Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status 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-AB94

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct

Population Segments of Bull Trout

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines threatened

status for the Klamath River and the Columbia River distinct population

segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), with special rules,

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The

Klamath River population segment is limited to seven geographically

isolated stream areas representing a fraction of the historical

habitat. The distribution and numbers of bull trout have declined in

the Klamath River basin due to habitat isolation, loss of migratory

corridors, poor water quality, and the introduction of non-native

species. The Columbia River population segment is represented by

relatively widespread subpopulations that have declined in overall

range and numbers of fish. A majority of Columbia River bull trout

occur in isolated, fragmented habitats that support low numbers of fish

and are inaccessible to migratory bull trout. The few remaining bull

trout ``strongholds'' in the Columbia River basin tend to be found in

large areas of contiguous habitats in the Snake River basin of central

Idaho mountains, upper Clark Fork and Flathead Rivers in Montana, and

several streams in the Blue Mountains in Washington and Oregon. The

decline of bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation and

fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality,

past fisheries management practices, and the introduction of non-native

species. The special rules allow the take of bull trout in the Columbia

River and Klamath River population segments if in accordance with

applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and wildlife

conservation laws and regulations and conservation plans approved by

the Service.

The listing proposal was restricted by court order to information

contained in the 1994 administrative record. This final determination

was based on the best available scientific and commercial information

including current data and new information received during the comment

period. As a result, the threatened listing status for the Columbia

River population segment has been retained, however, the listing status

for the Klamath River population segment is changed from endangered to

threatened. This listing status change occurred because bull trout

interagency management and recovery efforts for the Klamath River basin

are being implemented and, consequently, threats have been reduced.

This rule implements the protection and conservation provisions

afforded by the Act for the Klamath River and Columbia River population

segments of bull trout.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin Field Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way,

Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake

River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section ) (telephone 208-378-5243,

facsimile 208-378-5262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family

Salmonidae, are char native to the Pacific northwest and western

Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in

the Pacific Northwest from about 41 deg. N to 60 deg. N latitude, from

the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern California and the

Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in

Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the west,

bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of

British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992). Bull trout

are wide-spread throughout tributaries of the Columbia River basin,

including its headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout also occur

in the Klamath River basin of south central Oregon. East of the

Continental Divide, bull trout are found in the headwaters of the

Saskatchewan River in Alberta and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta

and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; Brewin and Brewin 1997).

Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in

1856 from a specimen collected on the lower Columbia River, and

subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo

confluentus and Salvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bull trout and Dolly

Varden (Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species

(Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). Cavender (1978) presented morphometric

(measurement), meristic (geometrical relation), osteological (bone

structure), and distributional evidence to document specific

distinctions between Dolly Varden and bull trout. Bull trout and Dolly

Varden were formally recognized as separate species by the American

Fisheries Society in 1980 (Robins et al. 1980). Although bull trout and

Dolly Varden co-occur in several northwestern Washington river

drainages, there is little evidence of introgression (Haas and McPhail

1991) and the two species appear to be maintaining distinct genomes

(Leary et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995; Kanda et al. 1997; Spruell

and Allendorf 1997).

Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life-history strategies

through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident

bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or

nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout

spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four

years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial),

or in certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity

is reached in one of the three habitats (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz

1989). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and it is

suspected that bull trout give rise to offspring exhibiting either

resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to

other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that

appear to influence bull trout distribution and

[[Page 31648]]

abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability,

valley form, spawning and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors

(Oliver 1979; Pratt 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989;

Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan

1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman

1997). Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have

specific physical characteristics to provide habitat requirements for

bull trout to successfully spawn and rear, and that the characteristics

are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout these watersheds. Because

bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993), the fish should not be expected to

simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. in press).

Bull trout are found primarily in colder streams, although

individual fish are found in larger river systems throughout the

Columbia River basin (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre

1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Water

temperature above 15 deg. C (59 deg. F) is believed to limit bull trout

distribution, which may partially explain the patchy distribution

within a watershed (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Spawning areas are often associated with cold-water springs,

groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed

(Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. in press). For

example, the only stream with substantial bull trout spawning in the

upper Blackfoot River in Montana was Copper Creek, which had maximum

water temperatures less than 15 deg. C (59 deg. F) (Hillman and Chapman

1996). Goetz (1989) suggested optimum water temperatures for rearing of

about 7 to 8 deg. C (44 to 46 deg. F) and optimum water temperatures

for egg incubation of 2 to 4 deg. C (35 to 39 deg. F). In Granite

Creek, Idaho, Bonneau and Scarnecchia (1996) observed that juvenile

bull trout selected the coldest water available in a plunge pool, 8 to

9 deg. C (46 to 48 deg. F) within a temperature gradient of 8 to

15 deg. C (46 to 60 deg. F).

All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex

forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders,

and pools (Oliver 1979; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher

and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992; Rich

1996; Sexauer and James 1997; Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober (1995)

observed bull trout overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools

containing large woody debris in the Bitterroot River drainage,

Montana, and suggested that suitable winter habitat may be more

restrictive than summer habitat. Maintaining bull trout habitat

requires stream channel and flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream

margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). These

areas are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect

stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example,

altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the

spawning period and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs

and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring (Fraley

and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).

Preferred spawning habitat consists of low gradient streams with

loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and water temperatures of

5 to 9 deg. C (41 to 48 deg. F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz

1989). Pratt (1992) indicated that increases in fine sediments reduce

egg survival and emergence. High juvenile densities were observed in

Swan River, Montana, and tributaries with diverse cobble substrate and

low percentage of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984). Juvenile bull

trout in four streams in central Washington occupied slow-moving water

less than 0.5 m/sec (1.6 ft/sec) over a variety of sand to boulder size

substrates (Sexauer and James 1997).

The size and age of bull trout at maturity depends upon life-

history strategy. Growth of resident fish is generally slower than

migratory fish; resident fish tend to be smaller at maturity and less

fecund (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Bull trout normally reach

sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and live as long as 12 years. Repeat

and alternate year spawning has been reported, although repeat spawning

frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known (Leathe and

Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre

1996).

Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods

of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout

frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and have been

known to move upstream as far as 250 kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi))

to spawning grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In the Blackfoot River,

Montana, bull trout began migrations to spawning areas in response to

increasing temperatures (Swanberg 1996). Temperatures during spawning

generally range from 4 to 10 deg. C (39 to 51 deg. F), with redds often

constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or near other sources of

cold groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1996).

Bull trout require spawning substrate consisting of loose, clean gravel

relatively free of fine sediments (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Depending

on water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt

1992), and after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. Time from

egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge

from early April through May depending upon water temperatures and

increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and Howell 1992).

Growth varies depending upon life-history strategy. Resident adults

range from 150 to 300 millimeters (mm) (6 to 12 inches (in)) total

length and migratory adults commonly reach 600 mm (24 in) or more

(Pratt 1985; Goetz 1989). The largest verified bull trout is a 14.6

kilogram (kg) (32 pound) specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho,

in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a

function of size and life-history strategy. Resident and juvenile

migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-

zooplankton and small fish (Boag 1987; Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger

1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivorous, known to

feed on various fish species (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald and Alger

1993).

Bull trout evolved with, and, in some areas, co-occur with native

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.), resident (redband) and

migratory rainbow trout (O. mykiss), chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha),

sockeye salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),

various sculpin (Cottus spp.), sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow species

(Cyprinidae spp.) (Mauser et al. 1988; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull

trout habitat overlaps with the range of several fishes listed as

threatened, endangered, proposed, and petitioned for listing under the

Act, including the endangered Snake River sockeye salmon (November 20,

1991; 56 FR 58619); threatened Snake River spring and fall chinook

salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR 14653); endangered Kootenai River white

sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (September 6, 1994, 59 FR 45989);

threatened and endangered steelhead (August 18, 1997, 62 FR 43937); and

westslope cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi) (petitioned for listing in

July 1997). Widespread introductions of non-native fishes, including

brook trout

[[Page 31649]]

(S. fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush) (west of the Continental

Divide), and brown trout (Salmo trutta), have also occurred across the

range of bull trout. These non-native fish have caused local bull trout

declines and extirpations (Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and Alger

1993; Leary et al. 1993; Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG)

1996h).

Bull trout habitat in the coterminous United States is composed of

a complex mosaic of land ownership, including Federal lands

administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), and Department of

Defense (DOD); numerous Indian tribal lands; State land in Montana,

Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Nevada; and private lands. It is

estimated that as much as half of present bull trout habitat is

bordered by non-Federal lands.

Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-

history forms. For example, in Montana, migratory bull trout make

extensive migrations in the Flathead River system (Fraley and Shepard

1989) and resident bull trout move to overwinter in downstream pools in

tributaries of the Bitterroot River (Jakober 1995). The ability to

migrate is important to the persistence of local bull trout

subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; M. Gilpin, University of

California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Migrations

facilitate gene flow among local subpopulations because individuals

from different subpopulations interbreed when some stray and return to

non-natal streams. Subpopulations that are extirpated by catastrophic

events may also become reestablished in this manner.

Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory are

applicable to the distribution and characteristics of bull trout

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an interacting network

of local subpopulations with varying frequencies of migration and gene

flow among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994). Local subpopulations may

become extinct, but can be reestablished by individuals from other

subpopulations. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for spreading risk

because the simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely.

Habitat alteration, primarily through the construction of impoundments,

dams, and water diversions that create unsuitable conditions, has

fragmented habitats, eliminated migratory corridors, and isolated bull

trout often in the headwaters of tributaries (Rieman et al. in press).

Though wide-ranging in parts of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and

Montana, bull trout in the interior Columbia River basin presently

occur in only about 44 to 45 percent of the historical range (Quigley

and Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Declining trends and

associated habitat loss and fragmentation have been documented

rangewide (Bond 1992; Schill 1992; Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; Idaho Department of Fish and

Game (IDFG), in litt. 1995; McPhail and Baxter 1996). Several local

extirpations have been reported, beginning in the 1950s (Rode 1990;

Ratliff and Howell 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Goetz 1994; Newton and

Pribyl 1994; Berg and Priest 1995; Light et al. 1996; Buchanan et al.

1997; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997). For

example, bull trout were apparently extirpated around 1975 from the

McCloud River, California, the southernmost range (Moyle 1976; Rode

1990).

Distinct Population Segments

The Service's June 13, 1997, proposal to list the Klamath River and

the Columbia River population segments of bull trout (62 FR 32268) was

based on the 1994 administrative record, as required by the court. The

Service's original June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30254), 12-month petition

finding found that listing the bull trout was warranted but precluded

throughout the coterminous United States. As explained in the proposed

rule, the approach to break the range of bull trout into distinct

population segments in the reanalysis of the 1994 petition finding was

undertaken because the fish occurs in widespread, but fragmented

habitats and has several life-history patterns. In addition, the

threats to bull trout are diverse, and the quality and quantity of

information regarding the population status and trends varies greatly

throughout the range. By examining bull trout distinct population

segments, the Service was better able to evaluate proposed listing of

those segments, based on the 1994 administrative record, that were a

priority in need of Federal protection. Future listing actions could,

thereby, be based on best available rather than outdated scientific

information.

In the process of making this final listing determination, the

Service reexamined the appropriateness of applying the bull trout

distinct population segments (DPSs) for the purposes of listing. The

joint National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Service policy

regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate populations published

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), was the basis for this reexamination.

Three elements are considered in the decision on whether a population

segment could be treated as threatened or endangered under the Act--

discreteness, significance, and conservation status in relation to the

standards for listing. Discreteness refers to the isolation of a

population from other members of the species and is based on two

criteria--(1) marked separation from other populations of the same

taxon resulting from physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral

factors, including genetic discontinuity; and (2) populations delimited

by international boundaries. Significance is determined either by the

importance or contribution, or both, of a discrete population to the

species throughout its range. Four criteria were used to determine

significance--(1) persistence of the discrete population segment in an

ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that

loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete

population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of

the taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced

population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that the

discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of

the taxon in its genetic characteristics. If a population segment is

discrete and significant, its evaluation for endangered or threatened

status is based on the Act's standards.

Based on the best available information, numerous bull trout

subpopulations are isolated from each other by either unsuitable

habitat or impassible dams and diversions, or both. Although many

subpopulations could be considered discrete, few meet the

``significance'' criteria. For example, although some genetic

differences were identified among subpopulations of bull trout in

specific watersheds of the Columbia River basin, the subpopulations did

not differ markedly and they inhabit similar habitats. The best

available current information supports designating five DPSs in the

coterminous United States--(1) Klamath River, (2) Columbia River, (3)

Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-Belly River.

For purpose of this final determination only the Klamath River and

Columbia River DPSs will be addressed. The three remaining DPSs

[[Page 31650]]

are the subject of a proposed rule published concurrently.

Although the range of bull trout extends into Canada and Alaska,

subpopulations outside the coterminous United States are not being

considered in this rulemaking. In accordance with the distinct

vertebrate population policy, the Service may determine a population to

be discrete at an international border where there are significant

differences in the control of exploitation, management of habitat,

conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms. Bull trout management

and conservation strategy in Canada differs from the United States and

such activities are beyond the regulatory scope of the Act. The best

available information also disclosed uncertainty regarding the status

of bull trout in Canada. Throughout British Columbia and Alberta, data

on bull trout status, distribution, and the presence of ongoing threats

is incomplete and covers only a portion of the species' range within

the provinces. The status of bull trout in Alaska is unknown.

Within the coterminous United States, bull trout distribution is

highly fragmented and many subpopulations are geographically isolated.

The best available information indicates that bull trout in the

coterminous United States, although still wide-ranging, have suffered a

significant reduction in range. In addition, bull trout are faced with

varying degrees of ongoing threats. The Service now determines that

listing bull trout distinct population segments only within the

coterminous United States is warranted at this time.

Klamath River

The Klamath River originates in south central Oregon near Crater

Lake National Park, and flows southwest into northern California where

it meets the Trinity River and empties into the Pacific Ocean. Bull

trout in this drainage are discrete because of physical isolation from

other bull trout by the Pacific Ocean and several small mountain ranges

in central Oregon. Leary et. al. (1991) determined genetic

characteristics of bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River

drainages using protein electrophoresis. They concluded that these two

groups of fish were reproductively isolated and evolutionarily

distinct. In addition, Williams et al. (1995) separated bull trout in

the Klamath and Columbia Rivers into different clades (i.e., groups

derived from different lineages) based on genetic diversity patterns.

As a result, the Klamath River DPS is significant because it differs

markedly in genetic characteristics from bull trout in the Columbia

River basin.

Columbia River

The Columbia River DPS occurs throughout the entire Columbia River

basin within the United States and its tributaries, excluding bull

trout found in the Jarbidge River, Nevada. Although Williams et al.

(1995) identified two distinct clades in the Columbia River basin

(upper and lower Columbia River) based on genetic diversity patterns, a

discrete geographical boundary between the two clades was not

documented. The Columbia River DPS is significant because the overall

range of the species would be substantially reduced if this discrete

population were lost.

Status and Distribution

The Service evaluated the status and distribution of bull trout for

each subpopulation in the Klamath River and Columbia River population

segments. The complete review of this evaluation is found in a status

summary compiled by the Service (Service status summary 1998). A

synopsis of the summary is presented in this rule.

