# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-28295

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** November 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 58910

## Text

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine threatened
status for all populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
within the coterminous United States, with a special rule, pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
determination is based on our finding that the Coastal-Puget Sound and
St. Mary-Belly River population segments are threatened, coupled with
our earlier findings of threatened status for the Klamath River,
Columbia River, and Jarbidge River population segments. These
population segments are disjunct and geographically isolated from one
another with no genetic interchange between them due to natural and
man-made barriers. These population segments collectively encompass the
entire range of the species in the coterminous United States.
Therefore, for the purposes of consultation and recovery, we recognize
these five distinct population segments as interim recovery units. With
this final rule, the bull trout will now be listed as threatened
throughout its entire range in the coterminous United States.
The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses
all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound.
The St. Mary-Belly River bull trout population segment occurs in
northwest Montana. Bull trout are threatened by the combined effects of
habitat degradation, fragmentation and alterations associated with
dewatering, road construction and maintenance, mining, and grazing; the
blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures;
poor water quality; incidental angler harvest; entrainment (process by
which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion or other device)
into diversion channels; and introduced non-native species. This final
determination was based on the best available scientific and commercial
information including current data and new information received during
the comment period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1999.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, at the
above address (telephone 208/378-5243; facsimile 208/378-5262) to make
an appointment to inspect the complete file for this rule or for
information pertaining to the Columbia River population segment; Gerry
Jackson, Manager, Western Washington Office (telephone 360/753-9440;
facsimile 360/753-9008) for information pertaining to the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment; Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, Montana
Field Office (telephone 406/449-5225; facsimile 406/449-5339) for
information pertaining to the St. Mary-Belly River population segment;
Steven Lewis, Field Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office
(telephone 541/885-8481; facsimile 541/885-7837) for information
pertaining to the Klamath River population segment; Robert D. Williams,
Field Supervisor, Nevada State Office (telephone 775/861-6300;
facsimile 775/861-6301) for information pertaining to the Jarbidge
River population segment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family
Salmonidae, are char native to the Pacific northwest and western
Canada. They 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, north to the headwaters of the Yukon River in
Northwest Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the west,
bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of
Washington, British Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992;
Leary and Allendorf 1997). Bull trout are relatively dispersed
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 (counts), osteological (bone structure), and
distributional evidence to document specific distinctions between Dolly
Varden and bull trout. Subsequently, 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 and the two species appear to
be maintaining distinct genomes (Leary and Allendorf 1997).
Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life-history
strategies through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). Resident bull trout complete their life cycles in the tributary
streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in
tributary streams, and juvenile fish rear from 1 to 4 years before
migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in certain
coastal areas, saltwater (anadromous), to mature (Fraley and Shepard
1989; Goetz 1989). Anadromy is the least studied life-history type in
bull trout, and some biologists believe the existence of true anadromy
in bull trout is still uncertain (McPhail and Baxter 1996). However,
historical accounts, collection records, and recent evidence suggests
an anadromous life-history form for bull trout (Suckley and Cooper
1860; Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) et al. 1997--formerly the Washington
Department of Wildlife (WDW)). Resident and migratory forms may be
found together, and bull trout may produce offspring exhibiting either
resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Compared to other salmonids, bull trout have more specific habitat
requirements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993) that appear to influence their
distribution and abundance. Critical parameters 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

[[Page 58911]]

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). Watson and
Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical
characteristics to provide the necessary habitat requirements for bull
trout spawning and rearing, and that the characteristics are not
necessarily ubiquitous throughout watersheds in which bull trout occur.
Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in undisturbed
habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), fish would not likely occupy all
available habitats simultaneously (Rieman et al. 1997).
Bull trout are typically associated with the colder streams in a
river system, although fish can occur throughout larger river systems
(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and
Gregory 1997; Rieman et al. 1997). For example, water temperature above
15 deg. C (59 deg. F) is believed to negatively influence bull trout
distribution, which partially explains the generally 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. 1997).
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 populations
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 generally consists of low gradient
stream reaches often found in high gradient streams that have 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) reported that increases in fine sediments reduce egg
survival and emergence. High juvenile densities were observed in Swan
River, Montana, and tributaries characterized by diverse cobble
substrate and a low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984).
The size and age of maturity for bull trout is variable depending
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 (productive) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989).
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 (lb)) specimen caught in Lake Pend
Oreille, Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982).
Bull trout normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and can
live 12 or more years. Biologists report repeat and alternate year
spawning, 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 may begin spawning
migrations as early as April, and move upstream as far as 250
kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi)) to spawning grounds in some areas of
their range (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Swanberg 1997). In the Blackfoot
River, Montana, bull trout began spawning migrations in response to
increasing temperatures (Swanberg 1997). Temperatures during spawning
generally range from 4 to 10 deg. C (39 to 51 deg. F), with redds
(spawning beds) often constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or
near other sources of cold groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman
and McIntyre 1996). Depending on water temperature, egg incubation is
normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992), and juveniles remain in the
substrate after hatching. 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).
Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a
function of size and life-history strategy. Resident and juvenile bull
trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton,
amphipods, mysids, crayfish, and small fish (Wyman 1975; Rieman and
Lukens 1979 in Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Boag 1987; Goetz 1989; Donald
and Alger 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivorous,
known to feed on various trout and salmon species (Onchorynchus spp.),
whitefish (Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and sculpin
(Cottus spp.) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald and Alger 1993).
In the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly River population
segments, bull trout co-evolved with, and in some areas, co-occur with
native cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki subspecies (ssp.)),
migratory rainbow trout (O. mykiss ssp.), chinook salmon (O.
tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon (O. nerka),
mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), pygmy whitefish (P.
coulteri), and various sculpin, sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow
(Cyprinidae) species (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; R2 Resource
Consultants, Inc. 1993). Bull trout habitat within the coterminous
United States overlaps with the range of several fishes listed as
threatened or endangered, and proposed or petitioned for listing under
the Act, including 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);
threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon (March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11481);
threatened Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and Columbia River chum
salmon (March 25, 1999; 64 FR 14507); proposed threatened status for
southwestern Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout (April
5, 1999; 64 FR 16397); and westslope cutthroat trout in northern Idaho,
eastern Washington, and northwest Montana (O. c. lewisi) for which a
status review is currently underway (June 10, 1998; 63 FR 31691).
Widespread introductions of non-native fishes, including brook
trout (Salmo fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush) (west of the
Continental Divide), and brown trout (Salmo trutta) and hatchery
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), have also occurred across the
range of bull trout. These non-native fishes are often associated with
local bull trout declines and extirpations (Bond 1992; Ziller

