Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI52

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River distinct population segments of bull trout (

Salvelinus confluentus

) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the Klamath River distinct population segment (DPS), the proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 476 kilometers (km) (296 miles (mi)) of streams and 13,735 hectares (ha) (33,939 acres (ac)) of lakes and marshes in Oregon. For the Columbia River DPS, the proposed critical habitat designation totals approximately 29,251 km (18,175 mi) of streams and 201,850 ha (498,782 ac) of lakes and reservoirs, which includes: approximately 14,416 km (8,958 mi) of streams and 83,219 ha (205,639 ac) of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Idaho; 5,341 km (3,319 mi) of streams and 88,051 ha (217,577 ac) of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Montana; 5,460 km (3,391 mi) of streams and 18,077 ha (44,670 ac) of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Oregon; and 4,034 km (2,507 mi) of streams and 12,503 ha (30,897 ac) of lakes and reservoirs in the State of Washington.

If this proposal is made final, Federal agencies will be required to meet the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act with regard to critical habitat. Specifically, Federal agencies shall, in consultation with us, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The term “destruction or adverse modification” means direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species (50 CFR 402.02). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires our designation of critical habitat to be made on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal prior to final designation to address new information received during the comment period.

DATES:

We will consider all comments on this proposed rule received until the close of business on January 28, 2003. We will hold public hearings from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the following locations on the dates specified: Wenatchee, WA, on January 7, 2003; Polson, MT, on January 7, 2003; Salmon, ID, on January 7, 2003; Spokane, WA, on January 9, 2003; Lewiston, ID, on January 9, 2003; Boise, ID, on January 14, 2003; Eugene, OR, on January 14, 2003; Pendleton, OR, on January 16, 2003; and Klamath Falls, OR, on January 22, 2003. (See the Public Hearings section for additional information, including specific addresses for each location.)

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any of several methods:

You may submit written comments and information to John Young, Bull Trout Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232 (telephone 503/231-6131; facsimile 503/231-6243).

You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the address given above.

You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:

R1BullTroutCH@r1.fws.gov.

See the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.

Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Young, at the above address, (telephone 503/231-6131; facsimile 503/231-6243).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Bull trout (

Salvelinus confluentus

) are members of the char subgroup of the family Salmonidae and are native to waters of western North America. The historic range of bull trout includes major river basins in the Pacific Northwest from about 41° N to 60° N latitude, extending south to the McCloud River in northern California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada, and north to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the west, bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992). Bull trout are relatively dispersed in the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, and into Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. East of the Continental Divide in Canada, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River in Alberta and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; Brewin and Brewin 1997).

Bull trout were first described as

Salmo spectabilis

by Girard in 1856, and subsequently described under various names, such as

Salmo confluentus

and

Salvelinus malma

(Cavender 1978). Bull trout and Dolly Varden (

Salvelinus malma

) previously were considered a single species (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). However, in 1980, the American Fisheries Society formally recognized bull trout and Dolly Varden as separate species based on various specific physical differences and distributional information (Cavender 1978; Robins

et al.

1980). Bull trout have an elongated body and large mouth, with the maxilla (jaw) extending beyond the eye and with well-developed teeth on both jaws and head of the vomer (a bone in teleost fishes that forms the front part of the roof of the mouth and often bears teeth). Bull trout have 11 dorsal fin rays, 9 anal fin rays, and the caudal fin is slightly forked. Although they are often olive green to brown with paler sides, color is variable with locality and habitat.

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 1 to 4 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). 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). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound area are believed to include an

anadromous form which migrates to saltwater to mature, returning to streams to spawn (64 FR 58912).

The size of bull trout is variable depending on life-history strategy. Resident bull trout tend to be small, averaging 200 millimeters (mm) (8 inches (in)) in length and rarely exceeding 305 mm (12 in). Adults that migrate to larger downstream rivers average about 405 mm (16 in), and often exceed 610 mm (24 in) (Goetz 1989). Maximum sizes are reached in large lakes and reservoirs where adults grow over 685 mm (27 in) in length and 10 kilograms (kg) (22 pounds (lbs)) in weight (McPhail and Baxter 1996). The largest recorded bull trout was taken in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, in 1949; it was almost 1 meter (m) (39 in) long and weighed 14.6 kg (32 lbs) (Simpson and Wallace 1982).

Under appropriate conditions, bull trout regularly live to 10 years, and under exceptional circumstances, reach ages in excess of 20 years (Fraley and Shepard 1989; McPhail and Baxter 1996). They normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years.

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits that primarily are a function of size and life history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton, and small fish (Donald and Alger 1993; McPhail and Baxter 1996). Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 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; Goetz 1989; Watson and Hillman 1997).

Relatively cold water temperatures are characteristic of bull trout habitat. Water temperatures above 15 °Celsius (C) (59 °Fahrenheit (F)) are believed to limit their distribution (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Although adults have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 20 °C (68 °F), Gamett (1999) documented steady and substantial declines in abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 15 to 20 °C (59 to 68 °F). Thus, water temperature may partially explain the generally patchy distribution of bull trout in a watershed. In large rivers, bull trout are often observed “dipping” into the lower reaches of tributary streams, and it is suspected that cooler waters in these tributary mouths may provide important thermal refugia, allowing them to forage, migrate, and overwinter in waters that would otherwise be, at least seasonally, too warm. Spawning areas often are associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman

et al.

1997).

Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Watson and Hillman 1997). Juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). McPhail and Baxter (1996) reported that newly emerged fry are secretive and hide in gravel along stream edges and in side channels. They also reported that juveniles are found mainly in pools but also in riffles and runs that they maintain focal sites near the bottom, and that they are strongly associated with instream cover, particularly overhead cover. Bull trout have been observed overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools containing large woody debris (Jakober 1995). 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 log or cover debris (Fraley and Shepard (1989)).

The stability of stream channels and stream flows are important habitat characteristics for bull trout populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 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; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).

Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical characteristics to provide the necessary habitat requirements for bull trout spawning and rearing, and that the characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout 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). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures (Swanberg 1997). 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; Swanberg 1997). Fraley and Shepard (1989) 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 9-10 °C (48 to 50 °F). Goetz (1989) reported a temperature range from 4 to 10 °C (39 to 50 °F) (Goetz 1989). Such areas often are associated with cold-water springs or groundwater upwelling (Rieman

et al.

1997; Baxter

et al.

1999). Fraley and Shepard (1989) also found that groundwater influence and proximity to cover are important factors influencing spawning site selection. They reported that 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). Water temperatures of 1.2 to 5.4 °C (34.2 to 41.7 °F) have been reported for incubation, with an optimum (best embryo survivorship) temperature reported to be from 2 to 4 °C (36 to 39 °F) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; McPhail and Baxter 1996). 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). Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence (Pratt 1992). Juveniles are likely similarly 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).

The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of local bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Gilpin 1997; Rieman and Clayton 1997; Rieman

et al.

1997). 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 (McPhail and Baxter 1996). The use of migratory corridors by bull trout also results in increased dispersion, facilitating gene flow among local populations when individuals

from different local populations interbreed, stray, or return to nonnatal streams. Also, local populations that have been extirpated by catastrophic events may become reestablished as a result of movements by bull trout through migratory corridors (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1998).

While stream habitats have received more attention, lakes and reservoirs also figure prominently in meeting the life cycle requirements of bull trout. For adfluvial bull trout populations, lakes and reservoirs provide an important component of the core foraging, migrating, and overwintering 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 the headwaters, they enter a more productive lentic environment that allows them to achieve rapid growth and energy storage. Typically, juvenile bull trout are at least two years old and 100 mm (4 inches) or longer upon entry to the lake environment. For the next 2-4 years they grow rapidly. At a typical age of five years or older, when total length normally exceeds 400 mm (16 inches), they reach sexual maturity. The lake environment provides the necessary attributes of food, space, and shelter for the subadult fish to prepare for the rigors of migratory passage upstream to the natal spawning area, a migration that may last as long as six months and cover distances as much as 250 km (155 mi) upriver.

When adfluvial bull trout reach adulthood and complete the spawning migration, mating in the fall in the stream where they originated, they usually return downstream to the lake very rapidly. Adult adfluvial bull trout may live as long as 20 years and can complete multiple migrations between the lake and the spawning stream. In many populations, alternate year spawning is the normal pattern, and adult fish may require as much as 20 months in the lake or reservoir habitat to facilitate adequate energy storage and gamete development before they return to spawn again.

In comparison to streams, lake and reservoir environments are relatively more secure from catastrophic natural events. They provide a sanctuary for bull trout, allowing them to quickly rebound from temporary adverse conditions in the spawning and rearing habitat. For example, if a major wildfire burns a drainage and eliminates most or all aquatic life (a rare occurrence), bull trout subadults and adults that survive in the lake may return the following year to repopulate the system. In this way, lakes and reservoirs provide an important adaptive element of the adfluvial life history strategy.

The construction of reservoirs may have had adverse effects to bull trout, but some reservoirs also have provided unintended benefits. For example, the basin of Hungry Horse Reservoir has functioned adequately for fifty 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 also served an important, albeit unintended, function in restricting the proliferation of nonnative

Salvelinus

species (brook trout and lake trout) from downstream areas upstream above the dam.

In addition to considering various habitat features and other factors that relate to individuals and populations of bull trout in relatively localized areas, attention also is being given to broader scale considerations of the distribution and abundance of bull trout, based on applying the theories and principles of conservation biology and metapopulation dynamics (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Kanda 1998). Conservation biology is a scientific discipline that has emerged from a basis in several other sciences (

e.g.

, population genetics, demography, biogeography, and community ecology) and addresses applied problems in conservation, especially diversity, scarcity, and extinction (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). A metapopulation is an interacting network of local subpopulations, in which individual demographics units are connected through dispersal and migration with varying frequencies of gene flow among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994). Metapopulation models are used in conservation biology to describe the structure and dynamics of populations that occur in different locations across a landscape and to identify subpopulations, habitat patches, and links between habitat patches that are of crucial importance to maintaining the overall metapopulation. Under conditions where metapopulation dynamics are functioning, providing an appropriate amount and spatial distribution of habitat to support metapopulations can be crucial to reducing the risk of extinction of a species or population because even though local subpopulations may become extinct, they can be replaced (reestablished) by individuals from other local subpopulations or populations.

One of the key factors influencing the distribution and abundance of bull trout is the extent to which habitat patches in sufficient number and proximity provide for the natural reestablishment of local subpopulations. The rate at which reestablishment might occur is another key factor. Because bull trout exhibit strong homing fidelity when spawning and their rate of straying appears to be low, natural reestablishment of extinct local subpopulations may take a very long time even if habitat connectivity is retained.

Genetic diversity in bull trout is another issue of concern, and is related to the distribution and abundance of bull trout habitat and populations. Habitat alteration, primarily through construction of impoundments, dams, and water diversions, has substantially increased habitat fragmentation, eliminated migratory corridors, and isolated bull trout, often in the headwaters of tributaries (Rieman

et al.

1997). In their review of the status of bull trout populations in Oregon, Ratliff and Howell (1992) described various factors that have resulted in bull trout populations becoming largely fragmented and isolated in the upper reaches of drainages, with most of the remaining populations being the resident form of bull trout, rather than the migratory forms that would have used the lower stream reaches that now have been altered by various types of developments or by cumulative impacts from upstream areas. Ratliff and Howell specifically noted that habitat fragmentation and the resulting isolation of populations can exacerbate problems facing declining populations, including reduced genetic variability that can lead to inbreeding depression, further lowering productivity and increasing the risk of extinction. They described the loss of fluvial and adfluvial life histories as a major concern for bull trout conservation, noting that these larger fish have greater reproductive potential because of their increased fecundity and also are less likely to hybridize with the smaller brook trout that often co-occur in spawning areas.

Genetic diversity enhances long-term survival of a species by increasing the likelihood that the species is able to survive changing environmental conditions. For instance, a local

population of bull trout may contain individuals with genes that enhance their ability to survive in the prevailing local environmental conditions (Leary

et al.

1993; Spruell

et al.

1999; Hard 1995). Individuals with a different genetic complement may persist in the local population in much lower abundance than those with locally adapted genes. However, if environmental conditions change due to natural processes or human activities, the survival of individuals adapted to previous conditions may no longer be enhanced. Individuals with the alternative genetic complement may increase in relative abundance if their survival is enhanced in the altered environmental conditions. Moreover, considerable genetic diversity may be distributed among local populations so that changing environmental conditions could lead to extirpation of a local population of bull trout, but the area could be repopulated by individuals from another local population that possess genes whose survival is enhanced under the new conditions. If the overall genetic diversity distributed across local populations of bull trout is reduced by the loss of local populations, the ability of the species to respond to changing conditions is likewise reduced, leading to a higher likelihood of extinction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Leary

et al.

1993; Spruell

et al.

1999; Hard 1995; Rieman and Allendorf 2001).

Bull trout populations contain low levels of genetic variability within them compared to relatively high levels of divergence and variability exhibited among populations (Leary

et al.

1993; Leary and Allendorf 1997; Spruell

et al.

1999; Taylor

et al.

1999). For example, Leary

et al.

(1993) state that “* * * a relatively high amount (40%) of the total genetic variation within the Columbia River drainage is * * * due to genetic differences among samples. This is in striking contrast to the results * * * with rainbow trout and * * * with chinook salmon * * * where only 10% of the total genetic variation was due to genetic differences among populations sampled from a geographical area similar to that of our samples of bull trout.” This type of genetic structuring indicates limited gene flow among bull trout populations, which may encourage local adaption within individual populations (Spruell

et al.