To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and

abundance for both the Klamath River and Columbia River population

segments, the Service analyzed data on bull trout relative to

subpopulations because fragmentation and barriers have isolated bull

trout throughout their current range. A subpopulation is considered a

reproductively isolated group of bull trout that spawns within a

particular area of a river system. In areas where two groups of bull

trout are separated by a barrier (e.g., an impassable dam or waterfall,

or reaches of unsuitable habitat) that allows only individuals upstream

access to those downstream (i.e., one-way passage), both groups were

considered subpopulations. In addition, subpopulations were considered

at risk of extirpation from naturally occurring events if they were--

(1) unlikely to be reestablished by individuals from another

subpopulation (i.e., functionally or geographically isolated from other

subpopulations); (2) limited to a single spawning area (i.e., spatially

restricted); and either (3) characterized by low individual or spawner

numbers; or (4) primarily of a single life-history form. For example, a

subpopulation of resident fish isolated upstream of an impassable

waterfall would be considered at risk of extirpation from naturally

occurring events if the subpopulation had low numbers of fish that

spawn in a restricted area. In such cases, a natural event such as a

fire or flood affecting the spawning area could eliminate the

subpopulation, and reestablishment from fish downstream would be

prevented by the impassable waterfall. However, a subpopulation

residing downstream of the waterfall would not be considered at risk of

extirpation from naturally occurring events because there would be

establishment potential by fish from the subpopulation upstream.

Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited downstream movement

(Nelson 1996), the Service's determination of subpopulations at risk of

extirpation from naturally occurring events may overestimate the number

of subpopulations that are likely to be reestablished.

The status of subpopulations was based on modified criteria of

Rieman et al. (in press), including the abundance, trends in abundance,

and the presence of life-history forms of bull trout. The Service

considered a subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000 individuals or 500

spawners likely occur in the subpopulation, abundance appears stable or

increasing, and life-history forms were likely to persist; and

``depressed'' if less than 5,000 individuals or 500 spawners likely

occur in the subpopulation, abundance appears to be declining, or a

life-history form historically present has been lost. If there was

insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information to classify

the status of a subpopulation as either ``strong'' or ``depressed,''

the status was considered ``unknown.''

Based on abundance, trends in abundance, and the presence of life-

history forms, bull trout were considered strong (i.e., 5,000

individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the subwatershed or larger

area, abundance is stable or increasing with at a minimum of half of

historic abundance, and the presence of all life-history forms

historically present) in 13 percent of the occupied range in the

interior Columbia River basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Using

various estimates of bull trout range, Rieman et al. (in press)

estimated that bull trout were strong in 6 to 24 percent of the

subwatersheds in the Columbia River basin. Bull trout declines have

been attributed to the effects of land and water management activities,

including forest management and road building, mining, agricultural

practices, and livestock grazing (Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan 1991;

Nehlsen et al. 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; McIntosh et

al. 1994; Platts et al. 1995). Isolation and habitat fragmentation from

dams and agricultural diversions (Rode 1990; Mongillo 1993; Jakober

1995),

[[Page 31651]]

fisheries management practices, poaching and the introduction of non-

native species (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; Howell and Buchanan 1992; WDFW

1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et al 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993;

Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996h; Palmisano and Kaczynski,

Northwest Forest Resources Council (NFRC), in litt. 1997) also threaten

bull trout populations.

Klamath River Population Segment

Historical records suggest that bull trout were once widely

distributed and exhibited diverse life-history traits in the Klamath

River basin (Gilbert and Evermann 1894; Dambacher et al. 1992; Ziller

1992; Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (OCAFS) 1993).

The earliest records of bull trout in the basin are from Fort Creek

(formerly Linn Creek), a tributary to the Wood River (L. Dunsmoor and

C. Bienz, Klamath Tribe, in litt. 1997). Records from the late 1800s

suggest that migratory fish (adfluvial) inhabited Klamath Lake (OCAFS

1993). Other migratory bull trout (i.e., fluvial) were evidently

present in some of the larger streams in the basin as recently as the

early 1970s (Ziller 1992). Bull trout are thought to have been

extirpated from the Sycan River, the South Fork of the Sycan River, and

four streams in the Klamath River basin (Cherry, Sevenmile, Coyote, and

Callahan creeks) since the 1970s.

Currently, bull trout in the Klamath River basin occur only as

resident forms isolated in higher elevation headwater streams (Goetz

1989) within three watersheds--Upper Klamath Lake, Sprague River, and

Sycan River (Light et al. 1996). Factors contributing to isolation

include habitat degradation, water diversion, and habitat fragmentation

(OCAFS 1993; Light et al. 1996). In addition, long distances separate

each isolated subpopulation (Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997).

According to Light et al. (1996), bull trout occupy approximately 38.2

km (22.9 mi) of streams in the Klamath River basin. More recently,

Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that bull trout occupy approximately

34.1 km (20.5 mi) of streams. The risk of extinction for Klamath River

bull trout over the next 100 years was recently estimated at 70 to 90

percent (K. Schroeder and H. Weeks, OCAFS, in litt. 1997). The Service

identified seven bull trout subpopulations in three watersheds (number

of subpopulations in each watershed)--Upper Klamath Lake (2), Sycan

River (1), and Sprague River (4). The Service considers six of the

subpopulations at risk of extirpation caused by naturally occurring

events due to their isolation, single life-history form and spawning

area, and low abundance (Service status summary 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

The Columbia River DPS includes bull trout residing in portions of

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are estimated to

have occupied about 60% of the Columbia River Basin, and presently

occur in 45% of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide

1997). The Columbia River population segment is composed of 141

subpopulations. For discussion and analysis, the Service considered

four geographic areas of the Columbia River basin--(1) lower Columbia

River (downstream of the Snake River confluence), (2) mid-Columbia

River (Snake River confluence to Chief Joseph Dam), (3) upper Columbia

River (upstream from Chief Joseph Dam), and (4) Snake River and its

tributaries (including the Lost River drainage).

Lower Columbia River Geographical Area

The lower Columbia River area includes all tributaries in Oregon

and Washington downstream of the Snake River confluence near the town

of Pasco, Washington. The Service identified 20 subpopulations in

watersheds of nine major tributaries of the lower Columbia River

(number of subpopulations in each watershed)--the Lewis River (2),

Willamette River (3), White Salmon River (1), Klickitat River (1), Hood

River (2), Deschutes River (3), John Day River (3), Umatilla River (2),

and Walla Walla River (3). The present distribution of bull trout in

the lower Columbia River basin is less than the historic range

(Buchanan et al. 1997; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

1993). Bull trout are thought to be extirpated from several tributaries

in five river systems in Oregon--the Middle Fork Willamette River, the

North and South Forks of the Santiam River, the Clackamas River, the

upper Deschutes River (upstream of Bend, Oregon) and the Crooked River

(tributary to the Deschutes River) (Buchanan et al. 1997).

Hydroelectric facilities and large expanses of unsuitable,

fragmented habitat have isolated these subpopulations. Large dams, such

as McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville, separate four reaches

of the lower Columbia River. Although fish may pass each facility in

both upstream and downstream directions, the extent to which bull trout

use the Columbia River is unknown. In addition, the nine major

tributaries have numerous facilities, many of which do not provide

upstream passage.

Migratory bull trout are present with resident fish or exclusively

in at least 13 of the 20 subpopulations in the lower Columbia River.

Many migratory fish are adfluvial and inhabit reservoirs created by

dams. However, this area includes the only extant adfluvial

subpopulation in Oregon, which exists in Odell Lake in the Deschutes

River basin (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Buchanan et al. 1997). The

Metolius River-Lake Billy Chinook subpopulation is also found in the

Deschutes River basin. It is the only subpopulation considered

``strong'' and exhibits an increasing trend in abundance. The Service

considers 5 of the 20 subpopulations at risk of extirpation caused by

naturally occurring events exacerbated by isolation, single life-

history form and spawning area, and low abundance.

Mid-Columbia River Geographical Area

The mid-Columbia River area includes watersheds of four major

tributaries of the Columbia River in Washington, between the confluence

of the Snake River and Chief Joseph Dam. The Service identified 16 bull

trout subpopulations in the four watersheds (number of subpopulations

in each watershed)--Yakima River (8), Wenatchee River (3), Entiat River

(1), and Methow River (4). Historically, bull trout occurred in larger

areas of the four tributaries and Columbia River. Bull trout are

thought to have been extirpated in 10 streams within the area--Satus

Creek, Nile Creek, Orr Creek, Little Wenatchee River, Napecqua River,

Lake Chelan, Okanogan River, Eightmile Creek, South Fork Beaver Creek,

and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Most bull trout in the

mid-Columbia River geographic area are isolated by dams or unsuitable

habitat created by water diversions.

Bull trout in the mid-Columbia River area are most abundant in

Rimrock Lake of the Yakima River basin and Lake Wenatchee of the

Wenatchee River basin. Both subpopulations are considered ``strong''

and increasing or stable. The remaining 14 subpopulations are

relatively low in abundance, exhibit ``depressed'' or unknown trends,

and primarily have a single life-history form. The Service considers 10

of the 16 subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of naturally

occurring events due to isolation, single life-history form and

spawning area, and low abundance.

[[Page 31652]]

Upper Columbia River Geographic Area

The upper Columbia River geographic area includes the mainstem

Columbia River and all tributaries upstream of Chief Joseph Dam in

Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Bull trout are found in two large

basins, the Kootenai River and Pend Oreille River, which include the

Clark Fork River. Historically, bull trout were found in larger

portions of the area. Numerous dams and degraded habitat have

fragmented bull trout habitat and isolated fish into 71 subpopulations

in 9 major river basins (number of subpopulations in each basin)--

Spokane River (1), Pend Oreille River (3), Kootenai River (5), Flathead

River (24), South Fork Flathead River (3), Swan River (3), Clark Fork

River (4), Bitterroot River (27), and Blackfoot River (1). Bull trout

are thought to be extirpated in 64 streams and lakes of various sizes--

Nespelam, Sanpoil, and Kettle rivers; Barnaby, Hall, Stranger, and

Wilmont creeks; 8 tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille; 5 tributaries to

Pend Oreille River below Albeni Falls Dam; Lower Stillwater Lake; Arrow

Lake (Montana); upper Clark Fork River, 12 streams in the Coeur d'Alene

River basin; and approximately 25 streams in the St. Joe River basin

(e.g., IDFG, in litt. 1995).

The upper Columbia River area contains ``strongholds'' for bull

trout. Bull trout are considered ``strong'' in Hungry Horse Reservoir

and Swan Lake. Trends in abundance are stable in Hungry Horse

Reservoir, and increasing in Swan Lake. Although high numbers of bull

trout are found in Lake Pend Oreille and the upper Kootenai River,

trends in abundance are either negative or unknown. The high number of

subpopulations (27) in the Bitterroot River basin, Montana, indicates a

high degree of habitat fragmentation where numerous groups of resident

bull trout are restricted primarily to headwaters. The Service

considers 47 of the 71 subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of

naturally occurring events due to isolation, single life-history form

and spawning area, and low abundance.

Snake River Geographical Area

Bull trout occupy portions of 14 major tributaries in the Snake

River basin of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The Service identified 34

bull trout subpopulations in the Snake River basin. The area consists

of two primary portions separated by Hells Canyon Dam. Downstream of

Hells Canyon Dam, major tributaries that support bull trout include

(number of subpopulations in each tributary)--Tucannon River (2),

Clearwater River (3), Asotin Creek (2), Grande Ronde River (1), Imnaha

River (4), and Salmon River (2). Upstream of Hells Canyon Dam, major

tributaries that support bull trout include--Pine Creek (4), Powder

River (3), Malheur River (2), Payette River (4), Weiser River (2), and

Boise River (2). Although bull trout distribution upstream of Hells

Canyon Dam is limited primarily to the basin downstream of Shoshone

Falls in southern Idaho, three geographically isolated bull trout

subpopulations occur upstream of Shoshone Falls in the Little Lost

River drainage. Bull trout subpopulations upstream of Hells Canyon Dam

are generally low in abundance, fragmented, and isolated. The current

distribution of bull trout in the Snake River basin is less than

historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997;

Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), with recent extirpations documented in

Eagle Creek (Powder River basin) and Wallowa Lake (Grande Ronde River

basin) (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997); and

possibly in South Fork Asotin Creek (WDFW 1997). Numerous impassable

dams and large expanses of unsuitable habitat have isolated

subpopulations within the historic range. Isolation is most prominent

upstream of Hells Canyon Dam (southwest Idaho and southeast Oregon).

The basin downstream of Hells Canyon Dam is relatively intact, and

connectivity among bull trout subpopulations may still occur.

Bull trout occupy large areas of contiguous habitat in the Snake

River basin downstream of Hell's Canyon Dam, such as in the Clearwater

River and Salmon River basins. High numbers of bull trout have been

observed in the Tucannon River, Imnaha River, Clearwater River, Salmon

River, and Malheur River subpopulations, however, trends in abundance

are largely unknown or declining. The Service considers 9 of the 34

subpopulations at risk of extirpation because of naturally occurring

events due to isolation, single life-history form and spawning area,

and low abundance.

In summary, the Columbia River population segment of bull trout has

declined in overall range and numbers of fish. Though still widespread,

there have been numerous local extirpations reported throughout the

Columbia River basin. In Idaho, for example, bull trout have been

extirpated from 119 reaches in 28 streams (IDFG in litt. 1995) . The

population segment is composed of 141 subpopulations indicating habitat

fragmentation, isolation, and barriers that limit bull trout

distribution and migration within the basin. Although some strongholds

still exist, bull trout, generally, occur as isolated subpopulations in

headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish have been lost.

Previous Federal Action

On September 18, 1985, the Service published an animal notice of

review in the Federal Register (50 FR 37958) designating the bull trout

a category 2 candidate for listing in the coterminous United States.

Category 2 taxa were those for which conclusive data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not currently available to support

proposed rules. The Service published updated notices of review for

animals on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and November 21, 1991 (56 FR

58804), reconfirming the bull trout category 2 status. The Service

elevated bull trout in the coterminous United States to category 1 for

Federal listing on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Category 1 taxa

were those for which the Service had on file substantial information on

biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing

proposals. Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, notice of review

(61 FR 7596), the Service ceased using category designations and

included the bull trout as a candidate species. Candidate species are

those which the Service has on file sufficient information on

biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the

species as threatened or endangered.

On October 30, 1992, the Service received a petition to list the

bull trout as an endangered species throughout its range from the

following conservation organizations in Montana--Alliance for the Wild

Rockies, Inc., Friends of the Wild Swan, and Swan View Coalition

(petitioners). The petitioners also requested an emergency listing and

concurrent critical habitat designation for bull trout populations in

select aquatic ecosystems where the biological information indicated

that the species was in imminent threat of extinction. A 90-day

finding, published on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28849), determined that the

petitioners had provided substantial information indicating that

listing of the species may be warranted. The Service initiated a

rangewide status review of the species concurrent with publication of

the 90-day finding.

On June 6, 1994, the Service concluded in the original finding that

listing of bull trout throughout its range was not warranted due to

unavailable or insufficient data regarding threats to, and status and

population trends of, the species within Canada and Alaska. However,

the Service determined that

[[Page 31653]]

sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats to

the species was available to support a warranted finding to list bull

trout within the coterminous United States. Because the Service

concluded that the threats were imminent and moderate to this

population segment, the Service gave the bull trout within the

coterminous United States a listing priority number of 9. As a result,

the Service found that listing a distinct vertebrate population segment

of bull trout residing in the coterminous United States was warranted

but precluded due to higher priority listing actions.