[[Page 58912]]

1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et al. 1993; Montana Bull Trout
Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1996a,h). East of the Continental Divide, in
the St. Mary-Belly River drainage, bull trout co-evolved with lake
trout and westslope cutthroat trout (Fredenberg 1996). In this portion
of their range, bull trout and lake trout have apparently partitioned
habitat with lake trout dominating lentic (i.e., lake) systems,
relegating bull trout to riverine systems and the fluvial life-history
form (Donald and Alger 1993).
Bull trout habitat in the coterminous United States is found in a
mosaic of land ownership, including Federal, State, Tribal, and private
lands. For the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, over half of the
bull trout habitat occurs on non-Federal lands. For the St. Mary-Belly
River population segment, about two-thirds of the habitat occurs on
Federal land (Glacier National Park) and about a third on Tribal lands
of the Blackfeet Indian Nation.
Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life-
history forms. The ability to migrate is important to the persistence
of local bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Mike
Gilpin, University of California, in litt. 1997; Rieman and Clayton
1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Migrations facilitate gene flow among local
subpopulations if individuals from different subpopulations interbreed
when some return to non-natal streams. Migratory fish may also
reestablish extirpated local subpopulations.
Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory may be
applicable to the distribution and characteristics of bull trout
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Kanda 1998). A metapopulation is an
interacting network of local subpopulations with varying frequencies of
migration and gene flow among them (Meffe and Carroll 1994).
Metapopulations provide a mechanism for reducing risk because the
simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely. Although local
subpopulations may become extinct, they can be reestablished by
individuals from other local subpopulations. However, because bull
trout exhibit strong homing fidelity when spawning and their rate of
straying appears to be low, natural re-establishment of extinct local
subpopulations may take a very long time. Habitat alteration, primarily
through construction of impoundments, dams, and water diversions, has
fragmented habitats, eliminated migratory corridors, and isolated bull
trout, often in the headwaters of tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997).

Distinct Population Segments

Using the best available scientific and commercial information, we
identified five distinct population segments (DPSs) of bull trout in
the coterminous United States--(1) Klamath River, (2) Columbia River,
(3) Coastal-Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-Belly
River. The final listing determination for the Klamath River and
Columbia River bull trout DPSs on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647), includes
a detailed description of the rationale behind the DPS delineation for
those two population segments. The Jarbidge River DPS final listing
determination was made on April 8, 1999 (64 FR 17110). However, the DPS
policy, published on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), is intended for
cases where only a segment of a species' range needs the protections of
the Act, rather than the entire range of a species. Although the bull
trout DPSs are disjunct and geographically isolated from one another
with no genetic interchange between them due to natural and man-made
barriers, collectively, they include the entire distribution of the
bull trout in the coterminous United States. In accordance with the DPS
policy, our authority to list DPSs is to be exercised sparingly. Thus a
coterminous listing is appropriate in this case. In recognition of the
scientific basis for the identification of these bull trout population
segments as DPSs, and for the purposes of consultation and recovery
planning, we will continue to refer to these populations as DPSs. These
DPSs will serve as interim recovery units in the absence of an approved
recovery plan.

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS encompasses all Pacific
Coast drainages within the coterminous United States north of the
Columbia River in Washington, including those flowing into Puget Sound.
This population segment is discrete because it is geographically
segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest
of the Cascade Mountain Range. The population segment is significant to
the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only
anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States, thus,
occurring in a unique ecological setting. In addition, the loss of this
population segment would significantly reduce the overall range of the
taxon.

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

The St. Mary-Belly River DPS is located in northwest Montana east
of the Continental Divide. Both the St. Mary and Belly rivers are
tributaries of the Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta, Canada. The
population segment is discrete because it is segregated from other bull
trout by the Continental Divide and is the only bull trout population
found east of the Continental Divide in the coterminous United States.
The population segment is significant because its loss would result in
a significant reduction in the range of the taxon within the
coterminous United States. Bull trout in this population segment
migrate across the international border with Canada (Clayton 1998).

Status and Distribution

To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and
abundance for the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly River
population segments, we analyzed data on a subpopulation basis within
each population segment because fragmentation and barriers have
isolated bull trout. A subpopulation is considered a reproductively
isolated bull trout group that spawns within a particular area(s) 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 may allow only downstream access (i.e., one-
way passage), both groups were considered subpopulations. In addition,
subpopulations were considered at risk of extirpation from natural
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 (3) characterized by low
individual or spawner numbers; or (4) consisted 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 natural events if it had low numbers of fish
that spawn in a relatively restricted area. In such cases, a natural
event such as a fire or flood could eliminate the subpopulation, and,
subsequently, reestablishment of the subpopulation 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 because of potential reestablishment
by

[[Page 58913]]

fish from upstream. Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited
downstream movement (Nelson 1996), our estimate of subpopulations at
risk of natural extirpation may be underestimated. The status of
subpopulations was based on modified criteria of Rieman et al. (1997),
including the abundance, trends in abundance, and the presence of life-
history forms of bull trout.
We considered a bull trout subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000
individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the subpopulation,
abundance appears stable or increasing, and life-history forms
historically present were likely to persist. A subpopulation was
considered ``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 (Rieman et
al.1997). 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.'' It
should be noted that the assignment of ``unknown'' status implies only
a deficiency of available data to assign a subpopulation as ``strong''
or ``depressed,'' not a lack of information regarding the threats.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to make a determination solely on the
best scientific and commercial data available.