1999; Healey and Prince 1995; Hard 1995; Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Current information on the distribution of genetic diversity within and among bull trout populations is based on molecular characteristics of individual genes. While such analyses are extremely useful, they are not likely to detect variability in adaptive traits that are dependent on both the genotype (molecular genetic characteristics) and phenotype (observable expression, which may be influenced by genotype, the environment, and interactions of both) of an organism (Hard 1995). We may not be able to directly detect or measure the relations among genetic diversity, phenotypes, and adaptive traits of a population. Although the loss of a few populations may have little effect on overall genetic diversity, without conserving suites of populations and their habitats (

i.e.

, core areas and, on a larger scale, recovery units), the loss of phenotypic diversity may be substantial, with negative consequences to the viability of the species (Healey and Prince 1995; Hard 1995; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Nelson

et al.

2002; MBTSG 1998; Taylor

et al.

1999). Therefore, the maintenance of phenotypic variability and plasticity for adaptive traits (

e.g.

, variability in body size and form, foraging efficiency, and timing of migrations, spawning, and maturation) is achieved by conserving populations, their habitats, and opportunities for the species to take advantage of habitat diversity (Healey and Prince 1995; Hard 1995).

Studies to understand the relations among genotypic, phenotypic, and environmental variability relative to bull trout have been conducted. For example, Spruell

et al.

(1999) found that bull trout at five different spawning sites within a tributary drainage of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, were differentiated based on genetic analyses (microsatellite DNA), indicating fidelity to spawning sites and relatively low rates of gene flow among sites. Genetic isolation of bull trout and environmental variability of tributary streams in the Lake Pend Oreille system implies that bull trout may be uniquely adapted within and among spawning tributaries in the system. Because bull trout in the coterminous United States are distributed over a wide geographic area consisting of various environmental conditions, and because they exhibit considerable genetic differentiation among populations, the occurrence of local adaptation is expected to be extensive. Some readily observable examples of differentiation between populations include external morphology and behavior (

e.g.

, size and coloration of individuals; timing of spawning and migratory forays). Thus, conserving many populations across the range of the species is crucial to adequately protect genetic and phenotypic diversity of bull trout (Hard 1995; Healey and Prince 1995; Taylor

et al.

1999; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spruell

et al.

1999; Leary

et al.

1993; Rieman and Allendorf 2001). Changes in habitats and prevailing environmental conditions are increasingly likely to result in extinction of bull trout if genetic and phenotypic diversity is lost.

Scientific evidence also supports the position that maintaining multiple bull trout populations distributed and interconnected throughout their current range will provide a mechanism for reducing the risk of extinction from stochastic events (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman and Allendorf 2001; Spruell

et al.

1999; Healey and Prince 1995; Hard 1995). Bull trout have a broad distribution and are relatively secure in some parts of their range. However, declines and local extinctions have occurred. Current patterns in the distribution and other empirical evidence, when interpreted in view of emerging conservation theory, indicate that further declines and local extinctions are likely (Rieman

et al.

1997; Spruell

et al.

2002; Rieman and Allendorf 2001; Dunham and Rieman 1999).

The range of the bull trout has decreased in comparison to the known and estimated historic range in the conterminous United States. Bull trout are now extinct in northern California. Elsewhere, populations have been much reduced, fragmented, or eliminated from the main stems of many large river systems.

Historical records for the Klamath River basin suggest that bull trout in this distinct population segment were once widely distributed and exhibited diverse life-history traits in that part of their range (Ziller 1992). Currently, however, bull trout in this basin are almost entirely nonmigratory, resident fish that are confined to headwater streams (Goetz 1989). There currently are nine naturally occurring, nonmigratory populations, and one remnant fluvial population, that still occur in the Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and Sycan Marsh watersheds in Oregon. They represent an estimated 21 percent of the estimated historic range of bull trout in the Klamath River basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). These known remaining local populations are considered to be quite low in abundance; they are highly isolated from one another as a result of natural and human-caused conditions and are at substantial risk of extirpation due to natural disturbance cycles, random events, and other risk factors (Light

et al.

1996).

The Columbia River population segment includes bull trout residing in

portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimated to have once occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin; they presently are known or predicted to occur in less than half (approximately 45 percent) of watersheds in the historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), which amounts to approximately 27 percent of the basin. The principal river systems and lakes/reservoirs in the Columbia River basin where bull trout currently are known to occur are as follows: The Willamette River system (in upper tributaries only), Lewis River, Klickitat River, Hood River, Deschutes River, Metolius River, Lake Billy Chinook, Odell Lake, John Day River, Sycan River, Sprague River, Umatilla River, Walla Walla River, Yakima River, Columbia River, Snake River, Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Clearwater River, Asotin Creek, Imnaha River, Salmon River, Little Lost River, Malheur River, Powder River, Payette River, Boise River, Weiser River, Wenatchee River, Entiat River, Methow River, Rimrock Lake, Spokane River, Pend Oreille River, Flathead River, Swan River, Clark Fork River, Kootenai River, Bitterroot River, Blackfoot River, Hungry Horse Reservoir, Swan Lake, and Flathead Lake (Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan (Draft Recovery Plan), USFWS 2002).

Although still relatively widely distributed in the Columbia River basin, bull trout occur in low numbers in many areas, and populations are considered depressed or declining across much of their range (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Schill 1992; Thomas 1992; Buchanan

et al.

1997; Rieman

et al.

1997, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Another evaluation of the distribution and status of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins indicates bull trout are present in about 36 percent of the subwatersheds in their potential range and are estimated to have strong populations in only 6 to 12 percent of the potential range, with most populations considered to be depressed in numbers (Rieman

et al.

1997).

The range of the bull trout is likely to have contracted and expanded over time in relation to natural climate changes; the distribution of the species probably was likely patchy even in pristine environments. However, regardless of uncertainty about the exact historical range, the number and size of historical populations, and the role of natural factors in the status of the species, there is widespread agreement in scientific literature that many factors related to human activities have impacted bull trout and continue to pose significant risks of further extirpations of local populations. Among the many factors that contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Columbia River and Klamath River basins, those which appear to be particularly significant are as follows: (1) Fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to the proliferation of dams and water diversions that have eliminated habitat, altered water flow and temperature regimes, and impeded migratory movements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Dunham and Rieman 1999); (2) degradation of spawning and rearing habitat in upper watershed areas, particularly alterations in sedimentation rates and water temperature, resulting from past forest and rangeland management practices and intensive development of roads (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1998); and (3) the introduction and spread of nonnative species, particularly brook trout (

Salvelinus fontinalis

) and lake trout (

Salvelinus namaycush

), which compete with bull trout for limited resources and, in the case of brook trout, hybridize with bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Leary

et al.

1993).

The ramifications and effects of isolation and habitat fragmentation on various aspects of the life cycle of bull trout are highlighted in much of the scientific literature on this species. Isolation of populations and habitat fragmentation resulting from barriers to migration have negatively impacted affected bull trout in several ways that have important implications for the conservation of the species. These include: (1) Reducing geographical distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, MBTSG 1998); (2) increasing the probability of losing individual local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Rieman

et al.

1995, MBTSG 1998, Dunham and Rieman 1999, Nelson

et al.

2002); (3) increasing the probability of hybridization with introduced brook trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993); (4) reducing the potential for movements that are necessary to meet developmental, foraging, and seasonal habitat requirements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, MBTSG 1998); and (5) reducing reproductive capability by eliminating the larger, more fecund migratory form of bull trout from many subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, MBTSG 1998).

Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through competition, hybridization, and possibly predation (Leary

et al.

1993). Brook trout appear to be better adapted to degraded habitat than bull trout, and brook trout are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout (Leary

et al.

1993; MBTSG 1998). Nonnative lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. A study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia found that lake trout reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes and concluded that lacustrine populations of bull trout usually cannot be maintained if lake trout are introduced (Donald and Alger 1993).

Previous Federal Action

On September 18, 1985, we published an animal Notice of Review in the

Federal Register

(50 FR 37958) designating the bull trout as a category 2 candidate for listing in the coterminous United States. Under the definitions we used at that time, category 2 taxa were those for which we had information indicating that proposing to list was possibly appropriate, but for which persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat were not currently available to support a proposed rule. We published updated Notices of Review on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), reconfirming the bull trout category 2 status. On November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), we elevated bull trout in the coterminous United States to a category 1 candidate for Federal listing. Category 1 taxa were those for which we had on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.

On June 13, 1997, we published in the

Federal Register

(62 FR 32268) a proposed rule to list the Klamath River population segment of bull trout as an endangered species, and the Columbia River population segment of bull trout as a threatened species. On June 10, 1998, we published a final rule in the

Federal Register

(63 FR 31647) determining the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments of bull trout to have threatened status under the Act. At the time of listing, we made the finding that critical habitat was not determinable for these populations because their habitat needs were not sufficiently well known (63 FR 31647). (For a further summary of previous Federal action, see 64 FR 58916.)

On January 26, 2001, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Oregon challenging our failure to designate critical habitat for bull trout. We entered into a settlement agreement on January 14, 2002, which stipulated that we would make critical habitat determinations for the five population segments of bull trout (Civil Case No: CV 01-127-JO). For the Klamath River and Columbia River populations, we agreed to submit for publication in the

Federal Register

a proposed rule for critical habitat designation by October 1, 2002, and a final rule by October 1, 2003. A subsequent agreement resulted in extending the date for the publication of the proposed rule to November 12, 2002.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” is defined by the Act as the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or a threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2) of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies shall, in consultation with us, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any agency action which is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. The term “destruction or adverse modification” is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.

Aside from the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act do not apply to activities on private or other non-Federal lands unless those activities involve a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation on such lands would not afford any additional protections under the Act.

Critical habitat also provides nonregulatory benefits to the species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are important for species recovery, and where conservation actions would be most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special management considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas where significant threats to the species have been identified, by helping people to avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.

In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must be “essential to the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known, and using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide at least one of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (primary consituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act specifies that except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical areas which can be occupied by the listed species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) also state that, “The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.”

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat designation if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, unless we determine, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based on what we know at the time of designation. We recognize that habitat is often dynamic, undergoing naturally-occurring changes that can alter its importance to, and use by, a listed species. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas that support newly discovered populations in the future, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, and to the section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or assisted 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, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat concurrently with listing a species. In our final listing rule (63 FR 31647), we concluded that the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout was not determinable at that time, explaining that the biological needs of bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments were not sufficiently well known to permit identification of areas as critical habitat. Further, the extent of habitat required and specific management measures needed for recovery of these fish had not been identified.

Shortly after the species was listed in 1998, we initiated development of a recovery plan for bull trout and convened 27 individual Recovery Unit Teams throughout five States to begin gathering information on the status and conservation needs of the species. These

teams were composed of experts from the fields of biology, other scientific disciplines such as hydrology and forestry, resource users, and other stakeholders with interest in and knowledge of bull trout and the habitats they depend on for survival. The recovery planning process in general, and the individual Recovery Unit Teams in particular, generated a considerable body of new information on the biological needs of bull trout, the extent of habitat required, and specific management needs. There also have been new scientific publications, and additional information has become available from various State and Federal agencies since the 1998 listing action. As a result, we now find that sufficient information exists to determine critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout population segments.

Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that the decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information should be the listing rule for the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinions.

Methods

As required by the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we used the best scientific data available to determine critical habitat, giving consideration to those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the bull trout. As described at 50 CFR 424.12(b), such requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and generally; (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

In proposing critical habitat, we reviewed the overall approaches to the conservation of the species undertaken by local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribal governments; and private individuals and organizations since the species was listed in 1998. We relied heavily on information developed by the bull trout Recovery Unit Teams, which were comprised of Federal, State, Tribal, and private biologists, as well as 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. We reviewed available information concerning bull trout habitat use and preferences, habitat conditions, threats, limiting factors, population demographics, and the known locations, distribution and abundances of bull trout.

During our evaluation of information, we also took into account the relatively low probability of detection of bull trout in traditional fish sampling and survey efforts, as well as the limited extent of such efforts across the range of bull trout. Because of their varied life history strategies, nocturnal habits, and low population densities in many areas, the detectability of bull trout in a given area is highly variable (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Furthermore, much of the current information on bull trout presence is the product of informal surveys or sampling conducted for other species or other purposes. The primary limitations of informal surveys are that they provide no estimate of certainty (

i.e.

, a measure of the probability of detection), and that they may be inadequate for determining parameters such as the densities and distribution of the population. (The need for a statistically sound bull trout survey protocol has been addressed only recently through the development, by the American Fisheries Society, of a peer-reviewed protocol for determining presence/absence, and potential habitat suitability for juvenile and resident bull trout (Peterson

et al.

2002).) Consequently, with some exceptions (

e.g.

, areas of Montana where bull trout surveys have been consistently conducted for a decade or more), a lack of bull trout detections does not provide definitive evidence of their absence in a particular stream, lake, or river. Accordingly, we used information gathered during the bull trout recovery planning process, as supplemented by even more recent information developed by State agencies, Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and other entities, in the development of our critical habitat designation proposal. Data concerning habitat conditions or status of primary constituent elements were used when available. To address areas where data gaps exist, we solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable fisheries biologists in the local area.

Important considerations in selecting areas for critical habitat designation include factors specific to each river system, such as size (

e.g.