On November 1, 1994, Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. and Alliance

for the Wild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit in the U.S. District

Court of Oregon (Court) arguing that the warranted but precluded

finding was arbitrary and capricious. After the Service issued a

``recycled'' 12-month finding for the coterminous population of bull

trout on June 12, 1995, the Court issued an order declaring the

plaintiffs' challenge to the original finding moot. The plaintiffs

declined to amend their complaint and appealed to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, which found that the plaintiffs' challenge fell

``within the exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are

capable of repetition yet evading review.'' On April 2, 1996, the

circuit court remanded the case back to the district court. On November

13, 1996, the Court issued an order and opinion remanding the original

finding to the Service for further consideration. Included in the

instructions from the Court were requirements that the Service limit

its review to the 1994 administrative record, and incorporate any

emergency listings or high magnitude threat determinations into current

listing priorities. In addition, reliance on other Federal agency plans

and actions was precluded. The reconsidered 12-month finding based on

the 1994 Administrative Record was delivered to the Court on March 13,

1997.

On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a motion for mandatory

injunction to compel the Service to issue a proposed rule to list the

Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations within 30 days

based solely on the 1994 Administrative Record. In response to this

motion, the Service ``concluded that the law of this case requires the

publication of a proposed rule'' to list the two warranted populations.

On April 4, 1997, the Service requested 60 days to prepare and review

the proposed rule. In a stipulation between the Service and plaintiffs

filed with the Court on April 11, 1997, the Service agreed to issue a

proposed rule in 60 days to list the Klamath River population of bull

trout as endangered and the Columbia River population of bull trout as

threatened based solely on the 1994 record.

Based upon the Court agreement and stipulation, and information

contained solely in the 1994 record, the Service proposed the Klamath

River population of bull trout as endangered and Columbia River

population of bull trout as threatened on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32268).

The proposal included a 60-day comment period and gave notice of five

public hearings in Portland, Oregon; Spokane, Washington; Missoula,

Montana; Klamath Falls, Oregon; and Boise, Idaho. The comment period on

the proposal, which originally closed on August 12, 1997, was extended

to October 17, 1997 (62 FR 42092), to provide the public with more time

to compile information and submit comments.

On December 4, 1997, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider

several aspects of the 1997 reconsidered finding. On February 2, 1998,

the Court gave the Service until June 12, 1998, to respond. The final

listing determination for the Klamath River and Columbia River

population segments of bull trout and the concurrent proposed listing

rule for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly

River DPSs constitute the Service's response.

The Service published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years

1998 and 1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the

order in which the Service will process rulemakings giving highest

priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second

priority (Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to

add species to the Lists, processing new proposals to add species to

the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions (to add

species to the Lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species),

and processing a limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or

reclassify species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed

or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this

proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the June 13, 1997, proposed rule (62 FR 32268), all interested

parties were requested to submit comments or information that might

contribute to the final listing determination for bull trout.

Announcements of the proposed rule and notice of public hearings were

sent to at least 370 individuals, including Federal, State, county and

city elected officials, State and Federal agencies, interested private

citizens and local area newspapers and radio stations. Announcements of

the proposed rule were also published in nine newspapers--the

Oregonian, Portland, Oregon; the Spokesman Review, Spokane, Washington;

the Yakima Herald, Yakima, Washington; the Missoulian, Missoula,

Montana; the Kalispell Interlake, Kalispell, Montana; the Idaho

Statesman, Boise, Idaho; the Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho; the

Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Herald and News, Klamath

Falls, Oregon. Public hearings were held on July 1, 1997, in Portland,

Oregon; July 8, 1997, in Spokane, Washington; July 10, 1997, in

Missoula, Montana; July 15, 1997, in Klamath Falls, Oregon; and July

17, 1997, in Boise, Idaho. In response to numerous requests for

additional time to complete compilation of information and meaningfully

participate in the public comment process, the Service published a

notice on August 5, 1997 (62 FR 42092), extending the comment period to

October 17, 1997.

Eighty-four oral and 278 written (including electronic mail)

comments were received on the proposed rule. These included comments

from 7 Federal agencies, 9 State agencies, 6 counties in Oregon and

Idaho, 2 Native American tribes, 6 private timber companies, and 20

industry or trade associations and bureaus. Comments were also received

from the Idaho Congressional delegation, and Governors from the states

of Montana, Idaho and Oregon.

The Service did not specifically solicit formal scientific peer

review of the proposal as outlined in the Service's July 1, 1994,

Interagency Cooperative Policy (59 FR 34270) because the proposal was

based on the 1994 administrative record and not the best available

scientific information. However, in the process of making this final

listing determination, a number of professional fishery biologists were

consulted and their comments and information were either incorporated

into the listing decision as appropriate or are addressed below.

The Service considered all comments, including oral testimony at

the five public hearings. A majority of comments supported the listing

proposal and 65 comments were in opposition. Opposition was based on

several concerns, including conflicts between ongoing State

conservation efforts and Federal listing; possible economic impacts

from listing the bull

[[Page 31654]]

trout; lack of solutions to the bull trout decline that would result

from listing; and because the proposed rule was not peer-reviewed or

based on the most current information. Seventy-three respondents

provided new scientific information considered by the Service for this

determination. The states of Idaho and Montana submitted conservation

plans for bull trout for consideration by the Service in lieu of

listing. The USFS (R. Joslin, USFS, in litt. 1997), BLM (A. Thomas,

BLM, in litt. 1997) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (M.

McClendon, USBR, in litt. 1997) provided the Service with information

on respective agency efforts to date to assess, evaluate, monitor, and

conserve bull trout populations in habitats affected by each agency's

management. Because multiple respondents offered similar comments in

some cases, comments of a similar nature or point are grouped. These

comments and the Service's response are discussed below--

Issue 1: Several respondents urged the Service to list bull trout

throughout its entire range. Two respondents recommended that the

Service include the Jarbidge River bull trout population as a

threatened species. Another respondent stated that the proposal to list

the entire Columbia River bull trout population was too broad and

suggested that the area be analyzed for listing purposes by major river

segments. Conversely, another respondent requested that the Service

designate bull trout in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins as

distinct population segments, citing geographic and historic isolation,

and biological significance to the species as a whole as reasons.

Additionally, several other commenters suggested that smaller, more

manageable distinct population segments be established to avoid listing

healthy populations so that conservation efforts can be applied to

areas where restoration is truly needed. Other commenters, at the

Federal, State and local level suggested other delineations for the

distinct population segments, and questioned whether listing would

afford protection of bull trout only in currently occupied habitat.

Service response: Based on the best available scientific and

commercial information, and consistent with the distinct vertebrate

population policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1997), the Service has

determined that bull trout should be divided into five distinct

vertebrate populations for listing purposes, but only in the

coterminous United States (see Distinct Population Segment section).

The Klamath River and the Columbia River population segments are the

subject of this final rule and the remaining three population segments

are addressed in an accompanying proposed rule.

In addressing the appropriateness in designating additional DPSs

within the Columbia River basin, the Service reviewed new genetic and

other biological data developed since 1994, and determined that there

is insufficient information available to further divide this DPS.

Although many bull trout groups in the Columbia River basin were

discrete according to the DPS policy, they failed to meet criteria for

significance (e.g. bull trout in the Little Lost River basin in Idaho

and portions of the upper Columbia River basin). However, during the

recovery process, further division of the Columbia River DPS into

recovery units or zones including separation of the bull trout in the

Kootenai River, Clark Fork-Pend Oreille River, Little Lost River, 17

potential genetic conservation groups (GCGs) in the State of

Washington, and 8 additional GCGs in Oregon can be considered. For

wide-ranging species, designation of recovery units can focus recovery

objectives on the specific threats, status and habitat requirements

within the defined geographic area. Although recovery units cannot be

individually delisted without consideration of the entire listed entity

(species or DPS), the Service can develop ``special rules'' (under

section 4(d) of the Act) for individual recovery units (see issue #6

below for more information on special rules).

Issue 2: Several respondents stated that because the proposed rule

was based on information gathered prior to June 1994, listing should be

deferred until new information is analyzed and updated. Comments that

``* * * quality of peer reviewed scientific data is noticeably

lacking'' were also received. Some respondents questioned why the bull

trout is now being considered for listing when the Service's analysis

in the proposed rule concluded that bull trout had a widespread range

and threats to the fish were only moderate. Respondents also stated

that conclusions in the proposed rule regarding population distribution

and population trends were inaccurate.

Service response: The U.S. District Court of Oregon ordered the

Service on November 13, 1996, to reconsider the original 1994 bull

trout finding based only information available to the agency when it

made the original 1994 finding. Therefore, the Service was mandated to

move ahead with a listing proposal based on the information contained

in the 1994 administrative record. In making this final listing

determination, however, the Service has reviewed and considered new

information regarding distribution and life history for the Klamath

River and Columbia River population segments of bull trout. This

includes, but is not limited to, new bull trout status, distribution,

and threats information, and also descriptions of ongoing conservation

actions, contained in reports and other written correspondence

available since 1994 concerning bull trout in Idaho (Adams and Bjornn

1997; Batt 1996; Bonneau and Scarnecchia 1996; Corley 1997; Elle 1995;

Espinoza et al. 1997; N. Horner, IDFG, in litt. 1997); Montana (Berg

and Priest 1995; Hillman and Chapman 1996; Hansen and DosSantos 1997;

Kanda et al. 1997; Long 1995, 1997; Mathieus 1996; McDowell et al 1997;

MBTSG 1995a-e; MBTSG 1996a-h; Rich 1996; Swanberg 1996; Swanberg and

Burns 1997); Oregon (Buchanan et al. 1997; Buchanan and Gregory 1997;

Capruso 1997; Crabtree 1996; Germond et al. 1996a, b; Ratliff et al.

1996; Spruell and Allendorf 1997); Washington (Faler and Bair 1996;

Northrop 1997; Raekes 1996; Sexauer and James 1997; WDFW 1997); the

Klamath River basin (Buktenica 1997; Buktenica and Larson 1997; Light

et al. 1996; ODFW 1996) and bull trout in the Columbia River basin

(Platts et al. 1995; Quigley and Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al in press;

Rieman and McIntyre 1995, 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997; Williams et al

1995; R. Joslin, in litt, 1997; J. Kraft, Plum Creek, in litt. 1997; M.

McClendon, in litt, 1997; Palmisano and Kacynski, in litt, 1997;

Thomas, in litt, 1997).

Based on the best information currently available, bull trout in

the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments are not more

widespread or found in other areas of the Klamath or Columbia River

basins than shown in the 1994 administrative record. Bull trout occur

over a large geographic area in four states within the Columbia River

drainage. However, bull trout display a generally patchy distribution

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The best available information indicates

that bull trout are in widespread decline across the historic range and

restricted to numerous reproductively isolated subpopulations in the

Columbia River basin with many recent local extirpations. The largest

contiguous areas supporting bull trout are ``strongholds'' in central

Idaho and Montana, such as the upper Flathead River basin. Many

remaining bull trout subpopulations are characterized by declining

trends, low relative subpopulation size, loss of migratory

[[Page 31655]]

fish or the presence of a single life-history form, and isolated from

other bull trout by large geographic separation(s). Habitat loss,

fragmentation and other changes that have isolated and continue to

impact bull trout subpopulations also increase their susceptibility to

naturally occurring processes (both demographically and

environmentally). Many remaining subpopulations in both the Klamath

River and Columbia River population segments are at risk of extirpation

from the combined effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of

migration corridors, and inability to reestablish extirpated

subpopulations through emigration, and recovery actions are required to

slow the rate of habitat loss and continued reductions in range.

Existing regulations have not arrested the decline of bull trout and

newly developed State and local conservation strategies are largely not

implemented.

Issue 3: Several respondents opposed the Federal listing or

believed it not necessary, and expressed support for various State and

local conservation plans developed for bull trout. Two respondents

stated that State forest practice rules and regulations are adequate to

conserve and restore bull trout. In addition, others recommended that

if the bull trout is eventually listed, the Service should defer to the

States for management and recovery.

Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires that

listing decisions be made solely on the best scientific and commercial

data available after conducting a review of the status of the species.

The Act also instructs the Service to consider ``existing regulatory

mechanisms, including taking into account those efforts by State, local

and other entities to protect a species, including conservation plans

or practices.'' However, several recent Federal court decisions have

limited the extent to which the Service may rely upon land management

plans, agreements and other documents that are under development and

promise proposed future actions, as a basis for determining that

listing is not warranted (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.

Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920 (D. Ariz. 1996); Biodiversity Legal

Foundation v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23 (D. D.C. 1996).

The Service has reviewed conservation plans developed by the States

of Montana and Idaho, and other local conservation agencies for bull

trout. These actions are encouraging for long term bull trout

conservation and recovery. It is recognized that individual restoration

projects have been undertaken by States (for instance, the Klamath

River Basin Bull Trout Working Group has been implementing conservation

activities and planning efforts since 1993), and harvest regulations

for bull trout have become more restricted. However, based on the best

available information, the Service cannot determine or predict the

effectiveness of the conservation actions in reducing threats to the

bull trout in the Klamath River and Columbia River population segments

to the extent that listing is unnecessary.

The Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan (Plan) (Batt 1996), approved

in July 1996, addresses bull trout conservation in 59 key watersheds to

provide for the conservation and recovery of bull trout statewide. The

Plan emphasizes locally developed, site-specific programs with

technical assistance from appropriate State and Federal agencies.

Although the Plan establishes a mechanism for generating 59

conservation plans by the year 2008, it lacks any description of how

specific practices that currently affect bull trout (e.g., timber

harvest, mining, grazing, hydropower operations) will be modified. This

specificity would provide a basis for the development of future

conservation plans and help ensure adequate protection for bull trout.

It must also be clear how Federal agencies and private landowners in

key watersheds will be required to institute bull trout conservation

measures. Given the extent of Federal lands in Idaho, implementation of

bull trout conservation measures by the USFS and BLM are critical to

the Plan. The Plan also cites hydropower and irrigation practices

contributing to the decline of bull trout, but the Plan needs to

address these practices in light of the existing Idaho water law, USBR

water commitments, and existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) licenses. The Plan provides potential future benefits to bull

trout conservation and recovery once adequate funding and full

implementation occurs.

The Montana bull trout conservation effort was initiated in 1994.

Since 1994, 11 basin-specific status reports and two technical, peer-

reviewed papers have been completed. Local watershed groups are being

established; however, few on-the-ground local efforts have been

completed or are underway. The Service is a member of the Montana Bull

Trout Restoration Team which has been formed as part of the State's

Montana Bull Trout Plan. Although actions taken to date under the

Montana Plan have provided some benefits, not all threats to bull trout

have been addressed, partly by lack of State jurisdiction, except in a

few local areas. The Service is encouraged by State of Montana's

progress in implementing the Montana plan and developing appropriate

strategies to remove threats and promote conservation and recovery of

bull trout.

The Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Recovery Plan (Wallowa

County and Nez Perce Tribe, in litt. 1997) in Oregon is intended to

primarily aid in the recovery of listed chinook salmon and steelhead.

Twenty-six stream segments in the County have been identified for

restoration, with two to five stream segments scheduled to be addressed

each year over the next 15 years. By 2008, some positive steps towards

improved land and water management in Wallowa County should occur;

however, the limited scope of the plan will not benefit bull trout

outside the County or necessarily address threats on Federal lands.