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses
all Pacific coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound.
No bull trout exist in coastal drainages south of the Columbia River.
Within this area, bull trout often occur with (i.e., are sympatric)
Dolly Varden. Because the two species are virtually impossible to
visually differentiate, the WDFW currently manages bull trout and Dolly
Varden together as ``native char.'' Previously, we delineated a total
of 35 subpopulations of ``native char'' (bull trout, Dolly Varden, or
both species) within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment
published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31693). Upon further review, we
revised the total number of subpopulations to 34. In order to be fully
consistent with the defined subpopulation criteria, we concluded that
the Puyallup River Basin only has two subpopulations as opposed to
three, which are the upper Puyallup River and the lower Puyallup
(includes Carbon River and White River).
Bull trout and Dolly Varden can be differentiated by both genetic
and morphological-meristic (measurements and counts) analyses, of which
biologists have conducted one or both analyses on 15 of the 34
subpopulations. To date, we have documented bull trout in 12 of 15
subpopulations investigated (five with only bull trout, three with only
Dolly Varden, and seven with both species), and it is likely that bull
trout occur in the majority of the remaining 19 subpopulations (Service
1998a). Although we only documented three of the tested ``native char''
subpopulations as containing Dolly Varden at this time, we are not yet
confident in excluding these subpopulations from the listing. We
believe it would be premature to conclude that bull trout do not exist
in these subpopulations given the limited sample sizes used in the
analyses, the location of the subpopulations, and the evidence that
bull trout and Dolly Varden can frequently co-exist together. In order
to identify trends that may be specific to certain geographic areas,
the 34 ``native char'' subpopulations were grouped into five analysis
areas--Coastal, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and
Transboundary.

Coastal Analysis Area

Ten ``native char'' subpopulations occur in five river basins in
the Coastal analysis area (number of subpopulations)--Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor (1), Coastal Plains-Quinault River (5), Queets River (1),
Hoh River-Goodman Creek (2), and Quillayute River (1). Recent efforts
to determine species composition in three subpopulations documented
bull trout in at least two, the upper Quinault River and Queets River
(Leary and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Biologists identified only
Dolly Varden in the upper Sol Duc River to date (Cavender 1978, 1984;
WDFW 1997a).
Subpopulations of ``native char'' in the southwestern portion of
the coastal area appear to be in low abundance based on anecdotal
information (Mongillo 1993). Because this is the southern extent of
coastal bull trout and Dolly Varden, abundance may be naturally low in
systems like the Chehalis, Moclips, and Copalis rivers (WDFW 1997a). In
recent years, there have been even fewer reports of incidental catches
of ``native char'' in the Chehalis River Basin. In 1997, a single
juvenile was captured in a downstream migrant trap on the mainstem of
the Chehalis River (WDFW 1998a). Although little historical and current
information is known concerning bull trout in these river basins,
habitat degradation in the past has adversely affected other salmonids
(Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993; WDFW 1997a). Habitat
degradation in these basins is assumed to have similarly affected bull
trout. Although ``native char'' are believed to be relatively more
abundant in the Quinault River, extensive portions of the Basin have
been degraded by past forest management (Phinney and Bucknell 1975;
WDFW 1997a).
Most ``native char'' subpopulations in the northwestern coastal
area occur partially within Olympic National Park, which contains
relatively undisturbed habitats. However, outside Olympic National
Park, ``native char'' habitat has been severely degraded by past forest
practices in the Queets River and Hoh River basins (Phinney and
Bucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a). Non-native brook trout have been stocked in
many of the high lakes and streams in the Olympic National Park. Brook
trout are present in the upper Sol Duc subpopulation and threaten this
subpopulation from competition and hybridization (Service 1998a). Data
collected while seining for outmigrating salmon smolts on the Queets
River indicate a decline in ``native char'' catch rate from 3.3 fish/
day in 1977 to 1 fish/day by 1984 (WDFW 1997a). From 1985 to the time
seining was discontinued in 1991, catch rate remained relatively stable
at approximately 1.5 fish/day. The WDFW believes that the Hoh River may
have the largest subpopulation of ``native char'' on the Washington
coast, although their numbers have greatly declined since 1982 (WDFW in
litt. 1992; WDFW 1997a). Reasons for the decline are unknown, but
overfishing is believed to be a contributing factor (WDFW 1997a; WDFW,
in litt. 1997). Forty-one and 31 adult ``native char'' were observed
during snorkel surveys of a 17.6-km (11-mi) section of the South Fork
Hoh River in 1994 and 1995, respectively (WDFW 1997a). We consider the
Hoh River subpopulation ``depressed.'' The status of the remaining nine
``native char'' subpopulations in the coastal analysis area is
``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history
information is available (Service 1998a). Although the status of these
subpopulations is unknown, we believe that anecdotal information, such
as described for the Chehalis River-Grays Harbor and Queets River
subpopulations, indicate declines in abundance in other subpopulations
within the coastal analysis area.