, stream order), gradient, channel morphology, connectivity to other aquatic habitats, and habitat complexity and diversity, as well as range-wide recovery considerations. This effort was especially assisted by the recovery strategy described in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). We took into account that preferred habitat for bull trout ranges from small headwater streams that are used largely for spawning and rearing, to downstream, mainstem portions of river networks that are used for rearing, foraging, overwintering, and migration.

Our method included consideration of information regarding habitat essential to maintaining the migratory life history forms of bull trout, in light of the repeated emphasis about the importance of such habitat in the scientific literature (Rieman and McIntryre 1993; Hard 1995; Healey and Prince 1995; Rieman

et al.

1995; MBTSG 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Nelson

et al.

2002). As explained above (see the Background section), habitat for movement upstream and downstream is important for all life history forms for spawning, foraging, growth, access to rearing and overwintering areas, or thermal refugia (

e.g.

, spring-fed streams in late summer), avoidance of extreme environmental conditions, and other normal behavior. Successful migration requires biologically, physically, and chemically unobstructed routes for movement of individuals. Therefore, our method included considering information regarding habitat that is essential for movement into and out of larger rivers, because of the importance of such areas to the fluvial form of bull trout. We similarly identified habitat that is essential for movement between streams and lakes by adfluvial forms.

Migratory corridors also are important for movement between populations (

e.g.

Fraley and Sehapard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Rieman

et al.

1995, Dunham and Rieman 1999). Thus, in addition to considering areas important for migration within populations, our method also included considering information regarding migration corridors necessary to allow for genetic exchange between local populations. Corridors that provide for such

movements can support eventual recolonization of unoccupied areas or otherwise play a significant role in maintaining genetic diversity and metapopulation viability. (

See

Background section, above, for details.) Because these factors are important in identifying areas that are essential to the conservation of bull trout, our method included consideration of the various roles that migratory corridors have for bull trout.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we are required to base our proposal on the best scientific data available, and to consider those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These physical and biological features include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. All areas proposed as critical habitat for bull trout are within the historic geographic range of the species and contain one or more of these physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The regulations also require that we include a list of known primary constituent elements with the critical habitat description. As described in the regulations, the primary constituent elements may include, but are not limited to, features such as spawning sites, feeding sites, and water quality or quantity. Following is a brief summary of information we considered in our identification of primary constituent elements. Additional and more detailed information is available in the administrative record for the proposed rule.

We determined the primary constituent elements for bull trout from studies of their habitat requirements, life-history characteristics, and population biology, as outlined above. These primary constituent elements are:

(1) Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited;

(2) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °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;

(3) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures;

(4) 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 of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions;

(5) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations;

(6) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity;

(7) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows;

(8) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; and

(9) Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present.

The areas proposed as critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Basin DPSs of bull trout are designed to incorporate what is essential for their conservation. An area need not include all nine of the primary constitutent elements to qualify for designation as critical habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

The Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) identifies the specific recovery needs of the species and provides guidance for identifying areas that warrant critical habitat designation. As described below, this Draft Recovery Plan was used as the principal basis for identifying the critical habitat in this proposed designation. Use of the Draft Recovery Plan for this purpose raises significant issues about the scope and impact of this proposed designation. In particular, areas included in this proposal may not meet the statutory definition of critical habitat insofar as they may not be essential to the conservation of bull trout. We will re-evaluate the proposed rule based on public comment, peer review of the proposed rule and the Draft Recovery Plan, the economic analysis of the proposed rule and the public comments on that analysis, and other available information, to ensure that the designation accurately reflects habitat that is essential to the conservation of the species.

The draft recovery strategy focuses primarily on the maintenance (and, where needed, expansion) of existing local populations by: (1) Protecting sufficient amounts of spawning and rearing habitat in upper watershed areas; (2) providing suitable habitat conditions in downstream rivers and lakes to provide foraging and overwintering habitat for fluvial and adfluvial fish; and (3) sustaining (and in some cases reestablishing) movement corridors to maintain migratory routes and the potential for gene flow between local populations by maintaining habitat conditions that allow for fish passage.

Critical habitat units are patterned after recovery units identified in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) for the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments. Using the guidance from that plan, we identified habitat areas needed for the survival and recovery of bull trout. To be included as critical habitat, an area had to provide one or more of the following three functions: (1) Spawning, rearing, foraging, or overwintering habitat to support existing bull trout local populations; (2) movement corridors necessary for maintaining migratory life-history forms; and/or (3) suitable and historically occupied habitat that is essential for recovering existing local populations that have declined, or that is needed to reestablish local populations required for recovery.

Our proposal includes approximately 4,074 km (2,531 mi) of stream reaches and 12,176 ha (30,075 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area habitat determined to be essential to the conservation of the bull trout, but currently not known to be occupied. Although these specific areas are not known to be occupied, they are within the geographical area occupied by bull trout occupy. Areas with low levels of bull trout occupancy or where presence of the species is undetermined were included when they provided connectivity between areas of high-quality habitat, served as important migration corridors for fluvial or adfluvial fish, or were identified in the

Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) as necessary for local population expansion or reestablishment in order to achieve recovery, so that delisting can occur. Restoration of reproducing bull trout populations to additional portions of their historical range would significantly reduce the likelihood of extinction due to natural or human-caused factors that might otherwise further reduce population size and distribution. Thus, an integral component of the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) is the selective reestablishment of secure, self-sustaining populations in certain areas where the species has apparently, but not necessarily conclusively, been extirpated. In this regard, we also note that some habitat areas that would not be considered essential if they were geographically isolated are, in fact, essential to the conservation of the species when situated in locations where they facilitate movement between local populations or otherwise play a significant role in maintaining metapopulation viability (

e.g.

, by providing sources of immigrants to recolonize adjacent habitat patches following periodic extirpation events) (Dunham and Rieman 1999). In addition, populations on the periphery of the species' range, or in atypical environments, are important for maintaining the genetic diversity of the species and could prove essential to the ability of the species to adapt to rapidly changing climatic and environmental conditions (Leary

et al.

1993; Hard 1995).

A brief discussion of each area proposed for designation is provided in the critical habitat unit descriptions (below). Additional detailed documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is contained in our administrative record.

Proposed critical habitat for bull trout was delineated using multiple sources including: The StreamNet GIS (Geographic Information System) database for Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana; and State databases of bull trout distribution.

Managed Lands

As part of our process of developing this critical habitat proposal, we evaluated existing management plans to determine whether they provide sufficient protection and management for the bull trout and its habitat such that there is no need for additional special management considerations or protection of areas that otherwise would qualify as critical habitat. Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act defines critical habitat as areas on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection. Adequate special management or protection is provided by a legally operative plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement of essential habitat elements and that provides for the long-term conservation of the species. We consider a plan adequate when it: (1) Provides a conservation benefit to the species (

i.e.

, the plan must maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population, or the enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by the plan); (2) provides assurances that the management plan will be implemented (

i.e.

, those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the objectives, have an implementation schedule, and/or adequate funding for the management plan); and (3) provides assurances the conservation plan will be effective (

i.e.

, it identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the plan's goals and objectives). If an area provides physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and also is covered by a plan that meets these criteria, then such an area does not constitute critical habitat as defined by the Act because the primary constituent elements found there are not in need of special management.

Federal Public Lands (USFS and Bureau of Land Management)

Within the range of bull trout, the USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepare land management plans which generally guide activities on the National Forests and BLM Districts. These plans provide some level of conservation benefit to species and the habitat they are known to occupy. However, current management goals are not sufficient to address areas of unknown occupancy which are proposed as critical habitat because we believe they are essential to conservation of the species.

Federal land management agencies routinely engage in land exchanges with non-Federal entities. These exchanges are often advantageous to both parties by providing, for example, harvestable timber for a private timber company and a consolidation of land holdings that will contribute to efficient future management by the Federal agency. Such exchanges complicate potential critical habitat exclusions based on existing management plans.

USFS Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs), as amended by the Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Western Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH), are fluid documents that may change, or not change as anticipated, as management emphasis and direction changes. For example: (1) PACFISH and INFISH were considered interim for a period of 2 years when they were created in 1998, yet they still are in place in 2002; (2) three National Forests in Idaho are currently engaged in informal consultation with the Service on revisions to their LRMPs with the vision of dropping or modifying PACFISH/INFISH requirements. We are unsure at this point as to the degree of aquatic protections that will be provided under the new plans; and (3) the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other components of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) contain aspects which are not always fully agreed upon by Federal agencies charged with implementation of the plan. For this reason, as well as to incorporate new information, the NWFP is managed adaptively to respond to new information and, as such, we are unsure as to the specific details of future management direction. Further, LRMPs and RMPs (including the NWFP) are general and programmatic in nature. All of the Federal agencies understand that more specific consultation at the site-specific level is required to determine project effects and meet the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the current existence and substance of these Federal land management plans do not provide assurances of their future implementation, or that specific project implementation in the future will reflect a comparable level of conservation benefits to bull trout.

Because of these circumstances, we cannot, at this time, find that management on these lands under Federal jurisdiction is adequate to preclude a proposed designation of critical habitat. Therefore, we have included areas within these Federal jurisdictions as part of the critical habitat proposal, and are seeking further information, through the public comment process, as to whether these areas should be retained or excluded from designation in the final rule (see Public Comments Solicited section).

Congressionally Designated Wilderness

Wilderness areas exist because of a Congressional mandate that began with passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964. In partnership with the public, wilderness managers have a responsibility to preserve an enduring resource of wilderness, where natural processes are allowed to operate freely. Non-commercial hunting, fishing, and trapping are allowed in most Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service wilderness areas, but not those managed by the National Park Service. States are responsible for management of wildlife and fish, working together with the Federal agency land managers. Wildlife species may be introduced and fish species stocked in order to perpetuate or recover a threatened or endangered species, or to restore a native species that has been eliminated or reduced by human influence. Exotic species may not be stocked. Habitat may be manipulated only when it is necessary to correct conditions resulting from human influence or to protect threatened or endangered species. Research and management surveys are permitted if done in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness resource.

Where previously established, livestock grazing is permitted to continue in wilderness, subject to grazing and other resource management requirements. Permittees are required to maintain range improvements necessary to the livestock operation or the protection of the range, such as fences and watering facilities. The use of motorized equipment is permitted where it occurred prior to the establishment of wilderness. Range improvements such as fences and watering holes may be made, when necessary to protect wilderness values and manage the range resource. Prescribed burning, noxious weed control, seeding, irrigation, fertilization, and liming are allowed where each activity was practiced prior to wilderness designation, when absolutely necessary for the livestock grazing operation, and where there would be no serious adverse impacts on wilderness values. Horses and packstock used by commercial outfitters and guides and private individuals are grazed under permit. Feed must be packed in when forage is inadequate, and each wilderness may set regulations on tethering of horses, party size limits, and use of native feed and pellets. Wild horses and burros are considered part of the natural system, where established at the time of designation.

Effective January 1, 1984, the Wilderness Act withdrew minerals within lands designated as wilderness from appropriation under the mining and mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights. Holders of valid mineral leases retain the rights granted by the terms and conditions of the specific leases. Holders of valid mining claims are allowed to conduct operations necessary for the development, production, and processing of the mineral resource. Mechanized equipment, motorized access, and utility corridors may be used. However, these activities and the reclamation of all disturbed lands must minimize the impact on the surrounding wilderness character. Prior to designation as wilderness, mining claims may be made on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Mining operations may continue after designation, subject to strict regulation to protect wilderness characteristics.

Dams and water development structures in wilderness, other than those necessary for range and wildlife, can only be authorized by the President. However, existing reservoirs, ditches, water catchments, and related facilities for the control or use of water can be maintained or reconstructed if they meet a public need or are part of a valid existing right. Motorized equipment and mechanical transportation for maintenance of water development structure is not allowed unless practiced before the area was designated wilderness. Watershed restoration is permitted only where human activities have caused soil deterioration or other loss of wilderness values, where watershed conditions could cause unacceptable environmental impacts or threaten life or property outside the wilderness, and where natural revegetation is insufficient.

Although wilderness areas generally provide for management complementary with the conservation needs of bull trout, the provisions for mining, water development, and grazing relative to pre-existing claims and usage, and their effects on future site-specific actions that may occur, is not well understood. Because of this uncertainty, we cannot, at this time, determine the effectiveness of wilderness management on bull trout. Therefore, we have included areas within wilderness as part of the critical habitat proposal. We are seeking further information, through the public comment process, as to whether these areas should be retained or excluded from designation in the final rule (see Public Comments Solicited section).

Lands Covered Under Existing Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Service to issue to non-Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that results in the incidental taking of a listed species (

i.e.

, take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity). The Act specifies that an application for an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a conservation plan, and specifies the content of such a plan. The purpose of such a habitat conservation plan, or HCP, is to describe and ensure that the effects of the permitted action on covered species are adequately minimized and mitigated and that the action does not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species.

Within the area covered by Klamath River DPS, there are no HCPs involving bull trout. Within the range of the Columbia River population segment of bull trout, the Service has approved HCPs involving the Plum Creek Timber Company and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The Plum Creek Native Fish, Plum Creek I-90, and the WDNR HCPs have been developed, in part, to provide for the conservation needs of bull trout while also allowing for otherwise lawful timber management activities. The duration of the permits associated with the Plum Creek and WDNR HCPs ranges from 30 to 100 years. The permittees have the option, however, of terminating at any time if they so choose, with a sixty-day notice to the Service. Moreover, the permittees may retain their permits but sell some of their lands covered by an HCP. All of these HCPs contain provisions that allow buyers of lands covered by the HCP to assume the permit if they so desire.