Bull trout conservation and planning efforts in the Klamath River

basin were initiated earlier than similar State conservation efforts,

and incorporated all land owners of occupied bull trout habitat. The

Klamath River Basin Bull Trout Working Group (Working Group) functions

under a Memorandum of Understanding, and has been actively implementing

portions of the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy (Light

et al. 1996). These proactive interagency efforts to stabilize and

expand bull trout in the Klamath River basin are unique in their early

initiation and multi-entity approach. The Service supports and

encourages the Working Group to continue implementing phases I and II

of the Conservation Strategy and complete a formal implementation plan

for conservation of bull trout in the Klamath River basin.

Bull trout have declined across much of their former range due to a

variety of factors, including effects of dam construction, agricultural

practices, introduced non-native fishes, and forest practices. A

thorough discussion of the factors affecting bull trout is found in

``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Existing State law

addressing forest practices is discussed under Factor D in the

``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Although State rules and

regulations governing forested land management activities are

improving, they are generally not adequate to conserve and recover bull

trout or remedy the effects of past damage to bull trout habitats.

Issue 4: Several respondents opposed the proposed listing of bull

trout because possible ``activity restrictions'' and economic impacts

might occur.

Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, requires that a

listing

[[Page 31656]]

determination be based solely on the best scientific and commercial

information available. The legislative history of this provision

clearly states the intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing

decisions are ``based solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-

biological considerations from affecting such decisions'' (H.R. Rep.

No. 97-835, 97th Congress 2nd Session 19 (1982)). Because the Service

is specifically prohibited from considering economic and other non-

biological impacts of species listing, such impacts are not addressed

in this final rule.

Issue 5: Some respondents suggested that bull trout listing and

recovery may conflict with recovery of other listed fish, notably

endangered Snake River salmon species.

Service response: Concerns regarding the possible adverse

environmental and non-biological effects from implementing future

recovery measures cannot be considered in a decision to list a species.

However, these concerns are important in developing recovery measures

that take into account environmental effects on other species,

including listed Snake River salmon. The Service will fully evaluate

the environmental effects and consequences of implementing future

recovery measures for bull trout in the Columbia River and Klamath

River basins. It should be noted that bull trout co-evolved with Snake

River salmon and recovery actions that benefit one species may also

benefit other native fishes.

Issue 6: The Service received several comments on the proposed

special rule that would allow for take of bull trout within the

Columbia River population segment when it is in accordance with

applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations.

While some respondents supported the proposed special rule, others were

opposed to the special rule in its current form. Various activities

were cited that continue to threaten bull trout, including poaching,

electrofishing, and mis-identification of bull trout by fisherman.

Service response: Based on comments received during the public

comment period, the Service modified the special rule to address those

concerns. The 4(d) special rule conditions in this final rule relate to

existing State and Tribal conservation laws and harvest regulations

pertaining to bull trout at the time of publication of this rule. The

Service has determined that, as currently constituted, the applicable

State and Tribal fishing regulations provide conservation of bull

trout. In the event any of these laws and regulations are modified in a

manner that is inconsistent with conservation of bull trout, the 4(d)

rule would not allow the take of bull trout.

The Service also has discretion under section 4(d) of the Act to

issue special regulations for activities other than harvest regulations

for a threatened species that are deemed necessary and advisable for

its conservation. The Service recognizes that on-going and future land-

use activities will occur on non-Federal lands that may result in take

of bull trout. In the future, the Service will consider issuing special

rules that would define the conditions under which take associated with

State permitted, or other activities deemed necessary and advisable for

the species' conservation, would be authorized for bull trout. Special

rules allow for more efficient management of threatened species, and

encourage and enhance the conservation of species through the

development of regulations the Service deems necessary and advisable to

provide for conservation of the species. For example, conservation

actions or other activities implemented as part of the Idaho Governor's

bull trout plan, Wallowa County-Nez Perce Salmon Plan, Montana Bull

Trout Recovery Plan, and Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy

may qualify for consideration under a special rule. The Service will

consider the development and approval of special rules that will lead

to the conservation of bull trout, allowing certain specific land

management activities that may allow take of bull trout to continue or

occur, with certain restrictions. Under a special rule, this take of

bull trout as a result of these activities would not be considered a

violation of section 9 of the Act.

This process can provide non-Federal landowners with the

flexibility to develop prescriptions or restrictions for their lands

which would achieve the level of bull trout conservation consistent

with the special rule.

Issue 7: Several respondents stated that since hatcheries will be

relied on for bull trout restoration efforts, habitat threats would not

be addressed and hatchery-reared fish could transmit and introduce

disease to wild bull trout.

Service response: According to section 2(b) of the Act, one of the

purposes of the Act is ``to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be

conserved.'' Once a species becomes listed as threatened or endangered,

section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and implement

recovery plans for that species. Recovery means improvement in the

status of a listed species to the point at which listing is no longer

appropriate under the criteria provided in section 4 of the Act (50 CFR

402.02). Two goals of the recovery process are: (1) The maintenance of

secure, self-sustaining wild populations of the species; and (2)

restoration of the species to the point where it is a viable, self-

sustaining component of its ecosystem.

The Service recognizes that captive propagation and hatchery

supplementation can be valid conservation tools and assist in recovery

efforts, but by themselves, do not contribute to secure, self-

sustaining bull trout populations in the wild. For example, the Service

agrees with the findings of the Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group

that stocking or supplementation is a potential tool in the restoration

of bull trout and should only be used if the actual cause(s) of local

extirpations are identified and corrected first (MBTSG 1996g). Any such

project ``* * * involving stocking must be appropriate in scope,

judiciously applied, rigorously designed, and thoroughly monitored.''

Issue 8: Several respondents stated that the introduction of exotic

fishes, hybridization with brook trout, and past agency efforts to

eradicate bull trout are the primary causes of decline.

Response: The Service agrees that the introduction of exotic fishes

by fish management agencies, ongoing hybridization with brook trout,

and past efforts to eradicate bull trout have contributed to the

decline of the species. The significance of these threats, however,

varies by subpopulation location and habitat characteristics (See

Factors B, C and E of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''

section).

Issue 9: Several respondents requested that the Service designate

critical habitat as part of the final rulemaking process. A

representative of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, stated that ``* *

* the delineation of critical habitat should be based on repeatable,

verifiable scientific data followed by a common sense approach to

economics.''

Service response. A majority of the comments in this regard were

standardized requests advocating critical habitat designation with

special attention on roadless areas and riparian buffers. These

comments included no sight-specific analysis and provided no

information to aid the Service in delineation of critical habitat. The

proposed rule included a ``not determinable'' finding for designation

of critical habitat based on the 1994 administrative record and

solicited comments on whether any habitat

[[Page 31657]]

should be determined critical bull trout habitat. The Service received

no substantial new information regarding critical habitat during the

open comment period for the proposed rule. Therefore, based on the best

scientific information currently available, the Service finds in this

final rule that critical habitat designation is ``not determinable''

(see Critical Habitat section).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined that the Klamath River and

Columbia River distinct population segments of bull trout should be

classified as threatened. Procedures found at Section 4(a)(1) of the

Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) were followed. A species may be

determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and

their application to the Klamath River and Columbia River population

segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are as follows--

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of bull trout habitat or range. Land and water management

activities that degrade and continue to threaten bull trout and its

habitat include dams, forest management practices, livestock grazing,

agriculture and agricultural diversions, roads, and mining (Beschta et

al. 1987; Chamberlain et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan 1991;

Nehlsen et al. 1991; Sedell and Everest 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993;

Frissell 1993; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDI) 1995; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et

al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; Light et al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-

h; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997).

Dams

Dams affect bull trout by changing various biological and physical

processes. Dams can alter habitats; flow, sediment, and temperature

regimes; migration corridors; and interspecific interactions,

especially between bull trout and introduced species (Rode 1990;

Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) 1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993;

ODFW, in litt. 1993; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Wissmar et al. 1994; T.

Bodurtha, Service, in litt. 1995; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). Impassable

dams have caused declines of bull trout primarily by preventing access

of migratory fish to spawning and rearing areas in headwaters and

precluding recolonization of areas where bull trout have been

extirpated (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Existing dams can be passage and migratory barriers for bull trout

and these structures may isolate bull trout subpopulations, eliminate

individuals from subpopulations, reduce or eliminate genetic exchange,

and separate spawning areas from productive overwintering and foraging

areas (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995a,

1996b,c). Dams have fragmented bull trout habitat and resulted in

numerous isolated subpopulations. Within the Columbia River population

segment, 66 percent of bull trout subpopulations are isolated by dams

or indirectly by dam or water diversion operations that alter habitat

conditions. Individuals that pass downstream over or through dams are

often lost from the upstream subpopulations. Dams have converted

historic rearing habitats for migratory fish in the larger river system

to reservoirs with conditions that frequently are unsuitable for bull

trout (MBTSG 1996b), especially where non-native salmonids occur.

Although the predominant effects of dams affect the long term

viability of bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993;

Gilpin, in litt. 1997), dams can benefit bull trout by preventing

introduced non-native species access to upstream areas. For example,

dams on the Swan River and South Fork Flathead River, Montana, have

prevented lake trout from moving into these major river systems (MBTSG

1995e, 1996a). Dams may also increase the potential forage base for

bull trout by creating reservoirs that support prey species (Faler and

Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993).

The extirpation of bull trout in the McCloud River basin,

California, has been attributed primarily to construction and operation

of McCloud Dam, which began operation in 1965 (Rode 1990). McCloud Dam

inundated bull trout spawning and rearing habitats, and isolated these

fish from habitats used by migratory adults. The dam also altered the

stream flow regime and elevated water temperature to levels detrimental

to bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

Dams are not known to affect bull trout subpopulations in the

Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

Bull trout passage is prevented or inhibited at hydroelectric,

flood-control, or irrigation dams in almost every major river in the

Columbia River basin except the Salmon River in Idaho. For instance,

six dams were constructed without fish passage in the Boise River,

Idaho, and of these, Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch dams isolate bull

trout subpopulations. Historically, bull trout in the Boise River

likely functioned as a single subpopulation with migratory adults

moving among areas that are now isolated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Similarly, bull trout were thought to have ranged throughout the Yakima

River, Washington, prior to construction of several dams beginning in

1905 (WDFW 1997). Storage dams (Tieton, Bumping Lake, Keechelus Lake,

Kachess Lake, and Cle Elum Lake dams) now isolate five of eight bull

trout subpopulations in the Yakima River basin, with agricultural

diversion dams isolating three additional bull trout subpopulations

(WDFW 1997). Operation of irrigation diversion dams also disrupts

annual migrations of fluvial bull trout in five of seven spawning

streams in the Methow River basin, Washington (WDFW 1997). In the

mainstem Methow River, up to 79 percent of the average flow is removed

from a 64 km (40 mi) reach, occasionally stranding and killing bull

trout (Mullan et al. 1992). Due primarily to temperature constraints in

partially dewatered tributaries to the Methow River, 60 percent of the

total spawning and rearing areas for bull trout has been lost (Mullan

et al. 1992; WDFW, in litt. 1995). Also in Washington, bull trout in

the North Fork Lewis River were separated into two subpopulations by

the construction of Swift and Yale reservoirs, and the Condit Dam on

the White Salmon River also isolated a subpopulation (WDFW 1997). In

Oregon, bull trout were thought to have historically occurred

throughout the Willamette River basin, but are presently found only in

the McKenzie River basin. Dams in the basin (Trailbridge and Carmen)

isolate bull trout into three subpopulations.

In the mainstem Clark Fork River, Idaho and Montana, bull trout

moved and migrated freely from Lake Pend Oreille upstream to the

headwaters of the Clark Fork and Flathead rivers prior to construction

of five dams (Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996b; Frissell 1997). The

construction of Albeni Falls, Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids, Thompson

Falls, and Milltown dams isolated four bull trout subpopulations in the

mainstem Clark Fork-Pend Oreille rivers. The uppermost dam, Milltown,

isolates downstream fish from those in the upper Clark Fork River and

prevents fish downstream of the dam from

[[Page 31658]]

moving into the Blackfoot River, a major tributary of the upper Clark

Fork River. Annually, some bull trout congregate below Milltown Dam,

attempting to move upstream. Radio-tagged bull trout collected below

Milltown Dam and released above the dam moved into Rock Creek, a

tributary to the upper Clark Fork system (Swanberg 1996). Movement of

bull trout from the mainstem Clark Fork River to the Flathead Lake

system is prevented by Kerr Dam on the lower Flathead River. Sport

harvest of bull trout from Lake Pend Orielle, Idaho, abruptly declined

more than 50 percent after Albeni Falls and Cabinet Gorge dams blocked

access to historic spawning streams and reduced adult numbers (Ellis

1940; Pratt and Huston 1993).

Major tributaries of the Flathead River basin, Montana, were

historically interconnected so that migratory bull trout were widely

distributed throughout the drainage (MBTSG 1995d). Bull trout from the

Flathead River system had access to the South Fork Flathead River

drainage and the Swan River drainage. However, upstream passage from

the Flathead River has been blocked by dams on the South Fork Flathead

River (Hungry Horse Dam) and the Swan River (Bigfork Dam).

On the Kootenai River, Montana, Libby Dam is an upstream passage

barrier to bull trout. The dam also has altered the flow regime, water

temperature, and sediment load in the Kootenai River (MBTSG 1996e). Dam

operation has typically reduced spring flows, which has made upstream

passage over Kootenai Falls, located downstream of Libby Dam,

impossible. Therefore, fish below the falls do not have the opportunity

to interbreed with fish above (MBTSG 1996e).

An additional effect of dams on bull trout is the loss of

individuals from a subpopulation. During a 7-month study in the Boise

River, bull trout were marked in Arrowrock Reservoir and 5 percent of

them were recaptured in Lucky Peak Reservoir (USBR, in litt. 1997).

Lucky Peak Dam is downstream of the Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch

subpopulations, and neither Lucky Peak Reservoir nor the reach

downstream of the dam provide any known spawning habitat. Thus, fish

entering Lucky Peak Reservoir are lost from the upstream

subpopulations.

Forest Management Practices

Forest management activities, including timber extraction and road

building, affect streams habitats by altering recruitment of large

woody debris, erosion and sedimentation rates, runoff patterns, the

magnitude of peak and low flows, and annual water yield (Cacek 1989;

Furniss et al. 1991; Wissmar et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996).

Activities that promote excessive substrate movement lower bull trout

production by increasing egg and juvenile mortality, and reduce or

eliminate habitat important to later life-history stages, such as when

pools are filled with substrates (Shepard et al. 1984; Fraley and

Shepard 1989; Brown 1992). The length and timing of bull trout egg

incubation and juvenile development (typically more than 200 days

during winter and spring) and the strong association of juvenile fish

with stream substrate make bull trout vulnerable to changes in peak

flows and timing that affect channels and substrate (Shepard et al.

1984; Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992).

Logging and road building in riparian zones reduce stream shading

and widen stream channels, allowing greater sunlight penetration,

surface water warming, and winter anchor ice formation (Beschta et al.

1987; Chamberlain et al. 1991). Timber extraction in riparian areas

that results in increased water temperatures in spawning and rearing

areas may cause bull trout to decline (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman

and McIntyre 1993). Logging in riparian areas reduces recruitment of

large woody debris, thereby reducing stream habitat complexity. Loss of

riparian vegetation destabilizes streambanks and increases erosion and

sediment delivery to streams. Road construction that involves

channelizing streams may cause reduced habitat complexity and increased

sediment delivery.