[[Page 58914]]

Strait of Juan de Fuca Analysis Area

Five ``native char'' subpopulations occur in three river basins in
the Strait of Juan de Fuca analysis area (number of subpopulations)--
Elwha River (2), Angeles Basin (1), and Dungeness River (2). Recent
efforts to determine species composition in three subpopulations have
documented bull trout in at least two, the upper Elwha River and lower
Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River (Leary and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a).
Only Dolly Varden have been identified in the upper Dungeness River
subpopulation to date (WDFW 1997a).
The two subpopulations in the Dungeness River Basin occur partially
within Olympic National Park and Buckhorn Wilderness Area, and likely
benefit from the relatively undisturbed habitats located there.
However, non-native brook trout occur in some streams in the park.
Large portions of the Dungeness River Basin lie outside of Olympic
National Park, and have been severely degraded by past forest and
agricultural practices (Williams et al. 1975; WDFW 1997a). Within
Olympic National Park, the lower and upper Elwha River subpopulations
are isolated by dams. Biologists have observed few ``native char'' in
the lower Elwha subpopulation in recent years. Since 1983, one or two
individuals have been seen each year in a chinook salmon rearing
channel located in the lower Elwha River (WDFW 1997a). A creel census,
conducted in 1981 and 1982 on the Elwha River reservoirs of the upper
Elwha River subpopulation, reported that ``native char'' were found in
low numbers (WDFW 1997a). Although ``native char'' are believed to be
widespread in some basins within the analysis area, such as the
Dungeness and Gray Wolf rivers, fish abundance is thought to be
``greatly reduced in numbers'' (WDW, in litt. 1992; WDFW 1997a).
Electrofishing surveys conducted in four sections of the upper
Dungeness River subpopulation during 1996 recorded an overall ``native
char'' density of 0.78 fish/meter (2.56 fish/foot) for the four
sections (WDFW 1997a). These preliminary surveys indicate that the
upper Dungeness River subpopulation may be ``strong.'' We consider the
lower Elwha River subpopulation ``depressed'' because less than 500
spawners likely occur in the subpopulation, and the lower Dungeness
River-Gray Wolf River ``depressed'' because abundance has declined. The
remaining three ``native char'' subpopulations in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca coastal analysis area have ``unknown'' status because insufficient
abundance, trend, and life-history information is available (Service
1998a).

Hood Canal Analysis Area

Three ``native char'' subpopulations occur in the Skokomish River
Basin in the Hood Canal analysis area. Surveys by Brown (1992) and
Brenkman (1996 in WDFW 1997) documented bull trout in Cushman
Reservoir, and Leary and Allendorf (1997) and WDFW (1997a) documented
bull trout in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River. Due to
the construction of Cushman Dam on the North Fork Skokomish River, bull
trout in Cushman Reservoir are isolated and restricted to an adfluvial
life-history form. Spawner surveys, which began in 1973, indicate a
decline in adult bull trout through the 1970s, subsequent increases
from 4 adults in 1985 to 412 adults in 1993, and relatively stable
numbers of 250 to 300 spawning adults in recent years (WDFW 1997a). The
increase in adult bull trout from 1985 to 1993 is likely related to
harvest closure on Cushman Reservoir and upper North Fork Skokomish
River in 1986 (Brown 1992). Recent surveys indicate low numbers of bull
trout in tributaries of the South Fork Skokomish River such as Church,
Pine, Cedar, LeBar, Brown, Rock, Flat, and Vance creeks, as well as in
the mainstem (Larry Ogg, Olympia National Forest (ONF), in litt. 1997).
Past forest and agricultural practices and hydropower development have
severely degraded habitat in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish
River (Williams et al. 1975; Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC)
1995; WDFW 1997a). The upper North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation
occurs within Olympic National Park and habitat is relatively
undisturbed. We consider the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish
River subpopulation ``depressed,'' because fewer than 500 spawners and
fewer than 5,000 individuals likely occur in the subpopulation.
Although the number of spawning adult bull trout appears to have been
relatively stable in the Cushman Reservoir subpopulation since 1990,
under our analysis, this population is consider ``depressed'' based on
the criteria used to determine subpopulation status (i.e., less than
500 spawning adults). The status of the upper North Fork Skokomish
subpopulation is considered ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance,
trend, and life-history information is available (Service 1998a).

Puget Sound Analysis Area

Fifteen ``native char'' subpopulations occur in eight river basins
in the Puget Sound analysis area (number of subpopulations)--Nisqually
River (1), Puyallup River (2), Green River (1), Lake Washington Basin
(2), Snohomish River-Skykomish River (1), Stillaguamish River (1),
Skagit River (4), and Nooksack River (3). Recent surveys of seven
``native char'' subpopulations have documented bull trout in at least
six--lower Puyallup (Carbon River), Green River, Chester Morse
Reservoir, Snohomish River-Skykomish River, lower Skagit River, and
upper Middle Fork Nooksack River (R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. 1993;
Samora and Girdner 1993; Kraemer 1994; Michael Barclay, Cascades
Environmental Services, Inc., pers. comm. 1997; Leary and Allendorf
1997; Eric Warner, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, pers. comm. 1997). Leary
and Allendorf (1997) identified only Dolly Varden in the Canyon Creek
(tributary to the Nooksack River) subpopulation.
The current abundance of ``native char'' in southern Puget Sound is
likely lower than occurred historically and declining (Tom Cropp, WDW,
in litt. 1993; Fred Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), pers.
comm. 1994a,b). Historical accounts from southern Puget Sound indicate
that anadromous ``native char'' entered rivers there in ``vast
numbers'' during the fall and were harvested until Christmas (Suckley
and Cooper 1860). ``Native char'' are now rarely collected in the
southern drainages of the area (T. Cropp, in litt. 1993; F. Goetz,
pers. comm. 1994a,b). There is only one recent record of a ``native
char'' being collected in the Nisqually River. A juvenile char was
collected during a stream survey for salmon in the mid-1980s (George
Walter, Nisqually Indian Tribe, pers. comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a). In the
Puyallup River (lower Puyallup subpopulation), ``native char'' are
occasionally caught by steelhead anglers (WDW, in litt. 1992; WDFW
1997a). In the White River (lower Puyallup subpopulation), counts of
upstream migrating ``native char'' at the Buckley diversion dam have
averaged 23 adults since 1987. Although trapping effort has varied
during the past 11 years, annual counts have generally been poor to
moderate, ranging from a low of 8 to a high of 46 adult ``native char''
(WDFW 1998a). In the Green River, ``native char'' are rarely observed
(T. Cropp, in litt. 1993; F. Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b; E. Warner,
pers. comm. 1997). Aquatic habitat in the Nisqually, Puyallup, and
Green rivers has been variously degraded by logging, agriculture, road
construction, and urban development. In the Chester Morse Reservoir