The Plum Creek I-90 HCP includes provisions that: (1) Generally allow for the sale or exchange of lands with the U.S. Forest Service, with some specific limitations relative to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan; (2) allow for the sale of any lands provided appropriate covenants or assurances are given by the acquiring party that such lands will be managed consistent with the goals and objectives of the HCP; and (3) allow for the sale of parcels not in excess of 640 acres to any private party as long as the cumulative total of all such transactions does not exceed 5

percent of the acreage covered by the permit and the cumulative total of all such transactions in any one township does not exceed 1,920 acres. The Plum Creek Native Fish HCP applies a proportionality ratio to land dispositions relative to three categories of dispositions: Positive, neutral, and negative in terms of conservation benefits to covered species. Plum Creek has committed to manage its land dispositions so that the cumulative total of dispositions stays within a predetermined range of proportionality. If, at the end of the term of the HCP, the proportionality balance is below the predetermined range limits, positive land disposition commitments must be applied to sufficient acreage within the project area to restore the balance.

The WDNR lands are maintained primarily for the purpose of growing and selling timber to finance State government, and the management of these lands also can include purchases, sales, and land exchanges. The WDNR HCP does not include incentives for placing conservation easements on some of the land that WDNR sells. The HCP allows WDNR to dispose of Permit lands at its sole discretion. However, if the cumulative impact of disposed lands would have a significant adverse effect on the covered species, the parties to the HCP are required to mutually amend the HCP to provide replacement mitigation.

We evaluated lands covered by these existing Habitat Conservation Plans to determine whether they are (1) occupied and essential to the conservation of the species; (2) in need of additional special management considerations; and (3) currently not known to be occupied but essential to the conservation of the species. We evaluated each HCP to determine whether it: (1) Provides a conservation benefit to the species; (2) provides assurances that the management plan will be implemented; and (3) provides assurances the plan will be effective. Approved and permitted HCPs are designed to ensure the long-term survival of covered species within the plan area. Where we have an approved HCP, the areas we ordinarily would designate as critical habitat for the covered species will normally be protected through the terms of the HCPs and their implementation agreements. These HCPs and implementation agreements include management measures and protections that are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat for covered species.

The issuance of a permit (under Section 10(a) of the Act) in association with an HCP application is subject to consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act. While these consultations on permit issuance have not specifically addressed the issue of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for bull trout, they have addressed the very similar concept of jeopardy to bull trout in the plan area. Since these large regional HCPs address land use within the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the plan boundaries have been thoroughly addressed in the HCP and the consultation on the permit associated with the HCP. Our experience is that, under most circumstances, consultations under the jeopardy standard will reach the same result as consultations under the adverse modification standard. Common to both approaches is an appreciable detrimental effect on both survival and recovery of a listed species, in the case of critical habitat by reducing the value of the habitat so designated. Thus, actions satisfying the standard for adverse modification are nearly always found to also jeopardize the species concerned, and the existence of a critical habitat designation does not materially affect the outcome of consultation. Therefore, additional measures to protect the habitat from adverse modification are not likely to be required.

The Plum Creek I-90 and WDNR HCPs occur mostly in Western Washington, with minimal overlap (

i.e.

, lands adjacent to less than 50 stream miles for each Plan) with proposed critical habitat for the Columbia River DPS. The Plum Creek Native Fish HCP covers approximately 1.6 million acres, all within the range of the Columbia River DPS. Lands within this HCP occur adjacent to less than approximately 500 miles of streams reaches that we identified as proposed critical habitat.

We have reviewed the three HCPs within the Columbia River basin DPS of bull trout and we have determined that they do not require additional special management considerations to conserve bull trout. Therefore, these areas covered by an existing, legally operative incidental take permit issued for bull trout under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act are, by definition under Section 3(5)(A) of the Act, not included in this proposed designation of critical habitat.

As noted above, lands within these HCPs are subject to disposal (

e.g.

, through sale or exchange), subject to various sideboards included in each HCP. Proposed critical habitat does not include non-Federal lands covered by an incidental take permit for bull trout issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act for these HCPs as long as such permit, or a conservation easement providing comparable conservation benefits, remains legally operative on such lands.

We also considered exclusion of HCPs under subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act, which allows us to exclude areas from critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that in most instances, the benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat designations will outweigh the benefits of including them. We believe this is the case in relation to the three HCPs that address bull trout within the Columbia River DPS.

The benefits of including HCP lands in critical habitat are normally small. The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that activities in such habitat that may affect it require consultation under section 7 of the Act if such actions involve a Federal nexus (

i.e.

, an action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency). Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. Where HCPs are in place, our experience indicates that this benefit is small or non-existent.

Further, HCPs typically provide for greater conservation benefits to a covered species than section 7 consultations because HCPs assure the long term protection and management of a covered species and its habitat. Such assurances are typically not provided by section 7 consultations which, in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit the project proponent to long term special management or protections.

The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important conservation benefits, including the development of biological information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species recovery and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species while allowing for commercial activity. The educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for the long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially the same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public participation that occurs in the development of many regional HCPs. For these reasons, then, we believe that designation of critical habitat normally has little benefit in areas covered by HCPs.

The benefits of excluding HCPs from being designated as critical habitat include relieving landowners, communities and counties of any

additional regulatory review that result from such a designation. Many HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon completion, become regional conservation plans that are consistent with the recovery of covered species. Imposing an additional regulatory review after HCP completion may jeopardize conservation efforts and partnerships in many areas and could be viewed as a disincentive to those developing HCPs.

A related benefit of excluding HCP areas is that it would encourage the continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including States, local governments, conservation organizations, and private landowners, that together can implement conservation actions we would be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs from critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships and, we believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in the future.

In general, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation to be small in areas covered by approved HCPs. We also believe that the benefits of excluding HCPs from designation are significant. Weighing the small benefits of inclusion against the benefits of exclusion, including the benefits of relieving property owners of an additional layer of approvals and regulation, together with the encouragement of conservation partnerships, would generally result in HCPs being excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Tribal Lands

Please see the section “Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes” for a discussion of proposed critical habitat in relation to Tribal lands.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

Within the geographical areas presently known to be occupied by the Klamath River and Columbia River Basin DPSs, we are proposing for designation only areas currently known to be essential to the conservation of bull trout. These areas already contain features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We are only proposing designation of areas that currently have one or more of the primary constituent elements that provide essential life-cycle requisites of the species, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b). Moreover, certain areas with known occurrences of bull trout have not been proposed for designation as critical habitat. We did not propose critical habitat for some small scattered occurrences or habitats that are in highly fragmented areas or no longer have hydrologic conditions that are sufficient to maintain bull trout habitat, as we do not believe, based on the best available scientific information, that these areas are essential to the conservation of the species.

The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of the stream reaches, lakes, and reservoirs that are essential to the conservation of the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout population segments. We are proposing designation of approximately 476 km (296 mi) of streams and 13,735 ha (33,939 ac) of lakes for the Klamath River DPS, and 29,251 km (18,175 mi) of streams and 201,850 ha (498,782 ac) of lakes and reservoirs for the Columbia River DPS. Our proposal includes approximately 4,074 km (2,531 mi) of stream reaches and 12,176 ha (30,075 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area habitat determined to be essential to the conservation of the bull trout, but that are not currently known to be occupied.

The lateral extent of critical habitat, for each proposed stream reach, is the width of the stream channel as defined by its bankfull elevation. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain (Rosgen 1996) and is reached at a discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series (Leopold

et al.

1992). Critical habitat extends from the bankfull elevation on one side of the stream channel to the bankfull elevation on the opposite side. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the ordinary high-water line as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 33 CFR 329.11 shall be used to determine the lateral extent of critical habitat. Adjacent floodplains are not proposed as critical habitat. However, it should be recognized that the quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically related to the character of the floodplains and associated riparian zones, and human activities that occur outside the river channels can have demonstrable effects on physical and biological features of the aquatic environment. The lateral extent of proposed lakes and reservoirs is defined by the perimeter of the water body as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale maps (comparable to the scale of a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle topographic map).

The approximate amount of proposed critical habitat in the Klamath River Basin DPS, by State and adjacent landownership, is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.—Approximate Linear Quantity of Proposed Critical Habitat (in Stream Kilometers (km) and Miles (mi)) and Surface Area of Lakes (in Hectares (ha) and Acres(ac)), and Adjacent Landownership Percentages for the Klamath River DPS

State

Streams (km)

Lakes (ha)

Federal (percent)

Tribal

Local/state

Private (percent)

OR

476 km (296 mi)

13,735 ha (33,939 ac)

55

n/a

n/a

45

The approximate amount of proposed critical habitat in the Columbia River Basin DPS, by State and adjacent landownership, is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.—Approximate Linear Quantity of Proposed Critical Habitat (in Stream Klometers (km) and Miles (mi)) and Surface Area of Lakes and Reservoirs (in Hectares (ha) and Acres(ac)) by State, and Adjacent Landownership Percentages for the Columbia River DPS

State

Streams (km)

Lakes and reservoirs (ha)

Federal (percent)

Tribal (percent)

Local/State (percent)

Private (percent)

ID

14,416 km (8,958 mi)

83,219 ha (205,639 ac)

82

1

5

12

MT

5,341 km (3,319 mi)

88,051 ha (217,577 ac)

60

1

5

34

OR

5,460 km (3,391 mi)

18,077 ha (44,670 ac)

49

4

1

46

WA

4,034 km (2,507 mi)

12,503 ha (30,896 ac)

39

3

4

54

Total

29,251 km (18,175 mi)

201,850 ha (498,782 ac)

58

2

4

36

Critical habitat includes bull trout habitat across the species' range in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Lands adjacent to proposed critical habitat are under private, State, Tribal, and Federal ownership, with Federal lands including lands managed by the USFS and BLM. Twenty-five critical habitat units have been delineated. The areas we are proposing as critical habitat, described below, constitute our best assessment of areas essential to the conservation of the Klamath and Columbia River distinct population segments of bull trout.

We are proposing critical habitat in 25 units that correspond to recovery units identified in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). Proposed critical habitat for the Klamath River DPS is entirely within Unit 1. Proposed critical habitat for the Columbia River DPS is in Units 2 though 25. Brief descriptions of each unit and the critical habitat subunits (CHSUs) within them, and the specific areas proposed for designation as critical habitat, are presented below. For ease of reference, the paragraph designations in parentheses at the beginning of each unit correspond with paragraph designations in the amendatory language at the end of this rule, which provide the legal descriptions (latitude and longitude coordinates) for each area proposed for designation (see Proposed Regulation Promulgation section).

The streams, lakes and reservoirs indicated below are generally described from the bottom to the top of a watershed within a proposed critical habitat unit or subunit. For example, river or stream “A” would be described from its mouth up to the first major tributary (stream “B”) that is also being proposed as critical habitat. At that point, tributary stream “B” and any of its associated tributaries that are also being proposed would be described, again from the mouth of stream “B” upstream to either the next tributary being proposed or to the limit of proposed critical habitat within stream “B”. Once this description is complete, the text again reverts to river/stream A and continues upstream, either to the next tributary being proposed (

e.g.

stream C) or to the upstream limit of proposed critical habitat in Stream A. This provides a “roadmap” that enables the reader to appreciate the extent of the proposal in a particular watershed or stream system, as well as to have the ability to work their way up from a landmark more likely to be familiar (

e.g.

, the mouth of the Tucannon River at its confluence with the Snake River) to locate a particular, generally more obscure tributary in the upper watershed. Together with the maps included with this proposed rule, readers should be able to easily locate where a stream of interest that is being proposed as bull trout critical habitat occurs on the landscape.

The legal descriptions provided in the regulatory portion of this proposed rule (see Proposed Regulation Promulgation) correspond to the critical habitat units and subunits described below. However, the legal descriptions of individual streams and lakes/reservoirs within each subunit paragraph are arranged in alphabetical order by stream or lake/reservoir name within a paragraph, whereas the descriptions within a paragraph in this preamble section are arranged as if one was working their way up from the bottom to the top of a watershed within a proposed stream network.

(5) Unit 1: Klamath River Basin

The Klamath River Basin is located in south-central Oregon and includes three critical habitat subunits: (1) Upper Klamath Lake CHSU in Klamath County; (2) Sycan Marsh CHSU in Klamath County; and (3) Upper Sprague River CHSU in Klamath and Lake counties. Total proposed critical habitat includes 475 km (295 mi) of streams representing 9.4 percent of the total stream lengths in the unit. Proposed critical habitat includes: 224.6 km (139.6 mi) of stream in 13 reaches, and 3,775 ha (9,327 ac) of lake in the Upper Klamath CHSU; 103.8 km (64.5 mi) of stream in 6 reaches, and 9,965 ha (24,625 ac) of marsh in the Sycan Marsh CHSU; and 146 km (91 mi) of stream in 10 reaches in the Upper Sprague CHSU.

(i) Upper Klamath Lake CHSU

Encompassing 170,289 ha (420,792 ac), the Upper Klamath Lake CHSU comprises of Upper Klamath Lake, Agency Lake, and their immediate major and minor tributaries. Landownership comprises: 84 percent Federal lands; 6 percent State or local government land; and 10 percent privately owned lands.

