 
functional, classification of rivers and streams on non-Federal and 
non-tribal forestland; (2) improved plans for properly designing, 
maintaining, and upgrading existing and new forest roads; (3) 
additional protections for unstable slopes; and (4) greater protections 
for riparian areas intended to restore or maintain properly functioning 
aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. In addition to these 
substantive provisions, the rules adopted the procedural 
recommendations of the FFR that address adaptive management, training, 
and other features. The Washington State Legislature and the U.S. 
Congress continued to support the collaboration with significant 
funding for the research, monitoring, and adaptive management 
activities called for in the FFR. In May 2006, the State forest 
practice rules were formally incorporated into the Washington State 
Forest Practices HCP.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

Lewis River Hydroelectric Project Conservation Easements
    The Service is considering excluding 48 km (30 mi) of bull trout 
habitat associated with the Lewis River Hydroelectric Project 
Conservation Easements in the Coastal Recovery Unit, Columbia River 
Basin CHU. PacifiCorp manages four projects and three dams impounding 
river habitat on the Lewis River in Washington, located in portions of 
Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania Counties. Bull trout are present in all of 
the reservoirs; the upper two reservoirs are used by the majority of 
individuals within the spawning populations. A settlement agreement 
(Agreement) for the relicensing of the Yale, Merwin, Swift No. 1, and 
Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Projects was signed on November 30, 2004. 
Conservation measures are incorporated in the Agreement to minimize or 
compensate for the effects of the projects on listed species, including 
bull trout. Conservation measures for bull trout include: perpetual 
conservation covenants on PacifiCorp's lands in the Cougar/Panamaker 
Creek area and PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD's lands along the Swift Creek 
arm of Swift Creek Reservoir, upstream and downstream fish passage 
improvements at all reservoirs, limiting factors analysis for bull 
trout to determine additional enhancement measures, public information 
program to protect bull trout, and monitoring and evaluation efforts 
for bull trout conservation measures. This agreement will also restore 
anadromous salmon to the upper Lewis River system, restoring a 
significant part of the historic forage base for bull trout.
Snake River Basin Adjudication
    The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on 
18,615,000 ha (46 million ac) of lands managed under the Snake River 
Basin Adjudication agreement in central Idaho. The stream flows in the 
basin were subject to litigation for 21 years. Litigants were the 
Federal Government, Nez Perce Tribe, and State of Idaho. In 2004, a 
settlement was reached by the parties in the proceeding. A Mediator's 
Term Sheet was developed to guide the settlement of the case, which 
identifies the responsibilities of the parties over the 30-year term of 
the agreement. The settlement was announced on May 15, 2004, by the 
Secretary of the Interior, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee 
Chairman, and Governor of Idaho.
    As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to establish a 
habitat fund under two separate accounts, one for the Nez Perce Tribe 
and one for the State. The State account is managed through cooperative 
agreements under section 6 of the Act, and addresses off-reservation 
stream flow and forestry programs. The funds will be used to conduct 
habitat protection and restoration projects in the Salmon and 
Clearwater River basins (tributaries to the Snake River), including 
programs intended to protect and restore listed fish and their habitat. 
The United States will contribute $38 million to these accounts 
according to a schedule determined by Congress in the enacting 
legislation. To date, the State has received $5 million per year for 3 
years and is expected to receive an additional $5 million for the next 
2 years. Most of the funds have been used to acquire conservation 
easements on lands with anadromous habitat and some limited habitat 
restoration.
    On December 8, 2004, the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 was 
enacted to resolve outstanding issues; reach a final settlement of 
tribal claims; authorize, ratify, and confirm the Agreement among the 
parties; direct Federal agencies to execute and perform necessary 
actions to carry out the agreement; and authorize actions and 
appropriations under the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) and the 
Act for the United States to meet its obligations. On March 31, 2005, a 
Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the State of Idaho, Nez 
Perce Tribe, Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 
establish a process for using the habitat trust fund accounts for 
habitat protection and restoration projects in the Salmon and 
Clearwater River basins in Idaho.
    In a March 2005 letter, in response to a request from the State of 
Idaho, the Service and NMFS provided specific information as to the 
standard that would be the basis for the cooperative agreement under 
section 6 of the Act to implement the term sheet. In that letter, the 
two agencies indicated that meeting the express statutory requirements 
in section 6 of the Act for an adequate and active program for the 
conservation of the species, in this case, bull trout and salmon, would 
be required.
    The Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the 
State are in the process of developing a Draft EIS for entering into a 
Cooperative Agreement on the Idaho Forestry Program. This Program would 
apply to private and State lands in the Clearwater and Salmon River 
basins. The Service will evaluate whether the Idaho Forestry Program 
will meet the requirements of section 6 and section 7 of the Act.
    At the time the negotiations on the adjudication were completed, 
the bull trout was a listed species, but critical habitat had not been 
designated. The negotiations culminating in the final term sheet were 
completed prior to designation of critical habitat.