Although bull trout occur in watersheds affected by past timber

extraction, bull trout strongholds persist in a greater percentage of

watersheds experiencing little or no past timber harvest, such as the

wilderness areas of Central Idaho and the South Fork Flathead River

drainage in Montana (Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995e; USDA and USDI

1997; Rieman et al. in press). One bull trout stronghold subject to

extensive logging and road construction is in the Swan River basin

(Watson and Hillman 1997). It is difficult to assess the overall

effects of forestry practices on bull trout in parts of the basin

because of the complex geomorphology and geology of the drainage (MBTSG

1996a). However, the Swan River tributaries also drain large areas of

contiguous roadless lands that provide important protected bull trout

habitat.

Timber harvest has occurred throughout the Columbia River (Henjum

et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997) and Klamath River basins (Light

et al. 1996; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). The effects of timber harvest

on streams are long lasting, and recovery is slow (Furniss et al. 1991;

Henjum et al. 1994). The MBTSG ranked forestry, especially the legacy

left by past forestry practices, as a limitation to bull trout

restoration in all major watersheds in Montana (MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-

f).

Klamath River Population Segment

Much of the forest in the Klamath River basin has been managed for

timber production, with substantial activity beginning in 1940.

Extensive harvesting, including partial cutting with overstory removal,

clearcutting, and selective logging for old-growth pine occurred on

private lands, and low intensity harvest occurred on some of the USFS

lands. Past forest management activities in the Klamath River basin

have temporarily reduced riparian vegetative cover and increased water

temperature in some streams, including Threemile Creek (Light et al.

1996). Roads were built in the basin for access to timber, causing

increased sedimentation and substrate embeddedness. Sediment from

existing roads continues to degrade stream habitat (Light et al. 1996).

Weyerhauser Timber Company began an improved road maintenance program

in 1994 to reduce sediment inputs from roads on its lands adjacent to

occupied bull trout stream reaches in the Klamath River basin, and U.S.

Timberlands is presently continuing the practice (B. Johnson, pers.

comm. 1997). Two recent timber harvest activities occurred on U.S.

Timberlands property along Boulder Creek in 1994 and Long Creek in 1995

(Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, pers. comm. 1997). A review of the

activities concluded that leaving buffer strips and obliterating

existing roads left the riparian habitat in better condition than

before the timber harvest (B. Johnson, pers. comm. 1997). No timber

harvests are currently planned for areas adjacent to streams occupied

by bull trout. Six of the seven bull trout subpopulations identified in

the Klamath River basin have been affected by past forest management

practices.

Columbia River Population Segment

Perhaps the greatest threat to bull trout involving forest

practices and roads stems from the ongoing and latent adverse effects

caused by over a century of logging. Latent threats are illustrated by

approximately 2,300 land slides correlated with high logging road

density on national forest lands in the Clearwater and Spokane rivers

basins during high runoff events in 1995 and

[[Page 31659]]

1996 (L. McLaud, Idaho Conservation League, in litt. 1997; R. Patten,

Panhandle National Forest, in litt. 1997). The same runoff events also

triggered an estimated 2,000 land slides on adjacent non-Federal timber

lands in the Clearwater River basin (McLaud, in litt. 1997). On over

half of the non-wilderness lands within National Forests across

northern Idaho and western Montana, the environmental effects of past

forest practices now constrain forest management (USFS map, in litt.

1994). For example, 70 percent of stream miles on the Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest are degraded beyond Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP) standards for fine sediment and temperature parameters on the

forest (Wissmar et al. 1994). On the Panhandle National Forest, Idaho,

pool volumes, quality and frequency in managed watersheds (mainly

watersheds with past timber extraction and road construction) were

reduced compared to non-managed watersheds. Further, decreases in pool

volume and frequency were correlated with decreases in the distribution

and abundance of bull trout (Cross and Everest 1995). In the Lake Pend

Oreille and Priest River basins, 31 percent of streams in National

Forest lands are degraded beyond LRMP standards, and 51 percent of

streams are in the most degraded category (B. Kasun, USFS, in litt.

1993). Streams in the most degraded category generally do not support

bull trout because of stream morphology changes, increased cobble

embeddedness and high summer temperatures. Jones and Espinosa (1992)

determined that 71 percent of the stream or watershed areas in the

managed portion of the Clearwater National Forest did not meet LRMP

standards, and that streams in poor condition generally did not support

bull trout. Similarly, 67 percent of the non-wilderness portion of the

Nez Perce National Forest did not meet LRMP standards, and streams in

the most degraded category increased 12 percent over a five year period

between 1987 and 1992 (Gloss and Gerhardt 1992).

In the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, bull trout spawning

and rearing is correlated with streams not subject to past timber

harvest (Brown 1992). Timber harvest activities were responsible in the

decline and isolation of bull trout in Pataha Creek, Washington (WDFW

1997), a tributary in the Tucannon River drainage. In the North Fork

Boise River basin, Idaho, the majority of bull trout spawning and

rearing habitat for the Arrowrock Reservoir subpopulation exists in the

roadless headwaters of the Crooked, Bear, and North Fork Boise rivers

(Boise National Forest, in litt. 1995).

The long-lasting effects of past timber management activities on

aquatic habitats is illustrated by conditions in the 3,289

km2 (1,270 mi2) South Fork Salmon River

watershed, Idaho. The watershed was first logged in the 1940's and

logging activity peaked in 1961 (Chapman et al. 1991). Sedimentation in

the South Fork Salmon River increased approximately 350 percent above

pre-logging levels (Chapman et al. 1991). Resident and anadromous

salmonids, including bull trout, declined after timber extraction and

associated road building. Despite a 25-year logging moratorium in the

watershed, fish habitat has not returned to pre-logging quality, and

salmon production has not recovered (Chapman et al. 1991).

A relationship between forest management, watershed conditions,

aquatic habitat degradation, and loss of occupied bull trout range has

been documented in the Spokane River basin, Idaho. Streambed

aggradation and loss of pool habitat are attributed to forest

management and associated roads in the basin (G. Kappesser, Panhandle

National Forest, in litt. 1993). The loss of pool habitat correlates to

reductions in bull trout range and abundance in managed watersheds

(Cross and Everest 1995). Sixty-one percent of the basin's managed

watersheds do not meet forest plan standards (B. Kasum, Panhandle

National Forest, in litt. 1992). The Nez Perce National Forest, Idaho,

provides an example of the rate of watershed degradation. Significantly

degraded watersheds with forest management increased by 12 percent in

only 5 years; 40 percent of all non-wilderness land were in degraded

condition (Gloss and Gearhardt 1992).

The USFS classified watersheds in the Bitterroot National Forest,

Montana, into three categories, ``healthy,'' ``sensitive,'' and ``high

risk'' based on sediment yield from road construction and increased

water yield and peak flow from timber harvest (Decker 1991 in MBTSG

1995b). About one third of all watersheds were assigned to each of the

three categories. Bull trout with estimable numbers were found only in

watersheds rated as ``healthy'' or ``sensitive drainages'' (Clancy

1993). The effects of past forest practices, including road

construction, continue to affect Bitterroot tributaries (MBTSG 1995b).

Generally, bull trout numbers were higher where stream substrates were

larger, but numbers tended to be lower in areas high in fine sediments

(Clancy 1993). In contrast, habitat where brook trout were found were

characteristic of areas degraded by land use activities (Rich 1996).

Eighty-five percent of the drainages classified as ``high risk''

supported brook trout (Clancy 1993) (see Factor E).

Extensive logging activity has impaired water quality in many

tributaries of the Blackfoot River, Montana, including the North Fork

Blackfoot River (Montana Department of Health and Environmental

Sciences (MDHES) 1994). Wide-spread canopy removal, alterations to

riparian vegetation, and water irrigation returns have increased the

historic temperature regime of the Blackfoot River (MBTSG 1995c; Pierce

et al. 1997). Water temperatures in the mainstem Blackfoot frequently

exceeded the bull trout preferred range of 15 deg.C (60 deg.F) in 1994,

1995 and 1996, making coldwater refuges during this time critical for

bull trout (Pierce et al. 1997). The effect of forest practices was

considered a limitation to bull trout restoration in the Blackfoot

River drainage (MBTSG 1995c).

Timber management is the dominant land use in the Kootenai River

watershed, Montana. Extensive road construction to support forestry

activities exists throughout the watershed. Many reaches of streams in

the Kootenai drainage have impaired water quality as a result of

silviculture activities (MDHES 1994). As a result of salvage logging in

1996, the number of timber sales and clearcuts have substantially

increased over the past three years (Kootenai National Forest 1997).

Past forest practices, including road construction, log skidding,

riparian tree harvest, clearcutting, and splash dams, are considered a

cause in the historic decline of bull trout and have limited

restoration opportunities in the Flathead Lake basin (MBTSG 1995d).

This basin supports over 30 subpopulations in wilderness, national

park, national forest, and private lands of Montana. Because bull trout

are sensitive to habitat and water quality degradation, Fraley and

Shepard (1989) considered timber harvest and road construction in both

the North and Middle Fork Flathead River drainages to be threats to

bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. Although forest practices have

improved, effects of past activities still affect bull trout because

the existing road systems continue to erode, cause sedimentation, and

increase water yield to streams. Silvicultural activities have

contributed to 323.2 km (202 mi) in 17 streams being classified as

water quality impaired in the Flathead basin (MDHES 1994). Existing

roads in two National Forests of Idaho (Boise and Payette)

[[Page 31660]]

created slides and slumps during 1997, a high water year. In some areas

of Montana and Idaho, culverts, that are passage barriers for bull

trout, are being replaced at road crossings (P. Batt, Governor of

Idaho, in litt. 1997, P. Graham, Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks

(MFWP), and B. Clinch, Montana Department of Natural Resources and

Conservation (MDNRC), in litt. 1997).

Future proposed timber harvests also threaten bull trout. For

instance, in Oregon, the Malheur National Forest proposes to salvage

trees and build roads in a roadless area containing bull trout, site of

the 1996 Summit Fire in the John Day River watershed, and a designated

riparian habitat conservation area in the Environmental Assessment for

the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995). The project has not been completed,

but it would likely degrade bull trout habitat if implemented as

presently planned.

In summary, forestry activities that adversely affect bull trout

and its habitat are primarily timber extraction and road construction,

especially when impacting riparian areas. These activities, when

conducted without adequate protective measures, alter bull trout

habitat by increasing sedimentation, reducing habitat complexity,

increasing water temperature, and promoting channel instability.

Although certain forestry practices have been prohibited or altered in

recent years to improve protection of aquatic habitats, the

consequences of past activities continue to affect bull trout and their

habitat. Within the Columbia River population segment, approximately 74

percent of bull trout subpopulations are threatened by forestry

management practices.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing degrades aquatic habitat by removing riparian

vegetation, destabilizing streambanks, widening stream channels,

promoting incised channels and lowering water tables, reducing pool

frequency, increasing soil erosion, and altering water quality (Platts

1981; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Henjum et al. 1994; Overton et al.

1993). These effects increase summer water temperatures, promote

formation of anchor ice in winter, and increase sediment into spawning

and rearing habitats. Cover for bull trout is reduced. Occupied bull

trout habitat is also negatively affected by livestock grazing (Howell

and Buchanan 1992; Mullan et al. 1992; Platts et al. 1993; R. Uberuaga,

Payette National Forest, in litt. 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG

1995a,b,c; USDA and USDI 1996,1997).

Livestock grazing impacts on bull trout habitat maybe minimized if

grazing is managed appropriately for conditions at a specific site.

Practices generally compatible with the preservation and restoration of

bull trout habitat may include fences to exclude livestock from

riparian areas, rotation schemes to avoid overuse of areas, and stock

tanks so that livestock would concentrate outside of riparian areas for

water.

Klamath River Population Segment

Intensive livestock grazing historically occurred throughout most

of the Klamath River basin, and continues to be widespread (Light et

al. 1996). Livestock grazing is a major land use within the Sprague

River drainage, mostly in the lowland meadows and to a lesser extent in

some forested areas. Grazing has been eliminated along bull trout

streams on U.S. Timberlands property (B. Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, in

litt. 1997) and adjacent National Forest lands. However, documented

cattle trespass on Long and Deming creeks indicates that livestock

continue to locally affect bull trout habitats (Light et al. 1996;

Buchanan et al. 1997). The meadows in upper Long Creek exhibit bank

instability and diminished availability of undercut banks caused by

livestock (Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization and intense grazing by

cattle degraded lower Sun Creek and an adjoining stream in the Klamath

River basin and may have contributed to the extirpation of migratory

bull trout in Sun Creek (Dambacher et al. 1992).

Columbia River Population Segment

Livestock grazing has caused habitat degradation in stream reaches

supporting bull trout. On Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Payette

River, Idaho, livestock grazing has damaged streambank and riparian

vegetation. While fencing and grazing changes are underway to reduce

impacts in this area, future damage from grazing will not be eliminated

(M. Huffman, Boise National Forest (BNF), in litt. 1997). Livestock

grazing continues to affect bull trout habitat for spawning, rearing,

and migration in Bear Valley Creek and its tributaries in the BNF,

Idaho (T. Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997). Livestock grazing was a

factor in the decline of bull trout habitat in Pataha Creek, Washington

(WDFW 1997). In Montana, severe overgrazing occurs in the Bitterroot

River valley bottom streams and along the mainstem Clark Fork River in

the Deerlodge valley, Flint Creek valley, and parts of Rock Creek, and

limits bull trout restoration in these drainages (MBTSG 1995a,b; Maxell

1996). Overall, livestock grazing in portions of the Wieser, Grande

Ronde, Imnaha, and Malheur rivers has degraded streamside habitat

(Adams 1994; Buchanan et al. 1997). Of the 141 subpopulations the

Service identified in the Columbia River population segment,

approximately 50 percent were threatened by ongoing livestock grazing.

Agricultural Practices

Agricultural practices, such as cultivation, irrigation, and

chemical application can affect bull trout. Agriculture has been

identified a source of nonpoint source pollution in some areas within

the range of bull trout (Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW)

1991; Washington Department of Ecology (WDE) 1992; MDHES 1994). These

practices can release sediment, nutrients, pesticides and herbicides

into streams, increase temperature, reduce riparian vegetation, and

alter the hydrologic regime, typically with low flows in the spring and

summer. Irrigation diversions also affect bull trout by altering stream

flow and through entrainment. Bull trout may enter unscreened

irrigation diversions and become stranded in ditches and agricultural

fields. Diversion dams, without proper passage facilities, prevent bull

trout from migrating and may isolate subpopulations (Dorratcaque 1986;

Light et al. 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

Historical agricultural use in the Klamath River basin has had a

profound effect on bull trout habitat in the larger tributaries and

mainstem rivers (Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization, water

diversions, removal of streamside vegetarian, and disturbances have

altered the aquatic environment by elevating water temperature,

reducing water quantity and quality, and increasing sedimentation

(Light et al. 1996). Deming, Long, Threemile, and Sun creeks have

diversions immediately downstream of occupied bull trout habitat

(Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997). Unscreened diversions result in

the transport of fish into irrigation canals (e.g., Deming and Sun

creeks), often resulting in mortality (Light et al. 1996).