The Upper Klamath Lake CHSU currently supports three local populations of bull trout, with two considered essential to the conservation of the species—Threemile Creek and Sun Creek (USFWS 2002). The third population, Lost Creek in Crater Lake National Park, was established with transplanted fish to provide temporary refuge during restoration actions in the Park. To fully achieve recovery of bull trout in the Klamath Basin, the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) requires five to seven local populations in the Upper Klamath Lake CHSU. The following stream segments are included in this critical habitat unit:

(A) Upper Klamath Lake Corridor, comprised of the streams and canals between Agency Straight at the north end of Upper Klamath Lake west to the Westside Road, north to the lower end of the Sevenmile Creek canyon, southeast along Sevenmile Creek and Sevenmile Canal to Agency Lake; and the circumference and body of Agency Lake. This includes the Sevenmile Canal from its confluence with Agency Lake upstream to its confluence with the West Canal and Sevenmile Creek (11.6 km (7.2 mi)); 11.7 km (7.3 mi) of Sevenmile Creek from its confluence with Sevenmile Canal and West Canal upstream to the beginning of the Sevenmile Creek canyon above the beaver ponds; the West Canal from its confluence with Agency Lake to its confluence with Sevenmile Canal (15.0 km (9.3 mi)); Crane Creek from its confluence with Fourmile Creek to its source springs at river kilometer (rkm) 6.1 (river mile (rmi) 3.8); Fourmile Creek from its confluence with the West

Canal to source springs at rkm 4.3 (rmi 2.7); Fourmile Slough from its confluence with the West Canal to its head near Crystal Springs at (3.5 km (2.2 mi)); Crystal Creek from its confluence with Upper Klamath Lake to its source springs at rkm 5.0 (rmi 3.1); Recreation Creek from its confluence with Upper Klamath Lake to its confluence with Crystal Creek at rkm 3.7 (rmi 2.3); and the entire 3,775 ha (9,327 ac) Agency Lake. These areas are essential to restoring migratory forms of bull trout in the Upper Klamath Lake core area and reestablishing connectivity among populations of bull trout in Rock, Cherry, Threemile, and Sevenmile Creeks on the west side of the upper Klamath Basin, and populations of bull trout in the Wood River drainage and Crater Lake National Park.

(B) Rock Creek from the lower limit of permanent water at Penn Creek upstream to its origin at Heavenly Twin Lake (9.2 km (5.7 mi)); and Cherry Creek from its confluence with Fourmile Creek to the upper limit of perennial water (15.5 km (9.6 mi)). This area, which is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts under the Draft Recovery Plan, is a key watershed for reintroduction of a bull trout population that is essential to the conservation of the species (USFWS 2002).

(C) Threemile Creek from its confluence with Crane Creek to the upper limit of permanent water (6.9 km (4.3 mi)). This spawning and rearing habitat supports an essential local population and is a source for bull trout colonization of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(D) The entire 30.3 km (20.7 mi) length of the Wood River; 12.0 km (7.5 mi) of rooked Creek from its confluence with Agency Lake to its source at rkm 14.5 (rmi 9.0); 5.0 km (3.1 mi) of Fort Creek from its confluence with Wood River upstream to the upper limit of permanent water; Annie Creek from its confluence with Wood River upstream 24.5 km (15.2 mi); and Middle Fork of Annie Creek from its confluence with the mainstem Annie Creek to the headwater springs (6.1 km (3.8 mi)). These are areas of spawning and rearing, and foraging, migratory and overwintering habitat. These areas supported bull trout historically (Buchanan 1997).

(E) Sun Creek from its confluence with Annie Creek at rkm 2.0 (rmi 1.2) to the upper limit of bull trout distribution in Sun Meadow at rkm 21.5 (rmi 13.4) (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Bokenica 1997). This spawning and rearing habitat supports an essential local population and is a source for bull trout colonization of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(ii) Sycan Marsh CHSU

Encompassing 81,818 ha (202,175 ac), the Sycan Marsh CHSU comprises the Sycan Marsh, its tributaries, and the Sycan River and its tributaries. Landownership comprises: 56 percent Federal lands and 44 percent privately owned lands.

The Sycan Marsh CHSU currently supports two local populations of bull trout considered essential to the conservation of the species—Long Creek and Coyote Creek (USFWS 2002). To achieve recovery of bull trout in the Klamath Basin, the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) requires five to seven local populations in the Sycan Marsh CHSU.

(A) Sycan Marsh and Sycan River includes over 23,944 ha (59,166 ac) of the Sycan Marsh, and 31.0 km (19.3 mi) of the Sycan River from its confluence with the Sycan Marsh to the confluence with Rock Creek at rkm 103.2 (rmi 64.1). Portions of this area are currently occupied and other parts were historically inhabited by bull trout. This area is essential for reestablishing migratory forms of bull trout in the Sycan Marsh core area and reestablishing connectivity among populations in Long Creek, Coyote Creek, Rifle Creek, and Boulder Creek. The Sycan River from the confluence with Rock Creek at rkm 103.2 (rmi 64.1) upstream to its origins (11.7 km (7.3 mi)) supported bull trout historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996), and is the focus of efforts to establish additional spawning populations of bull trout that are essential to the conservation of the species.

(B) Long Creek from the confluence with Sycan Marsh upstream to its source at rkm 19.6 (rmi 12.2); and 11.3 km (7.0 mi) of spawning and rearing habitat in Calahan Creek from its confluence with Long Creek at rkm 7.7 (rmi 4.8) to its source at Blue Buck Springs. This area is currently occupied by bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996). This area is essential for maintaining one of the strongest bull trout populations remaining in the Klamath Basin. The area is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts as described in the Draft Recovery Plan, and as a relative “stronghold,” this area is a potential source of bull trout for colonization that is essential to restoring populations of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(C) Coyote Creek from the confluence with the Sycan Marsh 2.4 km (1.5 mi) below the crossing of USFS Road 27 upstream to the upper limit of permanent water at rkm 11.2 (rmi 7.0). The area supports one of only 10 extant populations of bull trout in the Klamath Basin and one of only two in this CHSU. It is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts to achieve recovery for this species (USFWS 2002) and is essential to the conservation of the species.

(D) Rifle Creek from the confluence with the Sycan River at rkm 97.7 (rmi 60.7) upstream 4.0 km (2.5 mi) to its origins; the entire length of Boulder Creek from its confluence with the Sycan River at rkm 109.8 (rmi 68.2) upstream 2.5 km (1.5 mi); and South Fork Sycan River from its confluence with the Sycan River at rkm 108.8 (rmi 67.6) upstream 6.1 km (3.8 mi) to its origins. These areas supported bull trout historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996), and are the focus of efforts to establish additional spawning populations of bull trout that are essential to the conservation of the species.

(iii) Upper Sprague River CHSU

Encompassing 83,810 ha (207,099 ac), the Upper Sprague River CHSU comprises the drainages of the North and South Forks of the Sprague River and their tributaries. Landownership comprises: 56 percent Federal lands and 44 percent privately owned lands.

The Upper Sprague River CHSU currently supports five local populations of bull trout considered essential to the conservation of the species: Boulder/Dixon Creek; Sheepy Creek; Deming Creek; Brownsworth Creek; and Leonard Creek. A remnant fluvial population exists in the North Fork of the Sprague River (USFWS 2002). To fully achieve recovery of bull trout in the Klamath Basin, the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) calls for a total of 7 to 10 local populations in the Upper Sprague River CHSU.

(A) North Fork Sprague River from “the Elbow” 3.7 km (2.3 mi) below the confluence of Yaden Creek at rkm 18.0 (rmi 11.2) upstream to the confluence of Blue Lake Creek (31.6 km (19.6 mi)); Boulder Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Sprague River at rkm 24.1 (rmi 15.0) upstream 7.7 km (4.8 mi); Dixon Creek from its confluence with Boulder Creek at rkm 1.2 (rmi 0.7) upstream to its origin (2.2 km (1.4 mi)); and an unnamed tributary to Dixon Creek from the confluence upstream 1.2 km (0.8 mi) to its origin. Bull trout currently occupy the tributaries and at least one mainstem reach of the river (Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (OCAFS) 1993, Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996, J.

auner, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), pers. Comm., 1999; R. Smith, ODFW, pers. Comm. 2001). The area supports one of only 10 extant populations of bull trout in the Klamath Basin and one of only five populations in this CHSU, all of which are essential to the conservation of the species. The area is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts as described in the Draft Recovery Plan, and as a relative “stronghold,” this area is a potential source of bull trout for colonization that is essential to restoring populations of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(B) Sheepy Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Sprague at rkm 26.8 (rmi 16.6) to its source springs (5.3 km (3.3 mi)). The area supports one of only 10 extant populations of bull trout in the Klamath Basin and one of only five populations in this CHSU, all of which are essential to the conservation of the species. The area is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts as described in the Draft Recovery Plan, and as a relative “stronghold,” this area is a potential source of bull trout for colonization that is essential to restoring populations of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(C) Gearhart Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Sprague at rkm 32.6 (rmi 20.2) upstream to Gearhart Marsh (9.0 km (5.6 mi)) (above Gearhart Marsh flows become intermittent; Hole Creek from its confluence with Gearhart Creek at rkm 1.9 (rmi 1.2) upstream to the upper limit of permanent water (3.3 km (2.0 mi)); Nottin Creek from its confluence with Gearhart Creek at rkm 1.7 (rmi 1.1) upstream to the upper limit of permanent water 5.3 km (3.3 m); and School Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Sprague River at rkm 43.4 (rmi 27.0) to its origins (7.0 km (4.3 mi)). This area is the focus of efforts to reestablish additional spawning populations of bull trout essential to the conservation of the species, as described in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002).

(D) Dead Cow Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Sprague River at rkm 46.9 (rmi 29.1) upstream 6.6 km (4.1 mi); and Gold Creek from its confluence with Dead Cow Creek at rkm 1.5 (rmi 0.9) upstream 2.9 km (1.8 mi). The Dead Cow drainage (Dead Cow and Gold creeks) supported bull trout historically. This area is the focus of efforts to reestablish additional spawning populations of bull trout essential to the conservation of the species, as described in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002).

(E) The entire length of Deming Creek from its confluence with Anderson Field to its headwaters at rkm 7.8 (rmi 4.8). Deming Creek is currently inhabited by bull trout and is the largest remaining local population in the Klamath Basin (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996). The area supports the largest of only 10 populations of bull trout in the Klamath Basin and the largest of only five populations in this CHSU, all of which are essential to the conservation of the species. The area is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts as described in the Draft Recovery Plan, and as a relative “stronghold,” this area is a potential source of bull trout for colonization that is essential to restoring populations of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(F) Lower South Fork Sprague River from the confluence of Brownsworth Creek at rkm 23.0 (rmi 14.3) upstream 21.7 km (13.5 mi) to the confluence of Camp Creek; Camp Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Sprague River at rkm 44.7 (rmi 27.8) to its origin (5.0 km (3.1 mi)); Corral Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Sprague River at rkm 46.3 (rmi 28.8) to its origin (4.5 km (2.8 mi)); Upper South Fork Sprague River from the confluence with Camp Creek at rkm 44.7 (rmi 27.8) upstream to its source at rkm 50.3 (rmi 31.2) (5.6 km (3.5 mi)); and the entire length of Brownsworth Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Sprague River upstream 13.3 km (8.8 mi) to the upper limit of permanent water. These areas are currently occupied by an essential local population (OCASF 1993; Light

et al.

1996; Buchanan

et al.

1997; USFWS 2002). This area is the focus of efforts to reestablish additional spawning populations of bull trout essential to the conservation of the species, as described in the Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002).

(G) Leonard Creek from its confluence with Brownsworth Creek at rkm 7.0 (rmi 4.3) upstream to its source. Leonard Creek is currently inhabited by bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Light

et al.

1996). The area supports one of only 10 extant populations of bull trout in the Klamath Basin and one of only five populations in this CHSU, all of which are essential to the conservation of the species. The area is the focus of restoration and reestablishment efforts as described in the Draft Recovery Plan, and as a relative “stronghold,” this area is a potential source of bull trout for colonization that is essential to restoring populations of other watersheds (USFWS 2002).

(6) Unit 2: Clark Fork River Basin

The Clark Fork River Basin unit includes 12 CHSUs, organized primarily on the basis of major watersheds. It includes most of western Montana and the panhandle portion of northern Idaho. The summary of landownership and extent of proposed critical habitat are presented with each CHSU description.

(i) Lake Pend Oreille CHSU

The Lake Pend Oreille CHSU incorporates all waters in the Clark Fork River drainage downstream from Cabinet Gorge Dam (near the Montana/Idaho border), including all direct tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille, the lower portion of the Priest River drainage (downstream from Priest Lake Dam), and the Pend Oreille River (the impounded downstream arm of Lake Pend Oreille) downstream to the crest of Albeni Falls Dam. The CHSU is almost entirely within the State of Idaho in Boundary, Bonner, and Kootenai counties. A total of 286 km (178 mi) of 27 streams and the 38,304 ha (94,650 ac) surface area of Lake Pend Oreille are proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout. Landownership along the streams is approximately 36 percent Federal, 14 percent State, and 50 percent private. Lakeshore ownership has not been quantified, but approximately half of it is private with the other half mostly on Federal (National Forest) lands. Bull trout local populations in this CHSU include Lower Priest River, Pack River, Grouse Creek, Trestle Creek, Gold Creek, North Gold Creek, Granite Creek, Johnson Creek, Lightning Creek Complex, Twin Creek, and Clark Fork River, all of which are considered essential for recovery of the species (USFWS 2002).