[[Page 58915]]

subpopulation, biologists observed fewer than 10 redds as recently as
1995 and 1996; and fry abundance was low in spring 1996 and 1997
(Dwayne Paige, Seattle Water Department, in litt. 1997). Logging and
extensive road construction have occurred within the Basin (Foster
Wheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW 1997a), and likely affected bull trout
in Chester Morse Reservoir. Only two ``native char'' have been observed
during the past 10 years in the Issaquah Creek drainage and none have
been observed in the Sammamish River system, which are occupied by the
Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek subpopulation. It is questionable
whether a viable subpopulation remains. Habitat in the Sammamish River
and Issaquah Creek drainages has been negatively affected by
urbanization, road building and associated poor water quality (Williams
et al. 1975; Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 1997). We consider
the Nisqually River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir, Sammamish
River-Issaquah Creek, and lower Puyallup subpopulations ``depressed''
based on fewer than 500 spawning adults and a decline in general
abundance.
Drainages in the northern Puget Sound area appear to support larger
subpopulations of ``native char'' than the southern portion (F. Goetz,
pers. comm. 1994a, b; Steve Fransen, Service, pers. comm. 1997). The
WDFW conducts redd counts in two index reaches of the northern Puget
Sound; a reach in the upper South Fork Sauk River that is included in
the lower Skagit River subpopulation, and a reach in the upper North
Fork Skykomish River that is included in the Snohomish River-Skykomish
River subpopulation. These areas are said to have healthy habitats
supporting stable numbers of ``native char'' (Kraemer 1994). Biologists
have conducted redd surveys since 1988 in both index reaches. In the
upper South Fork Sauk River, WDFW (1997a) observed a substantial
increase in redds in 1991, a year after a minimum
508-mm (20-in) harvest restriction was implemented; and redd numbers
have remained relatively stable at or above 34. The State implemented
harvest restrictions in the Skagit River and its tributaries in 1990.
``Native char'' in the lower Skagit River subpopulation have access to
at least 38 documented or suspected spawning tributaries (WDFW et al.
1997) with the number of adults estimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish
(Curt Kraemer, WDFW, pers. comm. 1998). The number of redds in the
upper North Fork Skykomish River index reach have averaged 78 redds
(range 21 to 159) during 1988 through 1996, with 75 or fewer redds
observed between 1993 and 1996 (WDFW 1997a). A total of 170 redds were
counted in 1997 (WDFW 1998a). Redd counts in the North Fork Skykomish
River index reach have been more variable between years than the South
Fork Sauk River index reach. The upper Skagit River is fragmented into
three reservoirs from the construction of Gorge, Diablo, and Ross dams
(WDFW 1997a). The primary spawning area for the Gorge Reservoir
subpopulation is said to be the lower Steattle Creek and a portion of
the Skagit River below Diablo Dam (WDFW 1997a). The primary spawning
areas for the Diablo Reservoir subpopulation is thought be in the
Thunder Arm area, including Fisher Creek (WDFW 1997a), although WDFW et
al. (1997) did not locate any ``native char'' adults or juveniles
upstream of the mouth of Thunder Creek during snorkel and
electrofishing surveys. Within Ross Reservoir, it is reported that
spawning occurs in lower reach areas of at least six tributaries, in
addition to a portion of the upper Skagit River in Canada (WDFW 1997a).
Biologists have documented ``native char'' spawning in at least seven
creeks in the Stillaguamish River subpopulation and in five creeks and
several mainstem areas of the Lower Nooksack River subpopulation.
Biologists have also observed ``native char'' in at least four creeks
in the upper Middle Fork Nooksack River subpopulation. Neither adult
count data nor redd count data is available for these six
subpopulations (WDFW 1997a). Within the Puget Sound analysis area, we
consider the lower Skagit River subpopulation ``strong,'' based on a
large number of spawning adults and high overall abundance. We consider
five subpopulations within the Puget Sound analysis area ``depressed''
and the status of the remaining nine ``native char'' subpopulations in
the Puget Sound analysis area ``unknown'' because insufficient
abundance, trend, and life-history information is available (Service
1998a).

Transboundary Analysis Area

One ``native char'' subpopulation occurs in the Chilliwack River
Basin in the Transboundary analysis area. The Chilliwack River is a
transboundary system flowing into British Columbia, Canada. We have not
determined the species composition of this subpopulation. In
Washington, portions of the Chilliwack River are within the North
Cascades National Park and a tributary, Selesia Creek, are within the
Mount Baker Wilderness where the habitat is relatively undisturbed
(WDFW 1997a). Little information is available for ``native char'' in
the Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek subpopulation (Service 1998a). The
current status of the ``native char'' subpopulations in the
Transboundary analysis area is ``unknown'' because insufficient
abundance, trend, and life-history information is available (Service
1998a).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Much of the historical information regarding bull trout in the St.
Mary-Belly River DPS is anecdotal and abundance information is limited.
Bull trout probably entered the system via postglacial dispersal routes
from the Columbia River through either the Kootenai River or Flathead
River systems (Fredenberg 1996). The St. Mary River system historically
contained native bull trout, lake trout, and westslope cutthroat trout.
Although abundance of these fishes is unknown, the presence of lake
trout suggests that migratory bull trout were restricted primarily to
streams and rivers and not common in lakes (Donald and Alger 1993).
Within the St. Mary River system, historic accounts of bull trout date
to the 1930s (Fredenberg 1996). In the Belly River, historic
distribution of bull trout in the Basin is limited but migratory bull
trout from Canada likely spawned in the North Fork and mainstem Belly
rivers.
Both migratory (fluvial) and resident life-history forms are
present (Fredenberg 1996), although bull trout within the St. Mary-
Belly River DPS are isolated and fragmented by irrigation dams and
diversions (Fredenberg 1996; Clayton 1998; Robin Wagner, Service, pers.
comm. 1998). Bull trout that migrate across the international border
are dependent upon the relatively undisturbed water quality and
spawning habitat located in the upper St. Mary and Belly rivers and
their tributaries within the coterminous United States (Fredenberg
1996).
Based on natural and artificial barriers to fish passage within the
St. Mary-Belly River DPS, we identified four bull trout
subpopulations--(1) Upper St. Mary River (from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) diversion structure on lower St. Mary Lake upstream
to St. Mary Falls, including Swiftcurrent and Boulder creeks below Lake
Sherburne, and Red Eagle and Divide creeks); (2) Swiftcurrent Creek
(including tributaries and Lake Sherburne and Cracker Lake); (3) lower
St. Mary River (St. Mary River downstream of the USBR diversion
structure including Kennedy, Otatso, and Lee creeks); and (4) Belly
River (mainstem and North