Columbia River Population Segment

In 1988, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)

conducted an assessment of nonpoint source pollution of the Salmon

River basin. Of 4,080 km (2,550 mi) of streams assessed, an estimated

2,059 km (1,287

[[Page 31661]]

mi) were affected by nonpoint sources, of which 1,374 km (859 mi) were

affected by agricultural practices (IDHW 1991). Dewatering of stream

reaches due to irrigation has restricted bull trout migration and

isolated bull trout into subpopulations. Examples include the Powder,

Malheur, Grande Ronde, Umatilla, and John Day rivers in Oregon

(Buchanan et al. 1997); the Tucannon, Snake, Yakima, Methow, and Walla

Walla rivers in Washington (WDW 1992; WDFW 1997); the upper Salmon and

Lemhi rivers in Idaho (Dorratcaque 1986; Chapman et al. 1991); and the

Clark Fork, Blackfoot, and Bitterroot rivers in Montana (Clancy 1993;

MBTSG 1995a,b,c; 1996b,c; Swanberg 1996).

The mainstem Umatilla River is frequently dry during the irrigation

season, effectively isolating bull trout (M. Northrop, Umatilla

National Forest, pers. comm. 1997). Moreover, two diversion facilities

in the Umatilla River inhibit migration during portions of the year

(Buchanan et al. 1997). Walla Walla River basin bull trout

subpopulations are segregated in the Touchet River, Mill Creek, and

South Fork and North Fork of the Walla Walla River by four irrigation

diversion dams (Buchanan et al 1997; WDFW 1997). Streams are also

channelized in agricultural areas, reducing stream length and area of

aquatic habitat, altering stream channel morphology, and diminishing

aquatic habitat complexity.

In Idaho, Dorratcaque (1986) documented chronic flow and passage

problems on the Lemhi River, where the stream has been dewatered during

the irrigation season. An irrigation diversion dewaters the upper

Salmon River in Idaho from mid-July to the end of the irrigation

season, preventing chinook salmon access to spawning areas. Juvenile

chinook salmon, which are used as prey by bull trout, are, thereby, no

longer available (Chapman et al. 1991). Streamflows in the Umatilla

River basin in Oregon have been fully appropriated during the

irrigation season since 1920 (Oregon Water Resources Division (OWRD),

in litt. 1988). Over-appropriations have resulted in dewatered stream

reaches that limit bull trout distribution within the basin. Similarly,

the Oregon State Game Commission (OSGC) first recognized the negative

effects of irrigation diversions on fisheries resources in the

Deschutes River as early as 1950 (OSGC, in litt. 1950). In Washington,

over 80 percent of the annual stream flow in the Yakima River basin is

seasonally diverted for irrigation (WDW 1992). Bull trout in the basin

are isolated into eight subpopulations in upper watershed tributaries

by reduced summer flows and dams (WDW 1992). The lower reaches of the

Walla Walla River in Washington are often dewatered during the

irrigation season, isolating three bull trout subpopulations in

perennial headwater reaches (Martin et al. 1992).

In 1991, MFWP listed Montana streams that support or contribute to

important fisheries and are substantially dewatered from diversions and

appropriated streamflows (MFWP, in litt. 1991). Within the range of

bull trout, 101 stream reaches totaling 958.4 km (599 mi) were listed

as chronically dewatered due to irrigation withdrawals and an

additional 220.8 km (138 mi) were listed as periodically dewatered.

Although bull trout do not occur in all streams cited, all are within

the range of bull trout and dewatering likely affects fish migration

and connectivity among subpopulations.

The extirpation of bull trout in the mainstem Bitterroot River,

Montana, and the loss of migratory fish are attributed to chronic

dewatering of the mainstem Bitterroot and the lower reaches of most of

its tributaries (Clancy 1993, 1996; MBTSG 1995b). Some diversions on

the mainstem Bitterroot are fish passage barriers or entrain downstream

migrants into irrigation ditches (MBTSG 1995b). Nearly 104 km (65 mi)

of 18 tributary streams are chronically dewatered in the Bitterroot

River basin (MBTSG 1995b). Dewatering of tributary streams is a

limitation to restoration of bull trout in the Bitterroot River basin

(MBTSG 1995b) and the cause of habitat fragmentation isolating 27

subpopulations.

In the Clark Fork River basin, Montana, irrigation diversions,

canals, and dams in the Jocko and lower Flathead rivers eliminated bull

trout access to spawning and rearing areas; however, some of these

structures are in the process of being modified (MBTSG 1996c; Hansen

and DosSantos 1997; MBTRT 1997). The lower reaches of the Jocko River

are severely affected by grazing and irrigated agriculture (Hansen and

DosSantos 1997). Because migratory bull trout can no longer ascend

Grant Creek from the mainstem Clark Fork River due to irrigation

diversions, only resident bull trout exist upstream (MBTSG 1996c; R.

Berg, MFWP, pers. comm. 1997). Dewatering, irrigation return flows, and

denuded riparian areas have increased water temperatures in the

Blackfoot River and Clark Fork River basins, Montana (MBTSG 1995a,c).

Water temperatures in the mainstem upper Clark Fork River frequently

exceed 20 deg.C (68 deg. F) and temperatures in tributaries, including

the Little Blackfoot and Flint Creek, may exceed bull trout tolerance

limits (MBTSG 1995a). In the Blackfoot River basin, irrigation returns

have contributed to the warming of this historic coldwater river (MBTSG

1995c; Pierce et al. 1997). Irrigation diversions, particularly in the

Little Blackfoot River and in Flint Creek of the upper Clark Fork

River, are physical and thermal passage barriers to bull trout (MBTSG

1995a). Diversion for irrigation is the primary cause of 622 km (389

mi) of streams in the upper Clark Fork basin being chronically

dewatered (MDHES 1994). Irrigation diversions also continue to limit

restoration of migratory bull trout in the Blackfoot River basin (MBTSG

1995c). Recently, several diversions have been renovated to provide

passage and eliminate ditch entrainment (MBTRT 1997).

Unscreened irrigation diversions in eastern Washington are known to

trap or divert bull trout in Ahtanan Creek (Yakima River basin),

Ingalls and Peshastin creeks (Wenatchee River basin), Roaring Creek

(Entiat River basin), and Buttermilk, Little Bridge, Eagle, and Wolf

Creeks (Methow River basin) (J. Easterbrooks, WDFW, pers. comm. 1997).

Channelization has altered 56 km (35 mi) of the Methow River (Mullan et

al. 1992). Approximately 72 km (45 mi) of the lower Coeur d'Alene, St.

Joe, and St. Maries rivers of the Spokane River basin have been

channelized. These streams were once considered important rearing areas

and migratory corridors for migratory (fluvial) bull trout.

Approximately 47 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the

Columbia River population segment are affected by the past and ongoing

effects from agricultural practices, including diversions.

Road Construction and Maintenance

Non-forest roads degrade salmonid habitat by creating flow

constraints in ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels;

increasing erosion and sedimentation; creating passage barriers;

channelization; and reducing riparian vegetation (Furniss et al. 1991;

Ketcheson and Megahan 1996).

Klamath River Population Segment

Streamside roads may have multiple locations of elevated sediment

delivery. Some level of sedimentation is normal, and can be documented

along parts of Boulder, Deming, Threemile, Brownsworth, and Leonard

creeks. In contrast, Long and Sun creeks have relatively little

sediment delivery from roads in reaches occupied by bull trout (Light

et al. 1996). Streamside roads inadequately constructed with

[[Page 31662]]

misplaced water bars and culverts still discharge sediment laden waters

directly into streams. Over-road flow can lead to gullying and direct

sediment delivery, as found in parts of Deming Creek (Light et al.

1996). Streamside roads can also reduce large woody debris recruitment

and vegetation shade by occupying the growing space next to streams. In

addition, road construction may require stream straightening or channel

reconfiguration next to roads, resulting in channelization as along

Boulder and Deming creeks (Light et al. 1996; Dunsmoor and Bienz, in

litt. 1997). Habitat degradation from channelization includes decreased

pool habitat, decreased sediment transport, increased embeddedness, and

reduced interstitial space in substrates (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt.

1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

Construction and improvement of Interstate 90 is a contributing

factor to the decline and suppression of bull trout in Gold Creek, a

tributary of the Yakima River, Washington (Craig and Wissmar 1993). In

Montana, Interstate 90 and a railroad system parallel to the Clark Fork

and St. Regis rivers has contributed to channelization and increased

the risk of hazardous spills (MBTSG 1996b,c). Approximately 18 percent

of the bull trout subpopulations in the Columbia River basin are

affected by road construction and ongoing maintenance.

Mining

Mining can degrade aquatic habitat by altering water acidity or

alkalinity, changing stream morphology and flow, and causing sediment,

fuel, and heavy metals to enter streams (Martin and Platts 1981; Spence

et al. 1996). The types of mining that occur within the range of bull

trout include extraction of hard rock minerals, coal, gas, oil, and

nonminerals. Past and present mining activities have adversely affected

bull trout and bull trout habitats in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and

Washington (Martin and Platts 1981; Johnson and Schmidt 1988; Moore et

al. 1991; WDW 1992; Platts et al. 1993; MBTSG 1995a,c, 1996b,c).

Klamath River Population Segment

Mining effects are not known to be a factor affecting bull trout

subpopulations in the Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

Mining severely impacts large portions of the Spokane River basin.

Effects include roading, stream diversion and alteration, watershed

degradation from airborne emissions, and the discharge of massive

quantities of waste materials, including the release into the South

Fork Coeur d'Alene River of 72 million tons of hazardous mine wastes

laden with heavy metals such as lead, zinc, and cadmium (Coeur d'Alene

tribe of Idaho et al. 1991). During the early 1930s, the South Fork

Coeur d'Alene River and about 20 miles of the lower Coeur d'Alene River

were considered devoid of aquatic life due to mining waste discharge

(Ellis 1940). Although some aquatic species have returned to the river,

bull trout are not among them. In Montana, bull trout have not

recolonized the upper mainstem Clark Fork River where mining-related

stream degradation extirpated all fish prior to the turn of the century

(MBTSG 1995a; Titan Environmental Corp. 1997). The lingering effects of

mining done over the past century in the Butte and Anaconda reaches of

the upper Clark Fork River has resulted in four Superfund sites being

designated. Mining continues to impair water quality in 558 km (349 mi)

of stream in these reaches (MDHES 1994). Eleven fish kills documented

between 1959 and 1991 were attributed to mining contamination of the

river (Titan Environmental Corporation 1997).

Numerous abandoned mines, such as the Blackbird and Cinnabar mines

in the Salmon River drainage, Idaho, degrade water quality where toxic

heavy metals continue to leach from mine sites into streams or

groundwater. Old mine tailings in the floodplains of Newsome Creek,

American River, and Crooked River, tributaries to the Clearwater River

in Idaho, continue to prevent recovery of riparian areas (N. Gearhardt,

Nez Perce National Forest, pers. comm. 1997). In Idaho, mine tailings

abandoned decades ago contaminated a tributary of the Middle Fork Boise

River with heavy metals, including arsenic, during flood flows in 1997

when migrating bull trout were present (R. Barker, Idaho Statesman, in

litt. 1997: S. West, IDEQ, in litt. 1997). In Montana, historic mining

in many tributaries of the Middle Clark Fork River has impaired water

quality in 245 km (153 mi) of stream (MDHES 1994). The MBTSG (1995c)

ranked mining in the Blackfoot River drainage as a limitation to bull

trout restoration. Many mines exist in the western and southern

portions of the Blackfoot River basin causing direct loss of bull trout

habitat and contamination of waters from mine effluents (MBTSG 1995c).

Fishes in the upper Blackfoot River are still affected by the washout

of the Mike Horse tailings dam in 1975, which spilled contaminated

tailings into the Blackfoot River (MBTSG 1995c). Research in the

Blackfoot drainage demonstrated that heavy metal contaminants released

in the headwaters affect chemical trends, metal concentrations, metal

bioavailabilty, and fish for 25 km (15.6 mi) from the contaminant

source (Moore et al. 1991).

New open-pit mines using cyanide leach pads are planned for

watersheds currently occupied by bull trout in the Middle Fork Boise

River basin, Idaho, and in the Stibnite area of the East Fork South

Fork Salmon River, Idaho (G. Visconty, Boise National Forest, in litt.

1996; Payette National Forest (PNF), in litt. 1996). In Montana, a

large underground copper-silver mine proposed for Rock Creek in the

lower Clark Fork River basin is currently in the permitting process.

Tailings would be stored at the confluence of Rock Creek and the Clark

Fork River (MBTSG 1996b; R. Stewart, USDI, in litt. 1995). Rock Creek

is one of only two bull trout ``core'' areas in this subpopulation

(MBTSG 1996b). A proposal for a large open-pit gold mine using cyanide

heap leach processing is proposed for the upper Blackfoot River basin,

Montana. Much of the ore body occurs below the water table, requiring

pumping of groundwater. Thus, the hydrology of the upper Blackfoot

River system could be affected and an increase in contamination risks

could result (S. Cody, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in litt.

1997; K. McMaster, Service, in litt. 1997).

The North Fork Flathead River headwaters in Canada contain a large

coal deposit that could be developed (MBTSG 1995d). Mining this deposit

could destroy spawning habitat and degrade water quality in the Montana

portion of the Flathead River system (MBTSG 1995d).

Approximately 20 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the

Columbia River population segment are threatened by past, ongoing, or

potential future mining activities.

Residential Development

Residential development is rapidly increasing within portions of

the range of bull trout. Development increases threaten to alter stream

and riparian habitats through streambank modification and

destabilization, increased nutrient loads, and increased water

temperatures (MBTSG 1995b). Indirectly, urbanization within floodplains

alters groundwater recharge by routing water into streams through

drains rather than through more gradual subsurface flow (Booth 1991).

[[Page 31663]]

Klamath River Population Segment

Residential development is not known to be factor affecting

existing bull trout subpopulations in the Klamath River basin.

Columbia River Population Segment

In Montana, rural residential development is rapidly increasing,

particularly in drainages of the Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Flathead

rivers (MBTSG 1995b,c,d). The lower Bitterroot River is a major non-

point source of nutrient pollution, primarily from sewage effluent and

land development (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 in

MBTSG 1995b). Efforts to mitigate effects of rural development in the

Blackfoot River basin have been encouraged by an active local group,

the Blackfoot Challenge, which has been working to acquire conservation

easements, among other projects. Residential development in the

Flathead Lake system is considered a limitation for restoration of bull

trout because of the threat to water quality from domestic sewage and

changes to stream morphology (MBTSG 1995d).

Approximately 26 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the

Columbia River population segment are threatened by the effects of

residential development.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Declines in bull trout have prompted states to

institute restrictive fishing regulations on all waters throughout bull

trout range. Recent observations of increased numbers of adult bull

trout in some areas have been attributed to more restrictive

regulations. However, illegal harvest and incidental harvest still

continue to threaten bull trout.

Klamath River Population Segment

Legal harvest of bull trout in the Klamath River basin was

eliminated in 1992 when ODFW imposed a fishing closure. Because

recreational fishing for other trout species continues in the basin,

incidental fishing mortality of bull trout likely occurs (OCAFS 1993).

During recent ODFW angler surveys in the Klamath River basin, all

anglers contacted were aware of the no harvest regulation for bull

trout (D. Bertram, ODFW, in litt. 1995; Light et al. 1996). Incidental

bull trout mortality due to angling is unknown, but is not suspected to

be suppressing bull trout subpopulations in the Klamath River basin

(Light et al. 1996). However, Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997)

consider angling to be a factor negatively affecting bull trout,

especially subpopulations with low numbers and proximity to highway

access, such as Threemile Creek.