Tribal Lands-Exclusions under Section 4(B)(2) of the Act

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and 
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of 
the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 
natural resources on tribal lands may be better managed under tribal 
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation 
where tribal management addresses the conservation needs of listed 
species. Based on this

[[Page 2299]]

philosophy, we believe that, in many cases, designation of tribal lands 
as critical habitat may provide little additional benefit to threatened 
and endangered species. In addition, such designation may be viewed by 
tribes as unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance, thus compromising the government-to-government relationship 
essential to achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy 
ecosystems upon which the viability of threatened and endangered 
species populations depend.
    We will take into consideration our partnerships and existing 
conservation actions that tribes have or are currently implementing 
when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final critical habitat 
designation. If the Secretary decides to exercise his discretion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering lands covered by the 
tribes identified below for possible exclusion from final critical 
habitat. We are requesting comments regarding these areas and will 
continue to investigate whether any Indian lands overlap, and may 
warrant exclusion from, critical habitat for bull trout. We also 
request comments and information concerning other tribal activities 
that may be affected in areas proposed as critical habitat on lands 
other than tribal lands.
    For this proposed critical habitat designation for bull trout, we 
reviewed maps indicating that some areas under consideration as 
critical habitat overlap with Indian lands. Indian lands are those 
defined in the Secretarial Order ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' 
(June 5, 1997), including: (1) lands held in trust by the United States 
for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) lands held in trust by the 
United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to 
restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands, 
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the 
tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries 
owned by individual Indians.
    Our preliminary assessment indicates that the federally-recognized 
tribes in Table 7 have lands that may include or be adjacent to 
waterbodies under consideration for designation as critical habitat for 
bull trout. Based on the best available information, there are 
approximately 683 kilometers (424 miles) of streams and shoreline areas 
in or adjacent to Tribal lands being proposed as critical habitat for 
bull trout (Table 6).
    Tribes have played a significant role in the development of HCPs, 
local watershed plans, or other habitat plans and have conducted 
numerous habitat restoration and research projects designed to protect 
or improve habitat for listed species. If such lands are identified, 
the benefits of exclusion could include: (1) the furtherance of 
established national policies, our Federal trust obligations and our 
deference to management of natural resources on their lands; (2) the 
maintenance of effective long-term working relationships to promote 
species conservation on an ecosystem-wide basis; (3) the allowance for 
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work 
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an 
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty 
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through 
established tribal natural resource programs. A list of tribal lands 
meeting the criteria of a tribal management or conservation plan, with 
proposed critical habitat unit and water body name, follows in Table 7.

  Table 7.--Tribal Lands Meeting the Criteria of a Tribal Management or
 Conservation Plan and the Proposed Critical Habitat Unit and Water Body
                                Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Critical habitat    Stream/water body
         Tribal Nation                 unit                 name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of Warm     Deschutes River    Deschutes River,
 Springs                         Basin              Shitike Creek,
                                                    Jefferson Creek,
                                                    Warm Springs River,
                                                    Metolius River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of the      Umatilla River     Umatilla River, South
 Umatilla                        and Walla Walla    Fork Touchet River,
                                 River Basin        Meacham Creek, Squaw
                                                    Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burns Paiute Tribe              Malheur River      Malheur River
                                 Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nez Perce Tribe                 Clearwater River   Mainstem, North Fork,
                                                    Middle Fork, and
                                                    South Fork
                                                    Clearwater River,
                                                    Lolo Creek, Clear
                                                    Creek, and Dworshak
                                                    Reservoir
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coeur d'Alene Tribe             Coeur d'Alene      Lake Coeur d'Alene
                                 River Basin        and tributaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Nation                Saint Mary River   Saint Mary River
                                 Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Salish and         Clark Fork River   Flathead Lake, Lower
 Kootenai Tribes                 Basin              Flathead River,
                                                    Jocko River, Mission
                                                    Creek, Post Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalispel Tribe                  Clark Fork River   Pend Oreille River
                                 Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakama Nation                   Yakima and Lower   Yakima River, Ahtanum
                                 Columbia River     Creek, and South
                                 Basins             Fork Ahtanum Creek,
                                                    West Fork Klikitat
                                                    River, Little Muddy
                                                    Creek, Crawford
                                                    Creek, Clearwater
                                                    Creek, Trappers
                                                    Creek, Fish Lake
                                                    Stream, unnamed
                                                   tributary that meets
                                                    Fish Lake Stream,
                                                    and Two Lakes Stream
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of the      Olympic Peninsula  Chehalis River
 Chehalis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoh Tribe                       Olympic Peninsula  Hoh River and Pacific
                                                    Coast nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe       Olympic Peninsula  Dungeness River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe       Olympic Peninsula  Elwha River and
                                                    Strait of Juan De
                                                    Fuca Nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2300]]

 
Quileute Tribe                  Olympic Peninsula  Pacific Coast
                                                    Nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quinault Nation                 Olympic Peninsula  Quinault River, Lake
                                                    Quinault, Pacific
                                                    Coast
                                                   nearshore, Raft
                                                    River, Queets River,
                                                    Salmon River,
                                                    Moclips River, and
                                                    Cook Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skokomish Tribe                 Olympic Peninsula  Skokomish River,
                                                    Nalley Slough,
                                                    Skobob Creek, and
                                                    Hood Canal nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lummi Nation                    Puget Sound        Nooksack River and
                                                    Puget Sound
                                                    nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muckleshoot Tribe               Puget Sound        White River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nisqually Tribe                 Puget Sound        Nisqually River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nooksack Tribe                  Puget Sound        Nooksack River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puyallup Tribe                  Puget Sound        Puyallup River and
                                                    Puget Sound
                                                    nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe             Puget Sound        Sauk River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinomish Tribe                 Puget Sound        Swinomish Channel and
                                                    Puget Sound
                                                    nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulalip Tribes                  Puget Sound        Puget Sound nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Lands-Exclusions under Section 4(B)(2) of the Act