[[Page 58916]]

Fork Belly River) (Service 1998b). Based on 1997 and 1998 trapping of
post-spawning adults, fewer than 100 fish existed in the Boulder Creek
and Kennedy Creek spawning populations (Lynn Kaeding, Service, in litt.
1998). These two streams include the strongest known spawning runs in
the upper St. Mary River and lower St. Mary River subpopulations,
respectively, and evaluation of these streams is continuing. Based on
studies conducted in 1996 and 1997, the Belly River drainage is thought
to contain fewer than 100 adult bull trout (Clayton 1998). The status
of the upper St. Mary River, lower St. Mary River, and North Fork Belly
River bull trout subpopulations is ``depressed'' because fewer than 500
spawning adults or 5,000 total bull trout occur in the subpopulations.
The status of the Swiftcurrent Creek subpopulation is ``unknown''
because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is
available (Service 1998b).
In summary, we considered the information received during the
public comment period on the abundance, trends in abundance, and
distribution of bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments. The Coastal-Puget Sound population
segment includes the only anadromous bull trout found in the
coterminous United States. The population segment is composed of 34
``native char'' subpopulations of which bull trout have been documented
in 12 of 15 subpopulations examined. The remaining 19 subpopulations
consist of ``native char'' that may include bull trout, Dolly Varden,
or both species. At this time, the only ``native char'' documented in
three of the subpopulations is Dolly Varden. Of the 34 subpopulations,
we believe one is ``strong,'' 10 are ``depressed,'' and insufficient
abundance, trends in abundance, and life-history information exists to
assign either category to the remaining 23 subpopulations.
The St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout is
composed of four subpopulations and represents the only area of bull
trout range east of the Continental Divide within the coterminous
United States. Migratory fish occur in three of the subpopulations and
the life-history form in the fourth subpopulation is unknown. Bull
trout subpopulations in the St. Mary River Basin are isolated by
impassable diversion structures. Three of the four subpopulations are
``depressed'' due to low abundance of fish, and the status of one
subpopulation is ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trends in
abundance, and life-history information exists to categorize the
subpopulations as ``strong'' or ``depressed.''

Previous Federal Action

On October 30, 1992, we 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 danger of extinction. In our 90-day finding,
published on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28849), we determined that the
petitioners had provided substantial information indicating that
listing of the species may be warranted. We initiated a rangewide
status review of the species concurrent with publication of the 90-day
finding.
In our June 10, 1994, 12-month finding (59 FR 30254), we concluded
that listing the 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, we determined that sufficient information on the biological
vulnerability and threats to the species was available to support a
warranted 12-month finding to list bull trout within the coterminous
United States, but this action was precluded due to higher priority
listings.
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 we recycled the petition
and issued a new warranted but precluded 12-month finding for the
coterminous population of bull trout on June 12, 1995 (60 FR 30825),
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 us for further consideration.
Included in the instructions from the Court were requirements that we
limit our review to the 1994 administrative record, and incorporate any
emergency listings or high magnitude threat determinations into current
listing priorities. We delivered the reconsidered 12-month finding
based on the 1994 Administrative Record to the Court on March 13, 1997.
We concluded in the finding that two populations of bull trout
warranted listing (Klamath River and Columbia River population
segments).
On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a motion for mandatory
injunction to compel us 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. On April 4, 1997, we
requested 60 days to prepare and review the proposed rule. In a
stipulation between us and plaintiffs filed with the Court on April 11,
1997, we agreed to issue a proposed rule within 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.
We 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 us to reconsider several
aspects of the 1997 reconsidered finding. On February 2, 1998, the
Court gave us 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, St. Mary-Belly River, and Jarbidge River DPSs
constituted our response.
We published a final rule listing the Klamath River and Columbia
River population segments of bull trout as threatened on June 10, 1998
(63 FR 31647). On the same date, we also published a proposed rule to
list the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River
population segments of bull trout as threatened (63 FR 31693). On
August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42757), we issued an emergency rule listing the
Jarbidge River population

[[Page 58917]]