(A) Lake Pend Oreille totals about 38,304 ha (94,650 ac). The best available scientific information indicates that most bull trout in the Lake Pend Oreille CHSU are migratory and adfluvial, using the lake for a portion of their life cycle (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team (PBTTAT) 1998a).

(B) The lower Priest River from its confluence with the Pend Oreille River (the impounded downstream arm of Lake Pend Oreille) upstream 34.4 km (21.4 mi) to the confluence with the East River provides foraging, migratory, and overwintering (FMO) habitat connecting spawning areas with Lake Pend Oreille. The East River from its confluence with the Priest River upstream 4.0 km (2.5 mi), and the Middle Fork East River from its confluence with the East River upstream 15.5 km (9.6 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for primarily migratory forms of bull trout. Tarlac Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork East River upstream 5.3 km (3.3 mi) to the headwaters, and

Uleda Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork East River upstream 5.9 km (3.7 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout that are likely resident forms.

(C) The Pack River from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 64.1 km (39.8 mi) contains FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches for the Pack River local population of bull trout.

(D) Grouse Creek from its confluence with the Pack River upstream 26.7 km (16.6 mi) to the headwaters contains FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. North Fork Grouse Creek from its confluence with Grouse Creek upstream 14.8 km (9.2 mi) to the headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat.

(E) Trestle Creek from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 14.4 km (8.9 mi) provides the most productive spawning and rearing habitat in the Lake Pend Oreille CHSU.

(F) Gold Creek from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 2.7 km (1.7 mi), West Gold Creek from its confluence with Gold Creek upstream 2.3 km (1.4 mi), and North Gold Creek from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 2.0 km (1.3 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Gold Creek bull trout local population complex. Gold Creek is considered the second most important bull trout spawning stream in the Lake Pend Oreille critical habitat subunit (PBTTAT 1998a)

(G) Granite Creek from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 10.1 km (6.3 mi), Sullivan Springs from its confluence with Granite Creek upstream 2.1 km (1.3 mi), and Dry Gulch from its confluence with Granite Creek upstream 1.7 km (1.0 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Granite Creek population complex.

(H) Johnson Creek from its confluence with the south channel of the Clark Fork River delta at the confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 1.2 km (0.7 mi) provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Johnson Creek local population.

(I) The Clark Fork River from its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille upstream 14.6 km (9.1 mi) to Cabinet Gorge Dam provides FMO habitat between Lake Pend Oreille and upstream local populations in Lightning and Twin creeks.

(J) Lightning Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 29.5 km (18.3 mi) to a barrier falls provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches below the confluence with East Fork Creek, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches above this point. Morris Creek from its confluence with Lightning Creek upstream 3.3 km (2.1 mi), East Fork Creek from its confluence with Lightning Creek upstream 6.5 km (4.1 mi), Savage Creek from its confluence with East Fork Creek upstream 5.9 km (3.7 mi), Char Creek from its confluence with East Fork Creek upstream 3.4 km (2.1 mi), Porcupine Creek from its confluence with Lightning Creek upstream 3.0 km (1.9 mi), Wellington Creek from its confluence with Lightning Creek upstream 1.0 km (0.6 mi), and Rattle Creek from its confluence with Lightning Creek upstream 6.0 km (3.7 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Lightning Creek population complex (Lake Pend Oreille Watershed Advisory Group 1999).

(K) Dry Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 0.1 km (0.06 mi) to the confluence with Twin Creek provides a migratory connection between Clark Fork River and Twin Creek. Twin Creek from its confluence with Dry Creek upstream 3.9 km (2.4 mi) provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Twin Creek local population of bull trout.

(ii) Lower Clark Fork River CHSU

The Lower Clark Fork River CHSU includes the three mainstem Clark Fork River impoundments (Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids, and Thompson Falls reservoirs), the Clark Fork River between reservoirs and upstream to the confluence of the Flathead River, the lower Flathead River drainage downstream from Kerr Dam, and all tributaries to these waters. With the exception of the lower boundary at Cabinet Gorge Dam (in Bonner County, Idaho), nearly all the CHSU is located in the northwestern corner of Montana (Sanders, Lake, and Missoula counties).

Major portions of this CHSU, including the entire lower Flathead River drainage, are inside the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation, and fall under the jurisdiction of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). There are 13 local populations of bull trout in this CHSU: Rock Creek, Bull River, Prospect Creek, Graves Creek, Vermilion River, Fishtrap Creek, West Fork Thompson River, Post Creek, Mission Creek, Dry Creek, and Jocko River, all of which are essential to the conservation of the species.

A total of 503 km (312 mi) of 24 streams and 4,862 ha (12,014 ac) of lake surface area in five reservoirs (Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids, Mission, McDonald, and Tabor) is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams is approximately 31 percent Federal, 1 percent State, 13 percent CSKT Tribal, and 55 percent private. Landownership on the reservoir shoreline has not been determined, but its mostly private land along the two large reservoirs with less than 25 percent as National Forest. The three small reservoirs are completely surrounded by CSKT Tribal Lands.

(A) Cabinet Gorge Reservoir (Clark Fork River), 1,295 ha (3,200 ac) at full pool, provides FMO habitat for the Bull River and Rock Creek local populations of bull trout (Pratt and Huston 1993).

(B) The Bull River from its confluence with Cabinet Gorge Reservoir (Clark Fork River) upstream 14.3 km (8.9 mi) to the confluence with the South and East forks provides FMO habitat for upstream local populations. Copper Creek from its confluence with the Bull River upstream 7.4 km (4.6 mi) to the headwaters provides rearing habitat (MBTSG 1996a). The Bull River East Fork from its mouth upstream 12.8 km (8 mi) and the Bull River South Fork from its mouth upstream 29.8 km (18.6 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Bull River local population (MBTSG 1996a).

(C) Rock Creek from its confluence with Cabinet Gorge Reservoir (Clark Fork River) upstream 11.4 km (7.1 mi) to a natural barrier provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Rock Creek local population.

(D) Noxon Rapids Reservoir (Clark Fork River), 3,237 ha (8,000 ac) at full pool, provides FMO habitat for low abundance local populations in the reservoir tributaries (Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996a).

(E) The Vermilion River from its confluence with Noxon Rapids Reservoir (Clark Fork River) upstream 12.3 km (7.6 mi) to a natural barrier at Vermilion Falls provides important spawning and rearing habitat for the Vermilion River local population. Graves Creek from its confluence with Noxon Rapids Reservoir upstream 5.0 km (3.1 mi) to a natural barrier, Prospect Creek from its confluence with Noxon Rapids Reservoir upstream 12.3 km (7.6 mi), Crow Creek from its confluence with Prospect Creek upstream 2.0 km (1.2 mi), and Crow Creek East Fork from its confluence with Crow Creek upstream 5.5 km (3.4 mi) all provide spawning and rearing habitat as well (Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996a).

(F) The Clark Fork River upstream 93.3 km (58.0 mi) from the head of Noxon Rapids Reservoir to the confluence with the Flathead River provides FMO habitat for tributary

populations of bull trout (Pratt and Huston 1993).

(G) The Thompson River from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 32.3 km (20.0 mi) contains FMO habitat. West Fork Thompson River from its mouth upstream 8.0 km (5.0 mi) to the confluence of Lakes Creek; Fishtrap Creek from its confluence with the Thompson River upstream 17.0 km (10.5 mi) to the confluence with Fishtrap Creek West Fork, Beatrice Creek from its confluence with Fishtrap Creek upstream 8.5 km (5.3 mi) to its headwaters, and Fishtrap Creek West Fork from its mouth upstream 10.2 km (6.4 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat necessary for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002). Bull trout in the West Fork Thompson River are categorized as being among the strongest remaining populations in the Thompson River basin (MBTSG 1996d).

(H) The Flathead River from the confluence with the Clark Fork River (about 60 km (37 mi) upstream from Thompson Falls Dam) upstream to the confluence with Mission Creek is occupied by bull trout at low abundance levels (MBTSG 1996d), and provides FMO habitat necessary for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002), including maintaining populations and the migratory life history form essential to the long-term conservation of bull trout.

(I) The Jocko River from its confluence with the Flathead River upstream 47.0 km (29.2 mi) to the confluence with the North Fork Jocko River provides FMO habitat. The North Fork Jocko River from its mouth upstream 9.9 km (6.1 mi) to a natural barrier, the South Fork Jocko River from its mouth upstream 15.0 km (9.3 mi) to a natural barrier, and the Middle Fork Jocko River from its mouth upstream 14.2 km (8.8 mi) are occupied, and provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Jocko River local population. Together these areas provide habitat necessary for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002), including maintaining populations and the migratory life history form essential to the long-term conservation of bull trout.

(J) Mission Creek from its confluence with the Flathead River upstream 34.8 km (21.7 mi) to Mission Dam, Post Creek from its confluence with Mission Creek upstream 26.1 km (16.2 mi) to a manmade barrier at McDonald Lake, and Dry Creek from its confluence with Mission Creek upstream 14.2 km (8.8 mi) to a manmade barrier at Tabor Reservoir are occupied, at a minimum, by migratory bull trout from the reservoirs and lake (MBTSG 1996d), and provide FMO habitat necessary for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002), including maintaining populations and the migratory life history form essential to the conservation of bull trout. These creeks also provide occupied spawning and rearing habitat above the reservoirs and lake (MBTSG 1996d). Mission Creek spawning and rearing habitat extends upstream approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) above Mission Reservoir to a manmade barrier. Post Creek spawning and rearing habitat extends upstream approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) above McDonald Lake to a natural barrier. Dry Creek spawning and rearing habitat extends upstream approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above Tabor Reservoir to a natural barrier. McDonald Reservoir (approximately 101 ha (250 ac), when full), Mission Reservoir (approximately 117 ha (289 ac), when full), and Tabor Reservoir (St. Mary Lake) (approximately 111 ha (274 ac), when full) provide FMO habitat for the Post Creek, Mission Creek, and Dry Creek local populations, respectively (MBTSG 1996d).

(iii) Middle Clark Fork River CHSU

The Middle Clark Fork River CHSU includes the mainstem of the Clark Fork River in western Montana and all tributary watersheds, from the confluence of the Flathead River upstream to the base of Milltown Dam, except for the Bitterroot River drainage. A total of 622 km (386 mi) of 28 streams is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams is approximately 51 percent Federal, 3 percent State, and 46 percent private, all occurring in Mineral and Missoula counties, Montana.

(A) The Clark Fork River from the confluence with the Flathead River upstream approximately 192.1 km (119.4 mi) to Milltown Dam provides historically occupied FMO habitat that is still currently occupied, but at very low abundance levels (Pratt and Huston 1993;MBTSG 1996d). This reach is important to provide for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002), including the maintenance of existing populations and the migratory life history form essential to the conservation of bull trout.

(B) The St. Regis River from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 62.1 km (38.6 mi) to its headwaters provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches up to Twelvemile Creek, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. Little Joe Creek from its confluence with the St. Regis River upstream 4.0 km (2.5 mi) to its forks; South Fork Little Joe Creek from its mouth upstream 16.3 km (10.1 mi) to its headwaters; North Fork Little Joe Creek from its mouth upstream 17.2 km (10.7 mi) to its headwaters; Ward Creek from its confluence with the St. Regis River upstream 12.3 km (7.6 mi) to its headwaters; Twelvemile Creek from its confluence with the St. Regis River upstream 21.6 km (13.4 mi) to its headwaters; Deer Creek from its confluence with the St. Regis River upstream 6.6 km (4.1 mi); Big Creek from its confluence with the St. Regis River upstream 5.4 km (3.4 mi) to its forks; East Fork Big Creek from its mouth upstream 9.6 km (5.9 mi) to its headwaters; Middle Fork Big Creek from its mouth upstream 8.0 km (5.0 mi); and West Fork Big Creek from its mouth upstream 9.2 km (5.7 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the St Regis River local population complex of bull trout (MBTSG 1996d).

(C) Cedar Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 24.7 km (15.3 mi), Oregon Gulch from its confluence with Cedar Creek upstream 4.5 km (2.8 mi), and Lost Creek from its confluence with Oregon Gulch upstream 11.4 km (7.1 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Cedar Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1996d), as well as to provide for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002).

(D) Trout Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 23.6 km (14.7 mi) contains spawning and rearing habitat (MBTSG 1996d) for the Trout Creek local population.

(E) Fish Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 14.7 km (9.1 mi) to its forks provides FMO habitat to upstream bull trout. North Fork Fish Creek from its mouth upstream 16.1 km (10.0 mi); Straight Creek from its confluence with North Fork Fish Creek upstream 13.1 km (8.1 mi) to its headwaters; West Fork Fish Creek from its confluence with Fish Creek upstream 28.2 km (17.5 mi); Indian Creek from its confluence with West Fork Fish Creek upstream 2.1 km (1.3 mi); South Fork Fish Creek from its confluence with Fish Creek upstream 25.1 km (15.6 mi) to its headwaters; Surveyors Creek from its confluence with South Fork Fish Creek upstream 6.6 km (4.1 mi) to its headwaters; Cache Creek from its confluence with South Fork Fish Creek upstream 15.8 km (9.8 mi); Montana Creek from its confluence with Cache Creek upstream 9.2 km (5.7 mi) to its headwaters; and White Creek from its confluence with Cache Creek upstream 7.3 km (4.5 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Fish Creek local population complex (MBTSG 1996d).