    As noted above, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility 
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance 
of the Act and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for 
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. We consider the 
development and implementation of land management plans by Federal 
agencies to be consistent with this statutory obligation under section 
7(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, Federal land management plans, in and of 
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for excluding 
essential habitat. Some broad-scale Federal resource management plans 
(e.g., INFISH, PACFISH, and the Northwest Forest Plan) may provide 
conservation benefits to bull trout as well as all other aquatic 
species within the plan boundaries. In addition, in some places, 
Federal land management agencies may actively manage for bull trout and 
conduct specific conservation actions for the species. We are therefore 
requesting comments regarding existing specific conservation actions 
that Federal land management agencies have or are currently 
implementing on their lands, and will take this information into 
account when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final critical 
habitat designation.

Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.
    We have prepared a Draft Economic Analysis (DEA), which identifies 
and analyzes the potential economic impacts associated with the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for bull trout. The DEA 
quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts 
for bull trout; some of these costs would likely be incurred regardless 
of whether or not we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of 
the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing 
scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical 
habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the 
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for 
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, 
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs 
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The 
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated 
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs 
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat 
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may 
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis 
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species 
was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely 
to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.
    The DEA estimates impacts based on activities that are reasonably 
foreseeable, including, but not limited to, activities that are 
currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans 
are currently available to the public. The DEA provides estimated costs 
of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designation for bull trout over the next 20 years, which was 
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited 
planning information was available for most activities to reasonably 
forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The 
DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed 
critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to 
critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to 
listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of conservation efforts 
for bull trout associated with the following categories of activity: 
(1) forest management practices (timber sales, fuel reduction, salvage 
logging); (2) residential and commercial development; (3) dams 
(hydropower and others); (4) agriculture

[[Page 2301]]

and agricultural diversions; (5) roads; (6) mining; (7) livestock 
grazing; and (8) other activities (utilities, restoration, nonnative 
species management, recreation, other instream activities).
    Of the currently proposed critical habitat areas, nearly 31,865 km 
(19,800 mi), or 87 percent, were previously proposed as bull trout 
critical habitat. Two detailed economic analyses of those past 
proposals were conducted in 2004 and 2005. Both of these analyses were 
made available for, and received, public comment. Due to extensive 
overlap between the current proposed critical habitat and the past 
proposals, the economic analysis prepared for this proposal draws 
heavily on still-valid data contained within the two prior economic 
analyses. Costs associated with bull trout conservation efforts 
estimated in the earlier economic analyses have been updated to current 
dollars, adjusted to reflect the currently proposed unit boundaries, 
and reported to provide context for the reported incremental costs 
associated with the currently proposed critical habitat designation.
    Total future (2012-2032) baseline impacts are estimated to be $96.3 
million to $103.0 million annually (assuming a 7 percent discount 
rate); discount rates express future costs and benefits at today's 
equivalent value. This estimate includes not only conservation activity 
costs resulting from the bull trout being listed under the Act, but 
also estimated costs of related conservation activities for salmon, 
steelhead, and other fish species, along with water quality and habitat 
protection, in overlapping areas where other protected species occur 
with bull trout. Under the baseline scenario, nearly half of all 
estimated costs are due to conservation efforts imposed on forest 
management activities. Costs imposed on development activities and dam 
operations make up most of the remaining estimated costs. Costs 
associated with project modifications to forest management activities 
account for nearly 44 percent of estimated baseline impacts. These 
costs are expected to be associated with conservation measures imposed 
on timber harvest activities, including efforts to reduce sedimentation 
timing restrictions, elimination of fish barriers, and changes to 
harvest methods. Under the high cost scenario, costs associated with 
project modifications imposed on development activities account for 25 
percent of projected baseline impacts. These costs result from 
implementation of stormwater control requirements. Costs associated 
with project modifications imposed on dam operations account for 18 
percent of estimated baseline impacts under the high cost scenario. 
These costs result from projected conservation efforts, including 
providing fish passage (fish ladder or trap and haul operations), 
temperature control projects, habitat acquisition, and seasonal 
adjustments of flow.
    Because of all conservation measures in place for salmon, 
steelhead, the Klamath suckers, and other protected fish species, we 
believe the incremental regulatory and economic effect of critical 
habitat designation in areas occupied by bull trout will be small, and 
the most significant incremental effect will be in those areas not 
currently occupied (less than 4 percent of the proposed critical 
habitat) by the species. As a result, the DEA estimates that total 
potential incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical 
habitat over the next 20 years will be $4.97 million to $7.13 million 
annually (assuming a 7 percent discount rate); the range of costs 
represents uncertainty in the types and costs of project modifications. 
The majority of forecast incremental costs are associated with 
unoccupied critical habitat in the Upper Willamette River Basin, and 
are associated with conservation efforts undertaken at flood control 
facilities. For unoccupied areas overlapping with previous bull trout 
critical habitat proposals, cost estimates are drawn from the previous 
economic analyses and assigned to the critical habitat units proposed 
in this rule. For newly proposed unoccupied areas, the analysis focuses 
on identifying additional conservation efforts that may be expected as 
a result of critical habitat designation for bull trout. The 116 km (72 
mi) of newly proposed unoccupied critical habitat that is already 
designated as critical habitat for listed salmon were not included in 
the incremental analysis. Existing (baseline) conservation efforts 
required in designated salmon critical habitat areas would generally be 
adequate to address bull trout conservation needs, and no significant 
additional conservation efforts are expected to be necessary. Dam 
operations are expected to incur the greatest incremental economic 
impacts, followed by forest management and administrative costs. 
Estimated incremental costs associated with dam project modifications 
range from $2.12 million to $2.52 million annually, and are primarily 
related to conservation efforts in the Upper Willamette River Basin. 
Project modifications could include fish passage (such as fish ladders 
and trap and haul operations), temperature control projects, and 
seasonal changes to flow. Estimated incremental costs associated with 
forest management projects range from $0.41 million to $1.65 million 
annually, associated with efforts to reduce sedimentation, timing 
restrictions, elimination of fish barriers (e.g., culverts), and 
changes to harvest methods.
    Estimated incremental costs associated with additional section 7 
administrative efforts (Federal agency consultations) are expected to 
be $1.99 million annually. Absent reasonably foreseeable economic 
impacts that are distinctly attributable to the critical habitat 
portion of the analysis, economic impacts from conservation efforts 
that avoid adverse modification of critical habitat coincidental to 
avoiding jeopardizing the species would be coextensive with the impacts 
of bull trout listing and within the regulatory baseline.
    Benefits, as well as costs, can result from critical habitat 
designation. Bull trout conservation efforts for critical habitat may 
lead to improved water quality, increased open space, flood control, or 
aesthetic benefits. Indirect use benefits may also result (e.g., 
increased hiking or wildlife-viewing activities). Conservation efforts 
for bull trout critical habitat have the potential to result in 
increased bull trout populations, which in turn could result in 
increases in recreational fishing opportunities over the long term. In 
addition, increased bull trout population size could result in enhanced 
non-use value by the public (e.g., existence value). Existing studies 
support the conclusion that preservation of fish species in general is 
likely to generate substantial benefits to the public. However, absent 
information on the long term biological or physical changes expected to 
occur in bull trout critical habitat areas as a result of critical 
habitat designation, the DEA does not quantify these benefits.
    The DEA is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. We 
are seeking data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as 
all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required 
determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents 
to incorporate or address information we receive during the public 
comment period, including information received during, or in response 
to, the public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek

[[Page 2302]]

the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is 
to ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited 
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on 
our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation 
of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a 
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. Such 
requests must be sent to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. In 
anticipation of the interest in this proposed rule, we have already 
scheduled the public hearing and several public meetings. See the DATES 
and ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule for information regarding 
the scheduled public hearing and public meetings.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is significant and has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB based its determination upon the 
following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions;
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients; or
     (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine whether a designation of critical habitat could 
significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we 
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types 
of economic activities (e.g., housing development, grazing, oil and gas 
production, timber harvesting). We apply the ``substantial number'' 
test individually to each industry to determine if certification is 
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define 
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
    Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small 
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the 
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In 
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of 
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider 
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In 
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
    Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects 
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
would not result in any additional effects under the Act. However, 
there are some state laws that limit activities in designated critical 
habitat even where there is no federal nexus. If there is a Federal 
nexus, Federal agencies will be required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or carry out that 
may affect critical habitat. If we conclude, in a biological opinion, 
that a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' 
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be 
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that would avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    A Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a 
reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion 
that has found adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or 
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the 
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable 
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained, 
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section 
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the 
reasonable and prudent alternatives. We may also identify discretionary 
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse 
effects of a proposed action on critical habitat, help implement 
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the 
recovery of the species.
    Within the proposed critical habitat designation, the types of 
actions or authorized activities that we have identified as potential 
concerns and that may be subject to consultation under section 7 if 
there is a Federal nexus are: operation of dams; forest management 
practices; livestock grazing; agriculture and irrigation diversions; 
management

[[Page 2303]]