segment of bull trout as endangered due to river channel alteration
associated with unauthorized road construction on the West Fork of the
Jarbidge River, which we found to imminently threaten the survival of
the distinct population segment. On April 8, 1999 (64 FR 17110), we
published the final rule to list the Jarbidge River population segment
as threatened in the Federal Register.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31693), proposed rule, we requested
interested parties to submit comments or information that might
contribute to the final listing determination for bull trout. The
proposed rule included the Coastal-Puget Sound, St. Mary-Belly River,
and Jarbidge River bull trout DPSs. We sent announcements of the
proposed rule and notice of public hearings to at least 800
individuals, including Federal, State, county and city elected
officials, State and Federal agencies, interested private citizens, and
local area newspapers and radio stations. We also published
announcements of the proposed rule in 10 newspapers, which included the
Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho; the Times-News, Twin Falls, Idaho; the
Glacier Reporter, Browning, Montana; the Daily Inter Lake; Kalispell,
Montana; the Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Montana; the Elko Daily
Free Press, Elko, Nevada; the Bellingham Herald, Bellingham,
Washington; the Olympian, Olympia, Washington; the Spokesman-Review,
Spokane, Washington, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle,
Washington. We held public hearings on July 7, 1998, in Lacey,
Washington; July 9, 1998, in Mount Vernon, Washington; July 14, 1998,
in East Glacier, Montana; and July 21, 1998, in Jackpot, Nevada. The
comment period on the proposed rule closed on October 8, 1998.
We received 12 oral and 40 written comments on the proposed rule.
These included comments from two Federal agencies, one Native American
Tribe, three State agencies, one county in Nevada, three cities in
Washington, and two private companies. In addition, we solicited formal
scientific peer review of the proposal in accordance with our July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34270), Interagency Cooperative Policy on Peer Review. We
requested six individuals, who possess expertise in bull trout biology
and salmonid ecology, and whose affiliations include academia and
Federal, State, and provincial agencies, to review the proposed rule by
the close of the comment period. One individual responded to our
request and we have addressed their comments in this section of the
rule.
We considered all comments for the proposed rule for the Coastal-
Puget Sound, St. Mary-Belly River, and Jarbidge River population
segments, including oral testimony presented at the public hearings and
the comments from the peer reviewer who responded to our request to
review the proposed rule. The majority of comments supported the
listing proposal and nine comments were in opposition. Opposition was
based on several concerns, including possible negative economic effects
from listing bull trout; potential restrictions on activities; lack of
solutions to the bull trout decline that would result from listing; and
interpretation of data concerning the status of bull trout and their
threats in the three population segments. The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) (B. Siminoe, USFS, in litt. 1998); National Park Service (NPS)
(David Morris, NPS, in litt. 1998), Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) (F. Partridge, IDFG, in litt. 1998; Partridge and Warren 1998),
Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) (T. Crawforth, NDOW, in litt. 1998;
R. Haskins, NDOW, in litt. 1998), (Bruce Crawford, WDFW, in litt. 1998;
WDFW 1998a), and Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) (Duane Radford,
AEP, in litt. 1998) provided us with information on respective agency
efforts to assess, evaluate, monitor, and conserve bull trout in
habitats affected by each agency's management for the three DPSs.
Comments specific to the Jarbidge River population segment were
addressed in the final rule determination for that DPS (April 8, 1999;
64 FR 17110). Comments specific to the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.
Mary-Belly River population segments are addressed in this rule.
Because multiple respondents offered similar comments, we grouped
comments of a similar nature or point. These comments and our responses
are presented below.
Issue 1: Several respondents opposed the Federal listing, while
others supported it. Some respondents requested that we delay or
preclude Federal listing until additional data on the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment are collected and considered, and one
respondent based this on the belief that some subpopulations within the
north Puget Sound region and the Olympic Peninsula appear to be stable
or increasing, and other subpopulations occur in excellent or pristine
habitat. A respondent asked if complete status and trend information is
not available, whether changes in habitat or threats are sufficient to
list a species, even if there is no indication that a population is in
trouble. Another respondent noted we did not evaluate listing criteria
with objective and quantitative methods, making it difficult to
interpret new information in a consistent manner. The respondent also
said that, although quantitative data are lacking for many local
populations of bull trout, sufficient information exists to design an
inventory program to describe their current distribution, relative
abundance, and population structure.
Our Response: A species may be determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to the five factors identified in section
4(a)(1) of the Act and addressed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section. The Act requires us to base listing
determinations on the best available commercial and scientific
information. Data are often not available to make statistically
rigorous inferences about a species' status (e.g., abundance, trends in
abundance, and distribution). Overall, we found that sufficient
evidence exists in each of the population segments that demonstrate
they are threatened by a variety of past and ongoing threats, and are
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
In making this final determination, we took into account the
overall status of bull trout in the coterminous United States. We
acknowledge that three north Puget Sound subpopulations of bull trout
(lower Skagit River, Stillaguamish River, and Snohomish River-Skykomish
River supopulations) appear to be in better condition than
subpopulations in other areas of the Coastal-Puget sound population
segment. We determined that the lower Skagit subpopulation was
``strong.'' The WDFW has identified ``native char'' spawning areas in a
number of tributaries in the Stillaguamish River subpopulation, and
reported them as stable or expanding based on limited spawner surveys
of Boulder Creek and the upper Stillaguamish River (WDFW 1997a).
However, Mongillo (1993) and WDFW (1997a) identified other areas of the
Stillaguamish subpopulation, specifically Deer Creek and Canyon Creek,
as declining. Although the 1997 redd count for the Snohomish-Skykomish
River subpopulation was the highest since an index reach was
established in 1988 (WDFW 1998a), redd counts have been highly variable
over this time period, possibly indicating an unstable population.
There is scant evidence that subpopulations within the Nooksack River
are increasing or stable, although much of the habitat within the
Nooksack River drainage has been

[[Page 58918]]