(F) Petty Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 18.6 km (11.6 mi) provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Petty Creek local population (MBTSG 1996d).

(G) Rattlesnake Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 37.5 km (23.3 mi) to the headwaters provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches (up to Mountain Water Company Dam), and spawning and rearing habitat above that point (MBTSG 1996d).

(iv) Upper Clark Fork River CHSU

The Upper Clark Fork River CHSU includes the entire Clark Fork River in western Montana upstream from Milltown Dam (near Missoula), with the exception of the Blackfoot River, Clearwater River, and Rock Creek drainages. A total of 484 km (301 mi) of 13 streams is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU in Missoula, Granite, Powell, and Deer Lodge counties. Landownership adjacent to proposed stream segments is approximately 25 percent Federal, 3 percent State, and 72 percent private.

(A) The Clark Fork River from Milltown Dam upstream approximately 185 km (115 mi) to the headwaters at the confluence with Warm Springs Creek provides FMO habitat for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002). This area is important to provide for the maintenance of existing populations and the migratory life history form essential to the long-term conservation of bull trout.

(B) Harvey Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 25.0 km (15.6 mi) to its headwaters provides FMO habitat below a manmade barrier about 0.4 km (0.2 mi) above the confluence, and spawning and rearing habitat above that point for the resident Harvey Creek local population (MBTSG 1995e).

(C) Flint Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 25.9 km (16.1 mi) to its confluence with Boulder Creek is occupied at low abundance but provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches (MBTSG 1995e).

(D) Boulder Creek from its confluence with Flint Creek upstream 22.6 km (14.0 mi), and South Boulder Creek from its confluence with Flint Creek upstream 13.7 km (8.5 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat (MBTSG 1995e).

(E) The Little Blackfoot River from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 76.8 km (47.7 mi) to its headwaters provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. This river is necessary both to provide for the recovered distribution of bull trout as well as to maintain spawning populations in the upper reaches (MBTSG 1995e; USFWS 2002).

(F) Racetrack Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream19.9 km (12.4 mi) to a natural barrier near the junction of Granite Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Racetrack Creek local population (MBTSG 1995e).

(G) Warm Springs Creek from its confluence with the Clark Fork River upstream 52.4 km (32.5 mi) provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches to support both the Warm Springs local population complex, and provide for the recovered distribution of bull trout (USFWS 2002), including maintaining existing populations and the migratory life history form essential to the long-term conservation of bull trout. Barker Creek from its confluence with Warm Springs Creek upstream 8.0 km (5.0 mi) to its headwaters at Barker Lake, Foster Creek from its confluence with Warm Springs Creek upstream 15.8 km (9.8 mi) to its headwaters, Twin Lakes Creek from its confluence with Warm Springs Creek upstream16.2 km (10.1 mi) to its headwaters, Cable Creek from its confluence with Warm Springs Creek upstream 5.0 km (3.1 mi) to its headwaters, and Storm Lake Creek from its confluence with Cable Creek upstream17.5 km (10.9 mi) provide spawning and rearing habitat to support the Warm Springs population complex, as well as provide for the recovered distribution of bull trout (MBTSG 1995e; USFWS 2002).

(v) Priest Lakes and River CHSU

The Priest Lakes and River CHSU0 includes the entire drainage of the Priest River upstream from Priest Lake Dam, including Priest and Upper Priest lakes, in Boundary and Bonner counties, Idaho. The extreme headwaters lie in British Columbia, Canada, and the headwaters of several west side drainages are in the State of Washington. A total of 267 km (430 mi) of 19 streams and 9,970 ha (24,636 ac) of lake surface area in Priest and Upper Priest lakes is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout. Landownership along the streams is approximately 58 percent Federal, 33 percent State, and 9 percent private. Landownership along the lake shores has not been quantified, but Priest Lake is approximately 75 percent private land, or leased State or Federal land with cabins and home sites. The rest is undeveloped National Forest, as is the entire shoreline of Upper Priest Lake.

(A) The Upper Priest River from a waterfall approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) downstream of the border between Idaho and Canada upstream 31.6 km (19.6 mi) to the confluence with Upper Priest Lake; Rock Creek from the confluence with the Upper Priest River upstream 6.1 km (3.8 mi) to its headwaters; Lime Creek from the confluence with the Upper Priest River upstream 6.4 km (4.0 mi) to its headwaters; and Cedar Creek from the confluence with the Upper Priest River upstream 6.8 km (4.2 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for adfluvial bull trout inhabiting Upper Priest Lake (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(B) Hughes Fork from the confluence with the Upper Priest River upstream 22.7 km (14.1 mi) to its headwaters, and Gold Creek from the confluence with Hughes Fork upstream 12.6 km (7.8 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for adfluvial bull trout inhabiting Upper Priest Lake (Hughes Fork local population) (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(C) Upper Priest Lake (542 ha (1,338 ac)) provides FMO habitat supporting the Upper Priest Lake, Hughes Fork, and Trapper Creek local populations of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b).

(D) Trapper Creek from the confluence with Upper Priest Lake upstream 12.7 km (7.9 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Trapper Creek local population (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(E) Priest River Thorofare, a 4.3 km (2.7 mi) channel between Upper Priest and Priest Lakes provides FMO habitat connecting bull trout populations in the Priest Lakes basin. Priest Lake (9,429 ha (23,300 ac) provides FMO habitat for dwindling numbers of adfluvial bull trout that spawn and rear in the lake's tributaries (Pratt and Huston 1993).

(F) Lion Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 18.2 km (11.3 mi) to its headwaters, and South Fork Lion Creek from its confluence with Lion Creek upstream 8.0 km (5.0 mi) to its headwaters contain spawning and rearing habitat for the Lion Creek local population of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(G) Two Mouth Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 15.7 km (9.8 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Two Mouth Creek local population (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(H) Granite Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 17.8 km (11.1 mi) to its forks, South Fork Granite Creek from the confluence with Granite

Creek upstream 22.6 km (14.0 mi) to its headwaters, and North Fork Granite Creek from the confluence with Granite Creek upstream 18.9 km (11.8 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Granite Creek local population of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(I) Indian Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 5.2 km (3.2 mi) to its forks, South Fork Indian Creek from its mouth upstream 5.8 km (3.6 mi) to its headwaters, and North Fork Indian Creek from its mouth upstream 11.7 km (7.3 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Indian Creek local population of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(J) Kalispell Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 23.3 km (14.5 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Kalispell Creek local population of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(K) Soldier Creek from the confluence with Priest Lake upstream 23.3 km (14.5 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Soldier Creek local population of bull trout (PBTTAT 1998b; USFWS 2002).

(vi) Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and 20 Headwater Lakes CHSU

The Flathead Lake CHSU includes the entire Flathead River basin upstream from Kerr Dam (outlet of Flathead Lake), with the exception of the Swan River drainage upstream from Bigfork Dam, and the South Fork Flathead River drainage upstream from Hungry Horse Dam in Flathead and Lake counties, Montana. Flathead Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River in the United States. Twenty other natural glaciated lakes up to 2,800 ha (6,919 ac) in size are occupied by bull trout in this CHSU. The entire south half of Flathead Lake is inside the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. A total of 837 km (520 mi) of 57 streams and 56,838 ha (140,449 ac) of lake surface area in 21 lakes is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams is approximately 68 percent Federal, 10 percent State, and 22 percent private. Substantial portions of the Federal lands are in Glacier National Park or Congressionally designated wilderness. Lakeshore ownership is mixed: Flathead Lake (49,575 ha (20,062 ac)) makes up about 87 percent of the lake surface area. The south half of Flathead Lake lies on the Flathead Indian Reservation, though most of the lakeshore is privately owned and developed. The north half of Flathead Lake is also almost entirely private and developed into homes and resorts. Fifteen of the other lakes (5,556 ha (13,729 ac) are in Glacier National Park, though road and campground development exists on most of the larger lakes, and commercial development and some private land occurs along Lake McDonald. The shoreline of 1,356 ha (3,350 ac) Whitefish Lake is almost entirely private and developed. Of the remaining four lakes, three (Upper Whitefish, Upper Stillwater, and Cyclone) are primarily surrounded by State lands that have been logged, but not developed. Only one very small lake, Frozen Lake (12 ha (30 ac)) which spans the International Border with Canada, is located on National Forest land.

(A) The entire basin of Flathead Lake, to the high water mark (49,574 ha (122,500 ac)) provides FMO habitat for tributary populations of bull trout (Fraley and Shepard 1989).

(B) The Flathead River from its confluence with Flathead Lake upstream 85.4 km (53.1 mi) to its forks; the Middle Fork Flathead River from its mouth upstream 140.3 km (87.2 mi) to its headwaters; and the North Fork Flathead River from its mouth upstream 92.9 km (57.7 mi) to the Canadian border provide FMO habitat for multiple local populations of bull trout (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(C) Nyack Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 11.4 km (7.1 mi) to a naturally de-watered reach provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Nyack Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(D) Park Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 13.7 km (8.5 mi) to the confluence with its' tributary Elk Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Park Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(E) Ole Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 12.6 km (7.9 mi) to a naturally de-watered reach near the trail junction, just upstream of Debris Creek, provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Ole Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(F) Bear Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 17.7 km (11.0 mi) to a barrier at the junction of Skyland Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Bear Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(G) Long Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Long Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(H) Granite Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 13.1 km (8.1 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Granite Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(I) Morrison Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 19.8 km (12.3 mi) to the junction with Puzzle Creek; Puzzle Creek from its mouth upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to its headwaters, Lodgepole Creek from its confluence with Morrison Creek upstream 3.1 km (1.9 mi) to its junction with Whistler Creek; and Whistler Creek from its mouth upstream 5.9 km (3.7 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Morrison Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(J) Schafer Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 5.9 km (3.7 mi) to a natural barrier near the confluence of Rouge Creek, and Dolly Varden Creek from its junction with Schafer Creek upstream 12.1 km (7.5 mi) to Dolly Varden Falls near the confluence of Argosy Creek provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Schafer Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(K) Clack Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to a natural barrier approximately one-third the distance up its watershed near the trail junction to Trilobite Lakes provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Clack Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(L) Bowl Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 7.9 km (4.9 mi) to the junction with Basin Creek; Basin Creek from its mouth upstream 10.0 km (6.2 mi) to a natural barrier in its upper reaches; and Scalp Creek from its confluence with Bowl Creek upstream 4.6 km (2.8 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Bowl Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(M) Strawberry Creek from its confluence with the Middle Fork Flathead River upstream 21.2 km (13.2 mi) to its headwaters; Trail Creek from its junction with Strawberry Creek upstream 7.3 km (4.6 mi) to the junction with Jeff Creek; Gateway Creek from its confluence Strawberry Creek upstream 9.3 km (5.8 mi) to its headwaters; and East Fork Strawberry Creek from its confluence Strawberry Creek upstream 5.7 km (3.5 mi) to its headwaters

provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Strawberry Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(N) Big Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Flathead River upstream 18.4 km (11.4 mi) to a natural barrier in the headwaters upstream from Nicola Creek; Skookoleel Creek from its confluence with Big Creek upstream 8.2 km (5.1 mi) to its headwaters; Hallowat Creek from its mouth at Big Creek upstream 14,8 km (9.2 mi) to its headwaters; Werner Creek from its mouth at Hallowat Creek upstream 4.0 km (2.5 mi) to its headwaters; and Kletomus Creek from its mouth at Hallowat Creek upstream 8.2 km (5.1 mi) to its headwaters provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Big Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(O) Coal Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Flathead River upstream 28.5 km (17.7 mi) to its headwaters; Cyclone Creek from its confluence with Coal Creek upstream 5.0 km (3.1 mi) to Cyclone Lake; South Fork Coal Creek from its mouth upstream10.2 km (6.4 mi) to a natural barrier; and Mathias Creek from its mouth at South Fork Coal Creek upstream 4.6 km (2.9 mi) to a natural barrier provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Coal Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002). Approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of Cyclone Creek downstream from Cyclone Lake may also provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Cyclone Lake local population (MBTSG 1995c).

(P) Cyclone Lake (49 ha (121 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and Cyclone Creek from its confluence with Cyclone Lake upstream 8.6 km (5.4 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Cyclone Creek local population (USFWS 2002).

(Q) Red Meadow Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Flathead River upstream 22.3 km (13.9 mi) to its source at Red Meadow Lake provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Red Meadow Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(R) Whale Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Flathead River upstream 23.0 km (14.3 mi) to Whale Creek Falls upstream from Shorty Creek; Shorty Creek from its confluence with Whale Creek upstream 4.4 km (2.7 mi) to the junction of South Fork Shorty Creek; and South Fork Shorty Creek upstream 1.6 km (1.0 mi) to a natural barrier near an unnamed tributary originating in Stoney Basin Lake provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Whale Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(S) Trail Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Flathead River upstream 13.3 km (8.3 mi) to a natural barrier near the junction of Thoma Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Trail Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(T) Whitefish Lake (1,356 ha (3,351 ac)) provides FMO habitat for the depressed Whitefish Lake local population. Swift Creek from Whitefish Lake upstream 26.5 km (16.5 mi) to the junction of its East and West Forks provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. West Fork Swift Creek from its mouth upstream 13.7 km (8.5 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for this local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(U) Upper Whitefish Lake (36 ha (89 ac)) provides FMO habitat for the Upper Whitefish Lake local population. East Fork Swift Creek from its confluence with Upper Whitefish Lake upstream 9.5 km (5.9 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat.