of roads; mining; and management of nonnative species.
    Any existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that 
could affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal 
involvement would not require section 7 consultation with the Service, 
so they are not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Federal 
agencies may need to reinitiate a previous consultation if 
discretionary involvement or control over the Federal action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and the activities may affect critical 
habitat.
    The DEA and its associated Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) estimate that total potential incremental economic impacts in 
areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20 years will be $4.97 
to $7.13 million annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. 
Incremental impacts are expected to consist of: (1) project 
modifications occurring within newly proposed unoccupied areas; and (2) 
administrative costs associated with consultations under section 7 of 
the Act. In total, third parties (some of which may be small entities) 
may bear a total annual impact of up to $5.6 million in incremental 
impacts. In unoccupied areas, project modifications may be associated 
with dam modifications, bridge replacement, grazing lease modification, 
road maintenance, and changes to timber harvest. In total, annual 
incremental costs associated with project modifications are forecast at 
$5.1 million (discounted at 7 percent). The DEA also forecasts the 
number of additional section 7 consultations that may take place as a 
result of critical habitat. Based on this forecast, annual incremental 
consultation costs that may be borne by third parties are forecast at 
$441,000 in total (discounted at 7 percent). Of the potentially 
affected entities in the proposed critical habitat areas, 97 percent 
are small entities, and depending on the unit, small entities may bear 
between 93 and 100 percent of the estimated impacts. The Small Business 
Size Standard for the industry sectors that could potentially be 
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation are as follows:
     Dams and Water Diversions Category: Electric Power 
Generation, Transmission and Distribution-4 million megawatts for the 
preceding year, and Water supply and Irrigation Systems-$7.0 million 
average annual receipts.
     Agriculture Category: Crop Production (Oilseed and Grain 
Farming; Vegetable and Melon Farming; and Fruit and Tree Nut Farming-
$750,000 average annual receipts; and Food Manufacturing-500 employees.
     Grazing Category: Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming-
$750,000 average annual receipts.
     Roads Category: Highway, Street and Bridge Construction-
$33.5 million average annual receipts.
     Development Category: New Single-Family Housing 
Construction (except Operative Builders); New Multifamily Housing 
Construction (except Operative Builders); New Housing Operative 
Builders-$33.5 million average annual receipts; and Land Subdivision-
$7.0 million.
     Forest Managent Category: Logging-500 employees; Timber 
Tract Operations, and Support Activities for Forestry-$7.0 million 
average annual receipts.
     Mining Category: Mining (except Oil and Gas), and 
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining-500 employees.
     Other Activities Category: Oil and Gas Pipeline and 
Related Structures Construction; Power and Communication Line and 
Related Structures Construction; and Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 
Construction-$33.5 million average annual receipts; Marinas-$7.0 
million average annual receipts; Water and Sewer Line and Related 
Structures Construction-$33.5 million average annual receipts; and 
Sewage Treatment Facilities-$7.0 million average annual receipts.
    If each of the 23,800 small entities located within the study area 
were to share the annualized costs, they could bear from $0 up to 
$60,300 per entity, depending on the affected industry. This would 
translate into an annual average cost of $234 per entity. This in turn 
translates into a projected range of impacts from 0.0007 to 0.03 
percent, or in other words, less than 1 percent impact for all sectors. 
The expected annual impacts to the affected industries are 
significantly less than the annual revenues that could be garnered by a 
single small operator in those industries, and as such, impacts are low 
relative to potential revenues. We are seeking public comments 
regarding the estimated incremental impacts of this critical habitat 
designation on small entities. Specifically, we are interested in 
whether there is evidence suggesting that the economic impact of 
section 7(a)(2) consultations in areas currently occupied by the 
species is expected to be larger or smaller than estimated in this 
analysis.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
     (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the

[[Page 2304]]

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities 
are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or 
participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs 
of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for bull trout, we do not believe that this rule would 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not 
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that 
is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts may 
occur due to project modifications occurring within newly proposed, 
unoccupied areas and administrative costs associated with section 7 
consultations. The DEA estimates that total potential incremental 
economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20 
years will be $4.97 to $7.13 million annually, assuming a 7 percent 
discount rate. Based on the range of potential incremental costs that 
have been identified, we do not believe that this rule will 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 (Government Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for bull trout in a takings implications 
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
designation of critical habitat for bull trout does not pose 
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the 
designation.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 
Montana, and Nevada. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical and biological features of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. We have proposed designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed 
rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the physical 
and biological features within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the bull trout.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical 
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).]

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
     (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ``ADDRESSES'' section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or 
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are 
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, 
etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    Our preliminary assessment indicates that 24 Federally-recognized 
Tribes in Table 7 have lands that may include or be adjacent to 
waterbodies under consideration for designation as critical habitat for 
bull trout. Based on the best available information, there are 
approximately 683 kilometers (424 miles) of streams and shoreline areas 
in or adjacent to Tribal lands being proposed as critical habitat for 
bull trout (Table 6).
    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species 
Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly 
with Tribes in developing programs for

[[Page 2305]]

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to 
the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to 
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
    Maintaining an effective trust relationship between the Federal 
government and Tribes promotes (1) the furtherance of established 
national policies, our Federal trust obligations and our deference to 
management of natural resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of 
effective long-term working relationships to promote species 
conservation on an ecosystem-wide basis; (3) the allowance for 
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work 
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an 
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for Tribal sovereignty 
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through 
established tribal natural resource programs. We have engaged in 
preliminary discussions and coordination with our Tribal partners 
during development of the proposed rule, and are soliciting specific 
comments and information from tribes on areas being proposed as 
critical habitat on tribal land and on lands other than Tribal lands. 
The final rule will fully consider the Federal government's obligations 
to Federally-recognized Tribes, and comments and information received 
from the Tribes regarding the actions being implemented to conserve 
bull trout on Tribal lands and lands other than Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order E.O. 13211 pertains to regulations that 
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
provides guidance for implementing this Executive Order, outlining nine 
outcomes (criteria) that may constitute ``a significant adverse 
effect'' when compared with the regulatory action under consideration. 
Two of these criteria are relevant to the bull trout economic analysis: 
(1) reduction in electricity production in excess of one billion 
kilowatts-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed 
capacity and (2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess 
of one percent. The two primary activities that might lead to reduced 
energy generation are operation of the Federal Columbia River Power 
System (FCRPS) and operation of FERC-licensed hydroelectric dams. 
Incremental impacts to dam operations are expected to consist largely 
of the costs of installing fish passage capabilities. Some dam 
operators may also undertake relatively minor movements of peak energy 
production during the year. This practice does not reduce average 
energy production, but rather changes the temporal distribution of that 
power. Therefore, no impacts to electricity production or installed 
capacity are forecast. Given the high thresholds defined in the OMB 
guidance (i.e., reduction in electricity production in excess of one 
billion kilowatts-hours per year, increases in the cost of energy 
production in excess of one percent) and the fact that bull trout is 
unlikely to be the primary species leading to changes in flow regimes 
(because of the presence of listed salmon), it is unlikely the 
electricity industry will experience a ``significant adverse effect'' 
as a result of critical habitat designation for bull trout. The 
protection of bull trout stream and lake habitats should not require 
significant changes to energy management, and because bull trout have 
been listed under the Endangered Species Act for the past 10 years, 
with critical habitat designated over parts of its range for the past 
four years, and there have been no actions that have significantly 
affected energy supply, distribution or use over that time. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this 
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this 
assessment as warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Idaho Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
following Fish and Wildlife Offices: Idaho, Montana, Washington, 
Oregon, Nevada, and Klamath Falls.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17; subchapter B of Chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Amend Sec.  17.95(e) by revising critical habitat for ``Bull 
Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)'' as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
    (1) Locations of critical habitat: Critical habitat units are 
depicted in the following States and counties on the maps and as 
described below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                              Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Idaho                           Adams, Benewah, Blaine, Boise,
                                     Bonner, Boundary, Butte, Camas,
                                     Canyon, Clearwater, Custer, Elmore,
                                     Gem, Idaho, Kootenai, Lemhi, Lewis,
                                     Nez Perce, Owyhee, Shoshone,
                                     Valley, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Montana                        Deer, Lodge, Flathead, Glacier,
                                     Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark,
                                     Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Powell,
                                     Ravalli, Sanders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Nevada                        Elko
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Oregon                         Baker, Clatsop, Columbia, Deschutes,
                                     Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River,
                                     Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Lane,
                                     Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah,
                                     Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa,
                                     Wasco, Wheeler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Washington                      Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam,
                                     Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas,
                                     Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays
                                     Harbor,
                                    Island, Jefferson, King, Kittitas,
                                     Klickitat, Mason, Okanogan, Pend
                                     Oreille, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania,
                                    Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum,
                                     Walla Walla, Whatcom, Whitman,
                                     Yakima
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2306]]