Columbia River Population Segment

Overharvest of bull trout in the Columbia River basin,

historically, likely contributed to their decline. In the past, harvest

included legal recreational angling, poaching, and State-sponsored

eradication programs (Thomas 1992). Bull trout were often targeted for

removal by anglers and government agencies because bull trout preyed on

salmon and other desirable species (Simpson and Wallace 1982; Bond

1992). As recently as 1990, State and Federal agencies instituted

programs to eradicate bull trout through bounties and poisoning of

waterways (Ratliff and Howell 1992; ODFW 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994;

Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). For instance, during the

1940's and 1950's in Oregon, several hundred bull trout migrating from

Wallowa Lake to spawn in Wallowa River were trapped in a weir and

exterminated (B. Smith, WDFW, in litt. 1997). Bull trout were recently

re-introduced to Wallowa Lake in summer 1997 in an effort to re-

establish the fish.

In recognition of the decline of bull trout, State management

agencies in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon suspended harvest in

the Columbia River basin except in Lake Billy Chinook (Oregon) and Swan

Lake (Montana). State regulations still allow catch and release fishing

for bull trout, and the harvest of other salmonid species is allowed in

most bull trout waters. However, in Montana, (MFWP 1996), the revised

regulations are believed to be partially responsible for increasing

bull trout numbers in the Swan River basin where the taking or

intentional fishing for bull trout is prohibited (MBTSG 1996a).

Mortality from incidental catch and release angling of bull trout and

harvest as a result of misidentification still continues under existing

fishing regulations. For example, about half or fewer of anglers

surveyed were able to correctly identify bull trout from other

salmonids in west-central Montana (Kelly et al. 1996; M. Long and S.P.

Whalen, MFWP, in litt. 1997). In 1997, the day after two radio tagged

bull trout were released into Wallowa Lake, Oregon, one of the fish was

unintentionally, but illegally harvested by a young angler. The MBTSG

(1995d) is concerned with the catch and release mortality of bull trout

as a result of intense fishing pressure on lake trout in Flathead Lake

and the Flathead River. Legal and illegal harvest can seriously affect

declining subpopulations already subjected to other factors such as

competition, degraded habitat, and isolation (WDW 1992; Donald and

Alger 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Swanberg and Burns 1997).

Poaching of bull trout likely continues, and can be especially

detrimental to small, isolated subpopulations of migratory fish (WDFW

1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Long 1997). A

study in the Metolius River suggested that 2 of 22 radio-tagged adult

bull trout were illegally harvested (Ratliff et al. 1996). Illegal

harvest of bull trout in northwest Montana has been a recurring problem

for over 50 years, especially in drainages of the Blackfoot, Kootenai,

South Fork Flathead, and Clark Fork rivers (MBTSG 1995e; Swanberg 1996;

Long 1997). In response, the MFWP instituted a program in 1994 funded

by the Bonneville Power Administration to reduce the illegal harvest of

bull trout, disperse information to improve anglers' fish

identification skills, and increase understanding of the importance of

native species (Long 1994). Additionally, the Montana legislature

increased the penalties for bull trout poaching, and the Bonneville

Power Administration, until recently, funded increased enforcement (M.

Racicot, Governor of Montana, in litt. 1995).

Approximately 21 percent of the bull trout subpopulations in the

Columbia River population segment are threatened by the effects of

poaching.

C. Disease or predation. Although diseases affecting salmonids are

likely present in both the Klamath River and Columbia River basins,

they are not thought to be a major factor affecting bull trout.

However, interspecific interactions, including predation, are thought

to negatively affect bull trout where non-native salmonids have been

introduced (Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997).

Klamath River Population Segment

Diseases have not been documented affecting bull trout in the

Klamath River basin. However, brook trout and brown trout have been

introduced in the basin, and either one or both species co-exist with

bull trout in all subpopulations except Deming Creek (Buchanan et al.

1997). Brown trout predation on bull trout is evidenced by a direct

observation in Boulder Creek (Light et al. 1996). Overall, bull trout

co-occur with brown trout and brook trout in about half of the occupied

habitat. Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that bull trout occupy

approximately 34.1 km (20.5 mi) of streams. However, allopatric

(occurring in different

[[Page 31664]]

geographic areas or in isolation) bull trout have been estimated to

occupy only 13.4 to 15.7 km (8.3 to 9.8 mi) within the basin (Buchanan

et al. 1997; Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997).

Columbia River Population Segment

Health samples from 207 juvenile bull trout collected from 8

streams in the Flathead River basin in 1992 and 1993 were negative in

tests for furunculus, enteric redmouth, bacterial kidney disease, and

viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) or infectious pancreatic necrosis

(IPN) (Fredenberg 1993). Bull trout are susceptible to whirling

disease, caused by a protozoan parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis), and

recently detected in bull trout waters in Montana (Montana Whirling

Disease Task Force 1996). However, bull trout are less susceptible to

whirling disease than rainbow trout (McDowell et al. 1997). Whirling

disease is currently untreatable in the wild, and the parasite appears

to be rapidly spreading into previously uninfected waters. The

consequences of whirling disease on bull trout may not be apparent for

years.

Bull trout are most vulnerable to predation as juveniles. Several

non-native fishes, such as lake trout, brown trout, brook trout and

northern pike (Esox lucius) are considered potential predators (and

competitors, see Factor E below) of many bull trout subpopulations in

the Columbia River basin (Donald and Alger 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993;

Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995d, 1996a; MFWP 1997).

Dramatic declines in the Priest Lake, Idaho, bull trout harvest

began about 20 years ago. Between 1956 and 1970, an annual average of

1,200 fish were harvested. In 1978, a record 2,320 were harvested,

declining in 1983 to 159 (Mauser et al. 1988). There has been no legal

harvest of bull trout since 1984. Bull trout were extirpated from

Priest Lake through interactions with introduced lake trout (Pratt and

Huston 1993). Mauser et al. (1988) described bull trout in Priest Lake

as ``functionally extinct as long as lake trout abundance is high.''

Similarly, lake trout introduced into Flathead Lake feed on juvenile

bull trout entering the lake from the Flathead River, and are thought

to be a factor in recent declines of the bull trout subpopulation

(MBTSG 1995d). Introduced non-native fishes limit bull trout

restoration in all the major drainages in Montana (MBTSG 1995a-e,

1996a-f).

For bull trout in the Columbia River population segment, disease is

not considered a listing factor; however, approximately 62 percent of

the subpopulations are threatened by introduced non-native fishes,

including the effects of predation.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Although

efforts are underway to conserve bull trout (e.g., Batt, in litt. 1997;

Joslin, in litt. 1997; Thomas, in litt. 1997), the implementation and

enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve

fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat

have not prevented past and ongoing habitat degradation. This

inadequacy has led to bull trout declines and isolation and is a factor

in the determination to list bull trout population segments. Regulatory

mechanisms, including the National Forest Management Act, the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act,

the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal

Power Act, State Endangered Species Acts and numerous State laws and

regulations govern an array of land and water management activities

that affect bull trout and their habitat.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) require the USFS and BLM to develop

and implement land and resource management plans (LRMPs) and Resource

Management Plans (RMPs), respectively) to protect fish and wildlife

resources and produce forest and range products. However, reviews by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) of LRMP monitoring and

evaluation reports for 28 national forests indicate that many

watersheds do not meet NFMA Forest Plan standards. Compliance with

LRMPs and effectiveness of best management practices on current

projects is improving, but, a majority of streams that had been

affected by past practices were not healing as fast as anticipated

(USDA 1995).

Reviews of existing LRMPs implemented outside the range of the

northern spotted owl, even as amended by the Environmental Assessment

for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995), have inadequately protected salmonid

habitat on BLM and national forest lands (Henjum et al. 1994; R.

Schmitten, NMFS, in litt. 1995; Espinosa et al. 1997). While the severe

resource damage from forest management that occurred in the 1950s

through the 1970s has ceased, the current LRMPs have not fully taken

into account the habitat needs of salmonids and recovery of degraded

habitats has not occurred as predicted. For example, most LRMPs were

developed prior to listing the Snake River salmon stocks, and,

consequently, the biological requirements of these fish are not fully

considered under the parameters of the LRMPs. The NMFS noted that even

though PACFISH provided some improvements in many standards and

guidelines of the LRMPs, comprehensive, landscape-scale conservation

strategies for salmonid survival and recovery are still lacking

(Schmitten, NMFS, in litt, 1995). Espinosa et al. (1997) listed several

reasons why the Clearwater National Forest Plan adopted in 1987 has

failed to adequately protect salmonid habitats in forest watersheds.

Reasons included for this failure were-- projected timber harvests and

levels of associated road construction too high to achieve fish habitat

quality standards; inaccurate riparian habitat inventories; watershed

recovery following disturbance was slower than expected; and inaccurate

inventories of the timber resources.

Under the NFMA and the FLPMA, livestock grazing occurs on over 70

percent of federally-administered western rangeland, or about 108.5

million ha (268 million acres (ac)) of land in 16 western states

(General Accounting Office (GAO) 1988). Ongoing livestock grazing on

lands administered by the BLM and USFS continues to occur in watersheds

occupied by bull trout (Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et al. 1994; USDA

and USDI 1997). Technical solutions to improving riparian areas damaged

by livestock grazing were available as early as 1988 (GAO 1988).

However, the GAO (1988) noted that correcting damage from grazing was

not readily solvable due to funding and political pressure to maintain

the status quo grazing systems. Within the Interior Columbia River

Basin, the BLM and USFS have had difficulty correcting practices that

cause grazing damage to streams due to lack of funding, conflicting

requirements of different laws, or budget allocations (USDA and USDI

1997). However, in some areas supporting federally listed fish or

designated critical habitat, the BLM and the USFS have been able to

improve livestock management in riparian areas, including habitat for

shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker

(Deltistes luxatus) in the Klamath River basin, and the Lohontan

cutthroat trout

[[Page 31665]]

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawii) of the Great Basin.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

The USFS, BLM, EPA, NMFS, and Service are cooperating in

development of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEMP), a large-scale land management plan for lands administered by

these agencies in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and western

Montana. The alternatives described in the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) do not specifically address bull trout conservation in

``depressed'' areas outside the range of steelhead and chinook salmon;

the preferred alternative depends on subbasin review and ecosystem

analysis at the watershed scale as the basis for decision-making within

the Interior Columbia Basin (USDA and USDI 1997). The ICBEMP is in

draft, and possible outcomes from implementing future bull trout

conservation actions as part of an unapproved management alternative

are not predictable. Funding and staffing to implement those components

are also not secured.

Streamlined Consultation Procedures

On March 8, 1995, the USFS, Service, BLM, and NMFS, issued a

memorandum directing the agencies to participate in ``streamlined''

consultation procedures. These procedures were initiated to address

forest health and salvage projects (T. Dwyer, Service, in litt. 1995).

By May 31, 1995, these procedures were extended indefinitely to include

all consultation efforts (Dwyer, in litt. 1995). These procedures apply

to Federal land management activities in Idaho, Oregon, Washington,

Montana and California (California lands managed by BLM are subject to

streamlined procedures only when forest ecosystem activities are

involved). The purpose of the streamlined procedures is to improve the

efficiency of the section 7 consultation process (C. Dunn, Service, in

litt. 1997). Conservation and protection of bull trout habitat has been

inconsistent due in part to the USFS and BLM discretionary option to

review non-listed, candidate species or species of concern (R.

Vizgirdas, Service, in litt. 1997; R. Strach, Service, in litt. 1997;

P. Zenone, Service, in litt. 1997). In Idaho and eastern Oregon,

Federal land management agencies have often not considered the effects

of projects on bull trout through the streamlining process.

Endangered Species Act

In the Klamath River basin, the Service listed the shortnose sucker

and Lost River sucker under the Act as endangered on August 26, 1987

(52 FR 32145), and proposed critical habitat for the species on

December 1, 1994 (50 CFR 61744). Bull trout likely used portions of the

proposed critical habitat in the past, including tributaries in the

upper Klamath River, Crooked Creek, Sevenmile Creek, and Wood River.

Although some of the earliest records of bull trout in the basin are

from Fort Creek, a tributary of the Wood River (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in

litt. 1997), bull trout do not presently occur within the habitat

occupied by the two suckers. Therefore, conservation and recovery

actions undertaken for the listed suckers will not directly benefit

bull trout.

In the Columbia River basin, three species of salmon in the Snake

River are listed--sockeye salmon (endangered), spring/summer chinook

salmon (threatened) and fall chinook salmon (threatened). Critical

habitat for all three salmon was designated, including the Columbia

River migration corridor, and historically accessible streams in the

Snake River basin upstream of Hell's Canyon Dam in Idaho, Oregon and

Washington (58 FR 68543-68554). Downstream of Hell's Canyon and

Dworshak Dam, the designation extends to reaches historically

accessible to salmon, below historically impassible barriers (58 FR

68543-68554). The designation extends protection to bull trout habitat

in areas where they co-occur with the salmon. However, in many areas

bull trout tend to spawn and rear upstream of listed salmon habitats.

For instance, Fall Creek, a tributary of the Salmon River, Idaho, has

an impassible waterfall near its mouth, and habitat for the listed

salmon ends at the impassible falls (58 FR 68543-68554), but bull trout

spawn and rear above the falls. In this example, bull trout spawning

and rearing habitat does not overlap with the listed salmon; thus, bull

trout would not receive indirect protection under the Act.

On August 18, 1997, five evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of

steelhead were listed as threatened--three in California, one in

Washington (Columbia River from the Yakima River to Grand Coulee Dam),

and one in the Snake River basin in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (62

FR 43937). Although protection for bull trout under the Act would be

afforded where they co-occur with steelhead, measures to protect

steelhead may be insufficient for bull trout due to differences in the

life history between the species and lack of complete habitat overlap.

Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) addresses management of USFS and

BLM lands within the range of the northern spotted owl, and

implementation began in April 1994 (Tuchmann et al. 1996). The NWFP

includes an aquatic conservation strategy, consisting of four inter-

related elements. The first element is riparian reserves, which is the

system of lands along streams allocated toward the conservation and

restoration of aquatic and riparian dependent species. The second is

key watersheds, which are watersheds with special values and

appropriate management standards. The third element is watershed

analysis, which is required to help land managers understand the

processes that maintain habitats and to manage to preserve these

processes. The fourth element is watershed restoration projects, which

are funded to move watersheds toward recovery. For instance, in 1994

through 1996, 1675 watershed restoration projects (or groups of

projects) were funded under the NWFP (Tuchmann et al. 1996). The

conservation strategy generally addresses the maintenance of the four

elements. Although the strategy does not specifically address bull

trout needs, it contains objectives for riparian and stream

conservation and maintenance that may facilitate conservation of bull

trout habitat (W. Cole, Service, in litt, 1997). Additionally, the

implementation of the NWFP is dependent on interagency collaboration to

achieve resource conservation and a sampling of projects unaffected by

the 1995 Salvage Rider (see below) indicates that bull trout are

generally protected by the NWFP. However, the NWFP covers only a minor

portion of bull trout habitat for the Columbia River population

segment.

PACFISH and INfish

The USFS and BLM developed the Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho and Portions of California, known as PACFISH. PACFISH is intended

to be an ecosystem-based, aquatic habitat and riparian-area management

strategy for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout

habitat on lands administered by the two agencies and outside the area

subject to implementation of the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1995). PACFISH

amended Regional Guides, forest plans and land use plans by applying

management

[[Page 31666]]

measures for all ongoing and proposed or new projects that pose an

unacceptable risk to anadromous fish involving the management of

timber, roads, grazing, and other land uses. The Service is

participating with NMFS, the USFS, and the BLM in reviewing action-

agency PACFISH screening efforts for anadromous fish. Within the area

of PACFISH where the habitats of salmon and bull trout overlap, the

screening effort is to protect both anadromous fish and bull trout from

major effects. However, efforts to include bull trout in the PACFISH

review are not always successful (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach, in

litt. 1997; Zenone, in litt. 1997).