(V) Upper Stillwater Lake (225 ha (556 ac)) provides FMO habitat for the Stillwater Lake local population. The Stillwater River from its mouth at the lake upstream 35.3 km (21.9 mi) to its' headwaters provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. Fitzsimmons Creek from its junction with the Stillwater River upstream 9.4 km (5.9 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(W) Lake McDonald (2,761 ha (6,823 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and its tributary McDonald Creek upstream 2.6 km (1.6 mi) from the mouth to McDonald Falls provides spawning and rearing habitat for the depressed McDonald Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(X) Lincoln Lake (16 ha (40 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and Lincoln Creek from its mouth upstream 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to Beaver Chief Falls provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Lincoln Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(Y) Harrison Lake (166 ha (410 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and its tributary Harrison Creek from the mouth upstream 6.9 km (4.3 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Harrison Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(Z) Lake Isabel (17 ha (42 ac)) provides FMO habitat and its tributary Park Creek from the mouth upstream 1.4 km (0.9 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Park Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(AA) Trout Lake (86 ha (213 ac)) and Arrow Lake (23 ha (57 ac)) provide FMO habitat, and Camas Creek between Trout and Arrow lakes (approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi)), as well as upstream of Arrow Lake 4.1 km (1.3 mi) to Camas Lake provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Camas Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(BB) Logging Lake (444 ha (1,097 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and its tributary Logging Creek from its junction with the upstream (east) end of the lake upstream 1.8 km (1.1 mi) to the outlet of Grace Lake provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Logging Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(CC) Lower Quartz (67 ha (166 ac)) and the Upper Quartz Lakes Complex (Middle Quartz Lake, Quartz Lake, and Cerulean Lake; 399 ha (986 ac) combined) provide FMO habitat. Quartz Creek from the inlet of Lower Quartz Lake upstream 1.5 km (0.9 mi) to Middle Quartz Lake; Quartz Creek from the inlet of Middle Quartz Lake upstream 7.9 km (4.9 mi) to Quartz Lake; and Rainbow Creek from its confluence with Quartz Creek upstream 1.7 km (1.1 mi) to Cerulean Lake provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Quartz Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(DD) Bowman Lake (690 ha (1,705 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and its tributary Bowman Creek from the inlet to Bowman Lake upstream 10.6 km (6.6 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Bowman Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(EE) Akokala Lake (9 ha (23 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and its tributary Akokala Creek upstream 1.4 km (0.9 mi) from the lake inlet to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Akokala Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(FF) Kintla Lake (687 ha (1,698 ac)) provides FMO habitat and Kintla Creek from its inlet to Kintla Lake upstream 2.6 km (1.6 mi) to a natural barrier provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Kintla Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(GG) Upper Kintla Lake (191 ha (472 ac)) provides FMO habitat and Kintla Creek from the inlet to Upper Kintla Lake upstream 9.4 km (5.9 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Upper Kintla

Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(HH) Frozen Lake (12 ha (30 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and Frozen Creek from the lake inlet upstream 4.2 km (2.6 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Frozen Creek local population (MBTSG 1995c; USFWS 2002).

(vii) Swan CHSU

The Swan CHSU includes the entire Swan River drainage upstream from Bigfork Dam (near the Swan River's confluence with Flathead Lake) in Lake and Missoula counties, Montana. The Swan CHSU is a linear valley bounded by the Swan Range to the west and the Mission Mountains to the east. A total of 212 km (132 mi) of 17 streams and 1,543 ha (3,813 ac) of lake surface area in three lakes is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams is approximately 36 percent Federal, 17 percent State, and 47 percent private. The Swan Lake shoreline is about half private, with extensive home and resort developments, and half surrounded by either National Forest or National Wildlife Refuge lands. Holland Lake is on National Forest land, some of which is leased and developed. Lindbergh Lake is mostly surrounded by National Forest, but a portion of the lakeshore is developed with home sites.

(A) Swan Lake (1,085 ha (2,680 ac)) provides FMO habitat for upstream tributary populations of bull trout (MBTSG 1996b). The Swan River from its upstream inlet to Swan Lake upstream approximately 87.4 km (54.3 mi) provides FMO habitat for tributary populations of bull trout to the confluence with Lindbergh Lake, and provides spawning and rearing habitat above Lindbergh Lake.

(B) Lost Creek from the confluence with the Swan River upstream 2.8 km (1.7 mi) to the junction of the North and South Forks; North Fork Lost Creek from its mouth upstream 7.6 km (4.7 mi) to a barrier falls; and South Fork Lost Creek from its mouth upstream 7.3 km (4.6 mi) to a barrier falls provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Lost Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(C) Soup Creek from the confluence with the Swan River upstream 11.1 km (6.9 mi) to a natural barrier falls provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Soup Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(D) Woodward Creek from the confluence with the Swan River upstream 6.0 km (3.7 mi) to a barrier falls on the northernmost fork, and South Fork Woodward Creek from its junction with Woodward Creek upstream 4.7 km (2.9 mi) to a point where the stream makes a hard turn from its southerly direction to a westerly direction provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Woodward Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(E) Goat Creek from the confluence with the Swan River upstream 11.5 km (7.2 mi) to the confluence with Bethal Creek and Squeezer Creek from its junction with Goat Creek upstream 8.6 km (5.3 mi) to a barrier falls provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Goat Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(F) Lion Creek from its confluence with the Swan River upstream 11.4 km (7.1 mi) to a natural barrier falls approximately half way up the drainage provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Lion Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(G) Piper Creek from its confluence with the Swan River upstream 5.9 km (3.7 mi) to the junction with Moore Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Piper Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(H) Jim Creek from its confluence with the Swan River upstream 11.9 km (7.4 mi) to the lowermost Jim Lake provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Jim Creek local population.

(I) Cold Creek from its confluence with the Swan River upstream 10.0 km (6.2 mi) to the junction with North Fork Cold Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Cold Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(J) Elk Creek from its confluence with the Swan River upstream 16.9 km (10.5 mi) to the confluence of the North and South Fork Elk Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Elk Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(K) Lindbergh Lake (293 ha (725 ac)) provides FMO habitat; approximately 6 km (3.8 mi) of the upper Swan River (previously described in (a), above), and Crystal Creek from its confluence with the upper Swan River upstream approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) to a natural barrier downstream from the outlet of Crystal Lake provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Upper Swan River local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(L) Holland Lake provides FMO habitat, and Holland Creek upstream 0.6 km (0.4 mi) from Holland Lake to a natural barrier falls provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Holland Creek local population (MBTSG 1996b; USFWS 2002).

(viii) Hungry Horse Reservoir CHSU

The Hungry Horse Reservoir CHSU includes the entire South Fork Flathead River drainage upstream from Hungry Horse Dam (9.0 km (5.6 mi) upstream from the South Fork's confluence with the mainstem Flathead River) in Flathead, Missoula, Powell, and Lewis and Clark counties, Montana. A total of 336 km (209 mi) of 16 streams; 9,632 ha (23,800 ac) Hungry Horse Reservoir; and two lakes (Big Salmon Lake, 324 ha (800 ac)); Doctor Lake, 32 ha (79 ac) are proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams and lake shores is entirely Federal (100 percent), lying in either National Forest or Congressionally designated wilderness.

(A) Hungry Horse Reservoir (9,632 ha (23,800 ac)) and the South Fork Flathead River upstream 93.6 km (58.2 mi) from the full pool level of Hungry Horse Reservoir to its source at the confluence of Youngs and Danaher creeks provide critical FMO habitat for tributary spawning populations of bull trout (MBTSG 1995d).

(B) Wounded Buck Creek from its mouth at Hungry Horse Reservoir upstream 6.0 km (3.7 mi) to a natural barrier falls in the upper reaches of the drainage provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Wounded Buck Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(C) Wheeler Creek from its mouth at Hungry Horse Reservoir upstream 5.9 km (3.6 mi) to a natural barrier falls just upstream of the junction of Trapper Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Wheeler Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(D) Sullivan Creek from its mouth at Hungry Horse Reservoir upstream 24.0 km (14.9 mi) to its headwaters and its tributary Quintonkon Creek from its mouth upstream 5.2 km (3.3 mi) to a natural barrier falls approximately half way up the drainage provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Sullivan Creek local population of bull trout (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(E) The Spotted Bear River from its confluence with the South Fork Flathead River upstream 32.8 km (20.4 mi) to Dean Falls, just upstream from the confluence of Slim Creek, provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Spotted Bear River local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(F) Bunker Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Flathead River upstream 17.9 km (11.1 mi) to a barrier

falls just upstream of the junction with String Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Bunker Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(G) Little Salmon Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Flathead River upstream 28.7 km (17.8 mi) to its source provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Little Salmon Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(H) Big Salmon Lake (324 ha (800 ac)) provides FMO habitat, and Big Salmon Creek upstream 7.4 km (4.6 mi) from Big Salmon Lake to a barrier falls just upstream from the junction of Spud Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Big Salmon Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(I) The White River from its confluence with the South Fork Flathead River upstream 13.1 km (8.1 mi) to Needle Falls (approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) upstream from the junction of the South Fork White River) provides spawning and rearing habitat for the White River local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(J) Gordon Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Flathead River upstream 23.4 km (14.5 mi) to a barrier falls near the confluence with George Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Gordon Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(K) Doctor Lake 32 ha (79 ac) provides FMO habitat, and the entire length (5.2 km (3.3 mi)) of Doctor Creek occurring both upstream and downstream of Doctor Lake provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Doctor Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(L) Youngs Creek from its confluence with the headwaters of the South Fork Flathead River upstream 28.7 km (17.8 mi) to the junction of Ross Creek near its headwaters, and Babcock Creek (a tributary to Youngs Creek) from its mouth upstream 7.3 km (4.5 mi) to the confluence with Otis Creek provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Youngs Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(M) Danaher Creek from its confluence with the headwaters of the South Fork Flathead River upstream 33.5 km (20.8 mi) to its source, and Rapid Creek (a tributary to Danaher Creek) from its mouth upstream2.9 km (1.8 mi) to the confluence of Fiction Creek provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Danaher Creek local population (MBTSG 1995d; USFWS 2002).

(ix) Bitterroot CHSU

The Bitterroot CHSU includes the entire Bitterroot River drainage on the western border of Montana, upstream from its' confluence with the Clark Fork River in Missoula and Ravalli counties, Montana. A total of 799 km (496 mi) of 43 streams and 265 ha (655 ac) of Painted Rocks Reservoir is proposed for designation as critical habitat for bull trout in this CHSU. Landownership along the streams is approximately 64 percent Federal, 1 percent State, and 35 percent private. Painted Rocks Reservoir is mostly on National Forest with some private development. In this CHSU, nearly all headwaters are on National Forest lands, and the vast majority of the Bitterroot Valley, including lower ends of tributary drainages and the entire mainstem of the Bitterroot River are privately owned and extensively developed with ranches, home sites, and businesses.

(A) The Bitterroot River from its junction with the Clark Fork River upstream 135.8 km (84.3 mi) to the confluence of its East and West Forks provides FMO habitat for tributary populations of bull trout (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(B) Burnt Fork Creek from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 41.2 km (25.6 mi) to its headwaters; Gold Creek from its mouth at Burnt Fork Creek upstream 10.8 km (6.7 mi) to its headwaters; and Little Burnt Fork Creek from its mouth upstream 5.5 km (3.4 mi) to its source provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Burnt Fork Creek local population (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(C) Fred Burr Creek from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 14.3 km (8.9 mi) to Fred Burr Reservoir provides FMO habitat in the lower reaches, and spawning and rearing habitat in the upper reaches. Its tributary Mill Creek, from its mouth upstream 19.5 km (12.1 mi) to a natural barrier just upstream of the Wilderness Boundary, provides spawning and rearing habitat supporting the Fred Burr Creek local population (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(D) Blodgett Creek from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 30.7 km (19.0 mi) to its headwaters provides spawning and rearing habitat for the Blodgett Creek local population (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(E) Skalkaho Creek from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 40.4 km (25.1 mi) to its headwaters; Daly Creek from its confluence with Skalkaho Creek upstream 12.2 km (7.6 mi) to Skalkaho Falls; Railroad Creek from its confluence with Skalkaho Creek upstream 8.4 km (5.2 mi); and Weasel Creek from its confluence with Skalkaho Creek upstream 5.3 km (3.3 mi) to its source provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Skalkaho Creek local population (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(F) Sleeping Child Creek from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 38.5 km (23.9 mi) to its headwaters; Two Bear Creek from its confluence with Sleeping Child Creek upstream 10.7 km (6.6 mi) to its source; Divide Creek from its confluence with Sleeping Child Creek upstream 14.8 km (9.2 mi) to its source; and Switchback Creek from its confluence with Divide Creek upstream 1.0 km (0.6 mi) to a natural barrier provide spawning and rearing habitat for the Sleeping Child Creek local population (MBTSG 1995a; USFWS 2002).

(G) The West Fork of the Bitterroot River from its confluence with the Bitterroot River upstream 35.2 km (21.9 mi) to Painted Rocks Reservoir and Painted Rocks Reservoir (265 ha (655 ac)) provide FMO habitat for tributary populations of bull trout. The West Fork of the Bitterroot River from Painted Rocks Reservoir upstream 27.9 km (17.3 mi); Slate Creek from the confluence with Painted Rocks Reservoir upstream 17.3 km (10.8 mi) to its source; Blue Joint Creek from the confluence with Painted Rocks Reservoir upstream 28.0 km (17.4 mi) to a natural barrier; Overwhich Creek from its confluence with the West Fork Bitterroot River upstream 23.2 km

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.