    (2) Topographic features included in the critical habitat 
designation. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the 
designated stream reaches; designated lakes and reservoirs; and inshore 
portions of marine nearshore areas, including tidally influenced 
freshwater heads of estuaries indicated on the maps beginning with 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
     (i) Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the 
designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by the 
bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the 
opposite bank. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to 
leave the channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a 
discharge that generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on 
the annual flood series. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either 
bank, the ordinary high-water line must be used to determine the 
lateral extent of critical habitat. The lateral extent of designated 
lakes is defined by the perimeter of the water body as mapped on 
standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
     (ii) Critical habitat includes the inshore extent of critical 
habitat for marine nearshore areas (the mean higher high-water (MHHW) 
line), including tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The 
MHHW line refers to the average of all the higher high-water heights of 
the two daily tidal levels. Adjacent shoreline riparian areas, bluffs, 
and uplands are not designated as critical habitat. However, it should 
be recognized that the quality of marine habitat along shorelines is 
intrinsically related to the character of these adjacent features, and 
human activities that occur outside of the MHHW line can have major 
effects on physical and biological features of the marine environment. 
The offshore extent of critical habitat for marine nearshore areas is 
based on the extent of the photic zone, which is the layer of water in 
which organisms are exposed to light. Critical habitat extends offshore 
to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 feet (ft)) relative to the mean low 
low-water (MLLW) line (average of all the lower low-water heights of 
the two daily tidal levels). This equates to the average depth of the 
photic zone and is consistent with the offshore extent of the nearshore 
habitat identified National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
the National Tidal Datum 1983 Through 2001. This area between the MHHW 
line and minus 10 MLLW line is considered the habitat most consistently 
used by bull trout in marine waters based on known use, forage fish 
availability, and ongoing migration studies and captures geological and 
ecological processes important to maintaining these habitats. This area 
contains essential foraging habitat and migration corridors such as 
estuaries, bays, inlets, shallow subtidal areas, and intertidal flats.
    (3) The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of critical habitat. 
Within the critical habitat, the PCEs for bull trout are those habitat 
components that are essential for the primary biological needs of 
foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, dispersal, genetic exchange, 
or sheltering. The PCEs are as follows:
    (i) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water 
connectivity (hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and 
quantity and provide thermal refugia.
     (ii) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or 
water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and 
freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to 
permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
     (iii) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of 
riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
     (iv) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline 
aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, 
side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a 
variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
     (v) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 [deg]C (36 to 59 
[deg]F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at 
the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range 
will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; 
geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as 
that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.
     (vi) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to 
ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, 
and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., 
less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in 
diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates 
are characteristic of these conditions.
     (vii) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base 
flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, 
they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.
     (viii) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal 
reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.
     (ix) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, 
northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or 
competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.
    (4) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
     (5) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units 
were created using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code 
maps (HUCs) at a scale of 1:250,000 down to the 4th level cataloging 
unit. In some cases, 5th and 6th level HUCs were also used and some 
finer scale watersheds developed using United States Geological Survey 
10-meter Digital Elevation Model and 1:24,000 scale hydrography layers. 
The marine boundaries for the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula 
critical habitat unit (CHU) were based on Washington Department of 
Natural Resources 1:24,000 scale county boundaries and HUCs.
(6) Index map of critical habitat units for bull trout follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 2307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.001


[[Page 2308]]


    (7) Unit 1: Olympic Peninsula Unit, Washington.
     (i) Dungeness River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Dungeness River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.002