The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INfish) was developed by the USFS

to provide an interim strategy for inland native fish in eastern Oregon

and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada (USDA and

USDI 1995). It has not been determined whether INfish is an effective

strategy for removing the threats for bull trout. In Idaho, the USFS

does not place a priority on application of INfish and generally has

determined that anadromous watersheds have a higher priority than bull

trout watersheds (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach in litt. 1997;

Zenone, in litt. 1997).

Clean Water Act

Under sections 303 and 304 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), States or

EPA set water quality standards, which combine designated beneficial

uses and criteria established to protect those uses. Water bodies that

are identified as failing water quality standards are designated by

States under section 303(d) as water quality limited (MDHES 1994; EPA

1994; ODEQ 1996), and subject to development of management plans to

restore water quality and protect designated uses. These management

plans, or total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), address both point and

non-point sources of pollutants within a watershed. Best Management

Practices (BMPs) are used with TMDLs to address non-point sources of

pollution, such as mining, forestry, and agriculture; however,

regulatory authority to enforce the BMPs varies among the states. It is

estimated that 10 percent of total length of streams within the ICBEMP

assessment area, including the Klamath River and Columbia River basins,

are listed as water quality limited. This may underestimate the true

extent and distribution of streams with impaired water quality

potentially affecting bull trout (USDA and USDI 1997). In the Klamath

River basin, stream reaches designated as water quality limited (i.e.,

cited on the 303(d) list of Oregon for various water quality standards

(ODEQ 1996)) are estimated to apply to six of the seven bull trout

subpopulations. In the Columbia River basin, water bodies designated as

water quality limited by Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana are

estimated to apply to at least 64 of the 141 bull trout subpopulations.

Relative to water temperature, Oregon established a water quality

criterion of 10 deg. C (50 deg. F) as a weekly average based on daily

maximum temperatures in bull trout spawning and rearing waters (OAR

340-41-685 and OAR 340-41-026); however, water bodies where these

criteria would apply have not been identified. In Washington,

temperature criteria for waters vary among the different

classifications that are assigned to each waterbody, and range from 16

to 22 deg. C (60.8 to 71.6 deg. F) (Chapter 173-201 WAC). Washington is

reviewing these standards with the intent of creating more appropriate

water quality standards; however, whether the criteria specifically are

for bull trout is unknown. In Idaho, EPA disapproved the state's

temperature criteria applications within the geographic range of bull

trout (EPA 1997). The EPA determined that the criteria did not provide

adequate protection for bull trout relative to two designated uses--

cold water biota and salmonid spawning (maximum daily average of

13 deg. C (55.5 deg. F) and 9 deg. C (48.2 deg. F) for each respective

use). In July 1997, EPA promulgated a temperature criterion of 10 deg.

C (50 deg. F) during June through September in designated stream areas,

as a weekly average based on daily maximum temperatures for spawning

and rearing of bull trout (EPA 1997). To date, the State has not

adopted EPA's promulgated criterion, but has adopted 12 deg. C as a

daily average during June-August for juvenile rearing and 9 deg. C for

September and October for spawning. Additionally, Idaho has established

a geographical area where these criteria would apply. It is unknown

whether EPA will approve the State's criteria and withdraw the

promulgated rule. In Montana, the temperature criterion applied to

waters with bull trout is 19 deg. C (66 deg. F); temperature can be

raised 0.6 deg. C (1 deg. F) by discharges, but water temperature may

not exceed 19.5 deg.C (67 deg.F) (Administrative Rules of Montana

1996).

In accordance with Section 319 of the CWA, States also develop

programs to address non-point sources of pollution such as agriculture,

forestry, and mining. The effectiveness of controlling water pollution

from these activities has been mixed. The State of Washington monitored

the effectiveness in meeting water quality criteria for temperature in

riparian areas on forest lands and concluded that regulations for

stream shading were inadequate to meet criteria (Sullivan et al. 1990).

In summary, it is uncertain whether the CWA can provide sufficient

protective measures for conservation of bull trout. Temperature regime

is one of the most important factors affecting bull trout distribution

(Adams and Bjornn 1997, Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Given the known

temperature requirements of bull trout (Buchanan and Gregory 1997),

criteria developed by the four States may not be conducive to either

spawning, incubation, rearing, migration, or combinations of these

life-history stages.

State Regulations and Conservation Planning Efforts

All four States within the range of the Klamath River and Columbia

River population segments of bull trout have regulations affecting bull

trout and their habitat. Idaho, Montana, and local or county

organizations have recently developed or are developing conservation

plans to maintain and restore bull trout, primarily through stream

habitat protection.

In 1995, Idaho Governor Phil Batt initiated a conservation plan to

restore bull trout populations in Idaho. The mission of the Governor's

Plan, approved in July 1996, is to ``. . . maintain and/or restore

complex interacting groups of bull trout populations throughout their

native range in Idaho'' (Batt, in litt. 1997). A recent status report

of implementation of the Plan stated that advisory groups, which will

develop water quality and bull trout conservation measures, have formed

only in some areas. Although the harvest of bull trout is closed

throughout Idaho and State-sponsored survey and monitoring has

increased (S. Mealey, IDFG, in litt. 1997), few on-the-ground recovery

actions for bull trout have been implemented to date.

Other efforts include a 1994 conservation agreement (CA) between

the Idaho Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Service to

protect bull trout (USDI and IDOT, in litt. 1994), and recent

conservation activities by the IDFG that were funded by Section 6 of

the Act. The IDOT finished only one passage restoration project under

the CA, and recently declined to renew the CA (R. Howard, Service,

pers. comm. 1997). Since 1994, IDFG has used Section 6 funds to begin

several habitat restoration actions in northern and southwestern Idaho.

Aside from enacting restrictive fishing regulations,

[[Page 31667]]

few protective or restoration projects have been completed that

substantially reduce threats to bull trout throughout the Columbia

River.

Beginning in 1992 and 1993, several interagency bull trout working

groups were formed in Oregon (R. Rosen, ODFW, in litt. 1995). These

working groups have been instrumental in gathering additional status

information and developing preliminary conservation strategies for bull

trout in their respective basins. These efforts are encouraging for

bull trout conservation in the future, but the outcome has not yet been

demonstrated.

In March 1997, Oregon also adopted the Oregon Coastal Salmon

Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997) (Oregon Plan). The Oregon Plan is

designed to ``. . . restore salmon to a level at which they can once

again be part of people's lives . . .'' in coastal Oregon. The Oregon

Plan's initial focus is on areas within the range of Oregon coastal

coho salmon, and does not overlap with presently occupied bull trout

habitat. Oregon recently acknowledged support for developing future

bull trout conservation measures by including bull trout in the Oregon

Plan (J. Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon, in litt, 1997), although no

conservation measures specific to bull trout have been completed to

date.

The Upper Klamath Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy (Light et

al. 1996) was developed by the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Working Group

in response to the limited and shrinking distribution and number of

bull trout. The Working Group, formed in 1993, is composed of

representatives from the Service, ODFW, Fremont and Winema National

Forests, Crater Lake National Park, PacifiCorp, USBR, Sprague River

Water Users Association, Klamath Basin Water Users Protective

Association, U.S. Timberlands, and Klamath Tribes. The defined goals of

this group as identified in the Conservation Strategy are--(1) secure

existing bull trout populations and (2) restore populations to some of

their former distribution (Light et al. 1996). Phase 1 has concentrated

on addressing threats to bull trout from non-native salmonids,

including eradication of brook trout and brown trout above barriers

where isolated subpopulations of bull trout are found. Stream

temperatures and sedimentation problems are being addressed concurrent

with eradication of exotic species. Phase 2 will involve expanding the

number of subpopulations by reestablishing bull trout in high quality

headwater habitats, effectively increasing the size of the Klamath

River metapopulation and making it more resilient to natural

disturbance, variation in breeding success, disease outbreaks, and

other environmental factors (Light et al. 1996). Future objectives

likely will include establishing natural movement corridors between

adjacent headwater streams.

All habitats currently occupied by bull trout in the Klamath River

basin are managed by Working Group members. From 1993 through 1996,

conservation actions (phase 1) were implemented by the Working Group,

including--watershed assessments; fish distribution, abundance, and

spawning surveys; collection of stream temperature and sediment data to

help identify limiting factors; brook trout eradication efforts in

Long, Sun, and Threemile creeks; reduction or elimination of grazing

along bull trout habitat owned by U.S. Timberlands; road system

improvements, closures, and rehabilitation; and barrier management to

prevent access of non-native fishes (Johnson in litt. 1997; Buchanan et

al. 1997). Habitat improvement projects have also been implemented in

areas historically occupied by bull trout, such as the 9,700 ha (24,000

ac) Nature Conservancy preserve at Sycan Marsh ( P. Rexroat, The Nature

Conservancy, in litt. 1997) and the Sun Pass State Forest on lower Sun

Creek. These ongoing conservation efforts have been complicated by

recent private land ownership changes and lack of an approved recovery

plan that identifies specific conservation tasks and actions.

In addition to the Klamath Basin Bull Trout Working Group, a

federally-authorized, interagency and entity group, the Upper Klamath

Basin Working Group, was established in 1994. This group, composed of

Federal, State, county, city, tribal, environmental, local business,

agricultural-ranching, and local community members, works on a

consensus-based approach to Klamath basin ecosystem issues. The group

focuses on ecosystem restoration projects and has funded bull trout

conservation efforts, a high group priority, such as riparian fencing

and road maintenance and obliteration projects.

Other State regulations and policies affect bull trout and their

habitat in Oregon. For instance, Oregon has a policy ``to prevent the

serious depletion of any indigenous species'' (ORS 496.012). As such,

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Wildlife Diversity Plan

(OAR 635-100) provides for a Sensitive Species List. The Sensitive

Species List (OAR-635-100-040) is maintained by ODFW, and is updated

biennially. The Sensitive Species List is intended as a ``watch list''

of species potentially eligible for listing as endangered or

threatened, and constitutes an early warning system for land managers

and the public (ODFW 1996). There are no regulatory protections for

species listed as sensitive, nor is the habitat on which they depend

protected under OAR 635-100.

The Sensitive Species List has four categories--``critical''

(species for which listing is appropriate or pending); ``vulnerable''

(species for which listing is not imminent and can be avoided via

adequate protective measures); ``peripheral or naturally rare''

(occurring in Oregon at the edge of their range, in naturally low

numbers due to limited in-state distribution); and ``undetermined''

status (species for which status is unclear). Bull trout is listed in

the ``critical'' category (ODFW 1993).

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife released the final

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Wild Salmonid Policy in

September 1997 (WDFW 1997). Although the environmental impact statement

(IS) focused on salmon and steelhead, referring to bull trout and other

wild salmonids in an ancillary manner, it described problems and

challenges facing the recovery of anadromous and resident salmonids

throughout Washington. The IS presented five alternatives ranging from

continuation of current management (i.e., policy generally based on

maximum sustainable yield) to alternatives providing more protection

for wild salmonids. Each alternative addressed harvest, hatcheries, and

habitat relative to wild salmonids, and presented obstacles to recovery

and possible actions to facilitate recovery. Regardless of the

alternative ultimately selected by the Washington State Fish and

Wildlife Commission as the Wild Salmonid Policy, implementation of the

policy will suggest guidelines for actions taken by the WDFW and will

not be binding on other State, tribal, and private entities. Because of

uncertainties concerning implementation of the policy, the effect of

the policy on bull trout conservation in Washington is unknown.

In Montana, Governor Marc Racicot appointed the Bull Trout

Restoration Team in 1994 to produce a plan that maintains, protects,

and increases bull trout populations. The team appointed a scientific

group that has subsequently prepared eleven basin-specific status

reports and two technical, peer-reviewed papers. A third technical

[[Page 31668]]

paper is presently undergoing peer review. A Montana Bull Trout

Recovery Plan, including a recovery goal, is also nearing completion.

Watershed groups are being established in some areas to lead local bull

trout restoration efforts. As of October 1997, some localized habitat

restoration projects, such as removal of fish passage barriers,

screening irrigation diversions, riparian fencing, stream restoration

projects, and habitat monitoring, had been completed or were underway

(Graham and Clinch, in litt. 1997). Because of uncertainties concerning

implementation of the restoration plan, the effect of the plan on

future bull trout conservation in Montana is unknown.

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana each have adopted a Forest

Practice Act (FPA) or other legislation consisting of rules and

regulations addressing forest management on State, Federal, and private

lands. In general, the legislation establishes best management

practices (BMPs) to be implemented on forests, such as streamside

management zones (Montana Department of State Lands 1994), activities

allowed in riparian areas, restrictions on harvest adjacent to streams,

and location of road construction. The application of BMPs is voluntary

in some States. Although audits show that compliance with BMPs is high

in Idaho (H. Malany, Idaho Forest Practice Act Advisory Committee

Member, in litt. 1997) and Montana (Mathieus 1996), the Service is not

aware of evaluations of various States' BMPs relative to the protection

of bull trout habitat and processes affecting water quality, such as

sediment delivery, water temperature, recruitment of woody debris, and

bank stability. In Idaho, half of timber sales audited resulted in

contributions of sediment to streams, largely from inadequately

maintained roads (Zaroban et al. 1996). Even with high implementation

rates, Idaho's forestry BMPs have been ineffective at maintaining

beneficial uses, including cold water biota (McIntyre 1993). In

Montana, McGreer (1994) noted that the Montana legislation may

adequately provide for woody debris and bank stability, but it may be

inadequate for temperature control and sedimentation. The MDNRC has

discontinued timber harvest and grazing in areas directly adjacent to

streams containing bull trout (P. Flowers, MDNRC, in litt. 1996). Based

on current information, the Service is unable to conclude that State

FPAs and related legislation are adequate to protect bull trout

habitat.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued

existence. Natural and manmade factors affecting the continued

existence of bull trout include--previous introductions of non-native

species that compete or hybridize with bull trout; fragmentation and

isolation of bull trout subpopulations from habitat changes caused by

human activities, and subpopulation extirpations due to naturally

occurring events such as droughts and floods.

Introduced Non-native Species

Introductions of non-native species by the Federal government,

State fish and game departments, and private parties, across the range

of bull trout has resulted in declines in abundance, local

extirpations, and hybridization of bull trout (Bond 1992; Howell and

Buchanan 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and Alger 1993; Pratt and

Huston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al 1995; Palmisano and

Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-native species may exacerbate stresses

on bull trout from habitat degradation, fragmentation, and isolation

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Introduced species, such as rainbow trout,

may benefit large adult bull trout by providing supplemental forage

(Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993). However,

introductions of non-native game fish can be detrimental due to

increased angling and subsequent incidental catch and illegal harvest

of bull trout (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; WDW 1992; MBTSG 1995d).

Non-native fish also threaten bull trout in relatively secure and

physically unaltered habitats, including roadless areas, wilderness,

and national parks. For instance, brook trout occur in tributaries of

the Middle Fork Salmon River within the Frank Church-River of No Return

Wilderness, including Elk, Camas, Loon, and Big creeks (Thurow 1985; S.

Achord, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

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