[[Page 2309]]


     (ii) Elwha River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Elwha River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.003


[[Page 2310]]


    (iii) Hoh River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Hoh River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.004


[[Page 2311]]


    (iv) Queets River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Queets River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.005


[[Page 2312]]


    (v) Quinault River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Quinault River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.006


[[Page 2313]]


    (vi) Skokomish River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Skokomish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.007


[[Page 2314]]


    (vii) Hood Canal Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Hood Canal Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.008


[[Page 2315]]


    (viii) Strait of Juan de Fuca Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Juan de Fuca Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.009


[[Page 2316]]


    (ix) Pacific Coast Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Pacific Coast Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.010


[[Page 2317]]


    (x) Chehalis River/Grays Harbor Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Chehalis River/Grays Harbor Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.011


[[Page 2318]]


     (8) Unit 2: Puget Sound Unit, Washington.
    (i) Chilliwack River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Chilliwack River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.012


[[Page 2319]]


    (ii) Nooksack River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Nooksack River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.013


[[Page 2320]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.014


[[Page 2321]]


    (iii) Skagit River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Skagit River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.015


[[Page 2322]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.016


[[Page 2323]]


    (iv) Upper Skagit River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Skagit River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.017


[[Page 2324]]


    (v) Stillaguamish River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
     (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Stillaguamish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.018


[[Page 2325]]


    (vi) Samish River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Samish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.019


[[Page 2326]]


    (vii) Snohomish-Skykomish River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Snohomish-Skykomish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.020


[[Page 2327]]


    (viii) Lake Washington Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lake Washington Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.021


[[Page 2328]]


    (ix) Lower Green River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lower Green River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.022


[[Page 2329]]


    (x) Lower Nisqually River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lower Nisqually River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.023


[[Page 2330]]


    (xi) Chester Morse Lake Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Chester Morse Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.024


[[Page 2331]]


     (xii) Puyallup River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Puyallup River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.025


[[Page 2332]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.026


[[Page 2333]]


    (xiii) Puget Sound Marine Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Puget Sound Marine Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.027


[[Page 2334]]


     (9) Unit 3: Lower Columbia River Basins Unit, Washington.
    (i) Lewis River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lewis River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.028


[[Page 2335]]


    (ii) Klickitat River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Klickitat River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.029


[[Page 2336]]


    (iii) White Salmon River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), White Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.030


[[Page 2337]]


     (10) Unit 4: Upper Willamette River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Willamette Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.031


[[Page 2338]]


     (11) Unit 5: Hood River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Hood River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.032


[[Page 2339]]


     (12) Unit 6: Lower Deschutes River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lower Deschutes River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.033


[[Page 2340]]


     (13) Unit 7: Odell Lake Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Odell Lake Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.034


[[Page 2341]]


     (14) Unit 8: Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit, Oregon and 
Washington.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.035


[[Page 2342]]


     (15) Unit 9: Klamath River Basin Unit, Oregon.
    (i) Upper Klamath Lake Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Klamath Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.036


[[Page 2343]]


    (ii) Sycan River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Sycan River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.037


[[Page 2344]]


     (iii) Upper Sprague River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Sprague River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.038


[[Page 2345]]


     (16) Unit 10: Upper Columbia River Basins Unit, Washington.
     (i) Methow River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Methow River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.039


[[Page 2346]]


    (ii) Chelan River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Chelan River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.040


[[Page 2347]]


     (iii) Entiat River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Entiat River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.041


[[Page 2348]]


    (iv) Wenatchee River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Wenatchee River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.042


[[Page 2349]]


     (17) Unit 11: Yakima River Unit.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus),Yakima River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.043


[[Page 2350]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.044


[[Page 2351]]


     (18) Unit 12: John Day River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) Lower Mainstem John Day River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lower Mainstem John Day River Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.045


[[Page 2352]]


    (ii) Middle Fork John Day River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Fork John Day River Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.046


[[Page 2353]]


    (iii) North Fork John Day River Subunit
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), North Fork John Day River Subunit, follows
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.047


[[Page 2354]]


    (iv) Upper Mainstem John Day River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Mainstem John Day River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.048


[[Page 2355]]


     (19) Unit 13: Umatilla River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Umatilla River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.049


[[Page 2356]]


     (20) Unit 14: Walla Walla River Basin Critical Habitat Unit, 
Oregon and Washington.
    (i) Walla Walla River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Walla Walla River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.050


[[Page 2357]]


    (ii) Touchet River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Touchet River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.051


[[Page 2358]]


     (21) Unit 15: Lower Snake River Basins Unit, Washington.
    (i) Tucannon River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Tucannon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.052


[[Page 2359]]


    (ii) Asotin Creek Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Asotin Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.053


[[Page 2360]]


     (22) Unit 16: Grande Ronde River Unit, Oregon and Washington.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus),
    Grande Ronde River Unit, follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.054
    

[[Page 2361]]


     (23) Unit 17: Imnaha River Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Imnaha River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.055


[[Page 2362]]


     (24) Unit 18: Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit, Idaho.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.056


[[Page 2363]]


     (25) Unit 19: Hells Canyon Complex Unit, Oregon.
    (i) Indian Creek Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Indian Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.057


[[Page 2364]]


    (ii) Pine Creek Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Pine Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.058


[[Page 2365]]


    (iii) Wildhorse River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Wildhorse River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.059


[[Page 2366]]


     (26) Unit 20: Powder River Basin Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus),
    Powder River Basin Unit, follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.060
    

[[Page 2367]]


     (27) Unit 21: Clearwater River Unit, Idaho.
    (i) Middle-Lower Fork Clearwater River Subunit
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle-Lower Fork Clearwater River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.061


[[Page 2368]]


    (ii) South Fork Clearwater River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), South Fork Clearwater River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.062


[[Page 2369]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.063


[[Page 2370]]


    (iii) Selway River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Selway River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.064


[[Page 2371]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.065


[[Page 2372]]


    (iv) Lochsa River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lochsa River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.066


[[Page 2373]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.067


[[Page 2374]]


    (v) North Fork Clearwater River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), North Fork Clearwater Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.068


[[Page 2375]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.069


[[Page 2376]]


     (28) Unit 22: Mainstem Upper Columbia River Unit, Oregon and 
Washington.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Columbia River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.070


[[Page 2377]]


     (29) Unit 23: Mainstem Snake River Unit, Idaho, Oregon, and 
Washington.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Mainstem Snake River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.071


[[Page 2378]]


     (30) Unit 24: Malheur River Basin Unit, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Malheur River Basin Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.072


[[Page 2379]]


     (31) Unit 25: Jarbidge River Unit, Idaho and Nevada.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Jarbidge River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.073


[[Page 2380]]


     (32) Unit 26: Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit, Idaho.
    (i) Weiser River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Weiser River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.074


[[Page 2381]]


     (ii) Squaw Creek Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Squaw Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.075


[[Page 2382]]


    (iii) North Fork Payette River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), North Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.076


[[Page 2383]]


    (iv) Middle Fork Payette River Subunit.
     (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
     (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.077


[[Page 2384]]


    (v) Upper South Fork Payette River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper South Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.078


[[Page 2385]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.079


[[Page 2386]]


    (vi) Deadwood River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Deadwood River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.080


[[Page 2387]]


    (vii) Arrowrock Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Arrowrock Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.081


[[Page 2388]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.082


[[Page 2389]]


    (viii) Anderson Ranch Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Anderson Ranch Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.083


[[Page 2390]]


     (33) Unit 27: Salmon River Basin Unit, Idaho.
    (i) Little-Lower Salmon Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Little-Lower Salmon Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.084


[[Page 2391]]


    (ii) South Fork Salmon River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), South Fork Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.085


[[Page 2392]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.086


[[Page 2393]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.087


[[Page 2394]]


    (iii) Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.088


[[Page 2395]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.089


[[Page 2396]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.090


[[Page 2397]]


    (iv) Middle Fork Salmon River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
     (B) Note: Maps of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Fork Salmon River Subunit, follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.091


[[Page 2398]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.092


[[Page 2399]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.093


[[Page 2400]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.094


[[Page 2401]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.095


[[Page 2402]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.096


[[Page 2403]]


    (v) Middle Salmon-Panther River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Salmon-Panther River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.097


[[Page 2404]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.098


[[Page 2405]]


    (vi) Lake Creek Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lake Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.099


[[Page 2406]]


    (vii) Opal Lake Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Opal Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.100


[[Page 2407]]


    (viii) Lemhi River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lemhi River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.101


[[Page 2408]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.102


[[Page 2409]]


    (ix) Pahsimeroi River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Pahsimeroi River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.103


[[Page 2410]]


    (x) Upper Salmon River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.104


[[Page 2411]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.105


[[Page 2412]]


     (34) Unit 28: Little Lost River Unit, Idaho.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Little Lost River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.106


[[Page 2413]]


     (35) Unit 29: Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit, Idaho.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.107


[[Page 2414]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.108


[[Page 2415]]


     (36) Unit 30: Kootenai River Basin Unit, Idaho and Montana.
    (i) Kootenai River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Kootenai River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.109


[[Page 2416]]


    (ii) Lake Koocanusa Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lake Koocanusa Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.110


[[Page 2417]]


     (36) Unit 31: Clark Fork River Basin Unit, Idaho, Montana, and 
Washington.
    (i) Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest Lakes) Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest Lakes) 
Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.111


[[Page 2418]]


    (ii) Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest River 
(Lake Pend Oreille) Subunit
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest 
River (Lake Pend Oreille) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.112


[[Page 2419]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.113


[[Page 2420]]


    (iii) Lower Clark Fork River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Lower Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.114


[[Page 2421]]


    (iv) Middle Clark Fork River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Middle Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.115


[[Page 2422]]


    (v) Upper Clark Fork River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Upper Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.116


[[Page 2423]]


    (vi) Bitterroot River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Bitterroot River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.117


[[Page 2424]]


    (vii) Rock Creek Subunit
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Rock Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.118


[[Page 2425]]


    (viii) Blackfoot River Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Blackfoot River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.119


[[Page 2426]]


    (ix) Clearwater River and Lakes Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Clearwater River and Lakes Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.120


[[Page 2427]]


    (x) Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes (Flathead) 
Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes 
(Flathead) Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.121


[[Page 2428]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.122


[[Page 2429]]


    (xi) Swan River and Lakes (Swan) Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Swan River and Lakes (Swan) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.123


[[Page 2430]]


    (xii) Hungry Horse Reservoir, South Fork Flathead River and 
Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead) Subunit.
    (A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Hungry Horse Reservoir, South Fork Flathead River and 
Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.124

     (37) Unit 32: Saint Mary River Basin Unit, Montana.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus), Saint Mary River Basin Unit, follows:

[[Page 2431]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.125

* * * * *

    Dated: December 31, 2009
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-176 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C