severely degraded (WDFW 1998a). The Cushman Reservoir subpopulation, on
the Olympic Peninsula, appears to have an adult spawner return that has
stabilized around 300 fish for the past 7 years (WDFW 1998a). The
available spawning habitat for this subpopulation lies primarily within
Olympic National Park and WDFW considers it to be in excellent
condition (WDFW 1998a). In contrast, bull trout in the South Fork-lower
North Fork Skokomish River occur in low numbers with no known spawning
sites. Habitat in the south Fork and lower North fork Skokomish River
is severely degraded (WDFW 1998a).
Conversely, we have ample information regarding threats to the
Coastal-Puget Sound population segments. Many of the threats are
similar to those described for the threatened Klamath River and
Columbia River bull trout population segments (June 10, 1998; 63 FR
31647). We acknowledge that available information is insufficient to
designate many of the subpopulations within the Coastal-Puget Sound
population segment as ``strong'' or ``depressed.'' However, because
bull trout display a high degree of sensitivity to environmental
disturbance and are referred to as an indicator species, we believe
that bull trout are significantly impacted by past and current habitat
degradation within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, similar
to other listed and sensitive species (i.e., salmon). Habitat loss and
degradation is acknowledged as a significant factor limiting salmon and
trout populations within Washington (Washington Department of Fisheries
(WDF) et al. 1993; Weitkamp et al. 1995; Busby et al. 1996; Spence et
al. 1996; WDFW 1997a, b). Although a number of subpopulations have
documented spawning and rearing habitat in protected areas of
watersheds, the spawning and rearing habitats of many other
subpopulations are not identified. In addition, habitats used by other
life-history stages for migration, overwintering, sub-adult rearing,
are degraded, and all life-history stages are required for a species to
persist. See the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section
for a more complete discussion of threats affecting bull trout.
Because the location of spawning areas for many bull trout
subpopulations are not well known for the Coastal-Puget Sound
population segment, we have been funding efforts to determine the
distribution of spawning areas in various Coastal-Puget Sound
subpopulations. Although estimates of bull trout abundance based on
redd counts will provide information on which to evaluate the status of
``native char'' subpopulations, the method should be used with caution.
For example, in analyzing counts of bull trout redds in Idaho and
Montana, Rieman and Myers (1997) found that variability of counts in
individual streams reduces the ability to detect trends, especially
with data sets for relatively short periods. They caution that
detection of trends will often require more than 10 years of sampling,
even where declines could be large, and for many bull trout spawning
reaches, declining trends may not be statistically evident until
numbers drop to critically low levels. Given the lack or limitations of
statistically rigorous data for bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound
population segment, our review of the status of ``native char''
subpopulations is based on the generally low number of individuals
observed in several subpopulations throughout the population segment,
and the apparent declines reported in others.
Issue 2: A respondent noted that the proposed rule considered that
loss of the St. Mary-Belly River population segment would constitute a
significant reduction in the range of the taxon. They asked what
portion of the range is significant, and would the statement be true
for the St. Mary-Belly River population segment if fish in Canada were
considered. They also inquired whether bull trout in the population
segment are distinct from fish east of the Continental Divide in
Canada. Because a large portion of the St. Mary-Belly River population
segment occurs on the Blackfeet Reservation, another respondent
requested that we establish government-to-government relations with the
Blackfeet Tribe, expressing concern that Tribal comments and
interactions with us were considered similarly to those from the
general public and not on a government-to-government basis.
Our Response: We considered both biological (available data) and
administrative (international boundary) issues in determining distinct
population segments. Policy used to guide determination of distinct
population segments is described in the joint National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and Service policy for recognizing distinct vertebrate
population segments under the Act (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722).
Although we are not including bull trout in Canada in the St. Mary-
Belly River population segment, fish are believed to migrate across the
international boundary. Determination of a significant reduction in
range was based only on bull trout occurring within the coterminous
United States, of which loss of the population segment would result in
elimination of all bull trout east of the Continental Divide. Mogen
(1998) noted genetic work that indicated bull trout from the upper St.
Mary River drainage in Glacier National Park and the Belly River in
Alberta form a genetically similar group, and bull trout collected from
other areas in southern Alberta form another (Thomas et al. 1997, cited
in Mogen 1998). Genetic analysis of tissue samples collected in the St.
Mary River drainage during 1997 is not complete (Mogen 1998).
Regarding governmental relations, a June 1997 Secretarial Order on
Federal-Tribal trust responsibilities and the Act, clarifies
responsibilities of agencies relative to Tribal lands, rights, and
trust resources in implementing the Act. A cooperative agreement among
us, the Blackfeet Tribe, and Bureau of Reclamation establishes a
partnership focused on the conservation and restoration of native
salmonids and habitat in the St. Mary River drainage. Mogen (1998)
presents results of a study to investigate bull trout spawning areas
and fish abundance conducted pursuant to the cooperative agreement. We
have met with representatives of the Blackfeet Tribe to address
concerns about bull trout and government-to-government relations.
Issue 3: One respondent noted that criteria we used to determine
the status of subpopulations were adopted from Rieman et al. (1997),
who originally developed them to apply to 6th field watersheds in the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). Because
fish in 6th field watersheds are roughly equivalent to local
populations (see Rieman and McIntyre 1995), using the criteria may be
inconsistent with subpopulations as defined in the proposed rule. Also,
several respondents were concerned about applying the criteria to the
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment for evaluating whether a
subpopulation is ``strong'' or ``depressed.'' One respondent asked
whether our definition of subpopulation designation required absolute
reproductive isolation or only some level of structuring that means
reduced gene flow and some local adaptation, and whether subpopulations
can compose a larger metapopulation or if a metapopulation is
equivalent to a subpopulation. Another respondent contended that some
dams were not isolating mechanisms for subpopulations (Middle Fork
Nooksack, Skagit, and Nisqually rivers) because

[[Page 58919]]

they believe the dams were constructed at natural barriers.
Our Response: In adopting the criteria, we considered a bull trout
subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000 individuals or 500 spawners likely
occur in the subpopulation, abundance appears stable or increasing, and
life-history forms historically present 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 (see Rieman et al.
1997). If there was insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history
information to classify the status of a subpopulation as either
``strong'' or ``depressed,'' we considered status as ``unknown.''
We used these criteria because they represent the best available
information and were used in evaluating bull trout in the Klamath River
and Columbia River population segments. We acknowledge the criteria
were originally developed for application to salmonids in the Columbia
River Basin, but their underlying premises are based on concepts of
conservation biology. Whether a subpopulation is ``strong'' or
``depressed'' relative to its potential may vary among population
segments. However, we were unable to refine these criteria, either
higher or lower, based on the available data. Designating a
subpopulation as ``strong'' or ``depressed'' is only one of several
factors that we considered in evaluating the overall status of a bull
trout subpopulation in a given population segment.
Regarding the use of 6th field watersheds, we acknowledge the
different spatial scales used in applying criteria developed by Rieman
et al. (1997) for ICBEMP in our evaluation of bull trout
subpopulations. Subpopulations identified in the population segments
for bull trout in the coterminous United States (see June 10, 1998; 63
FR 31647) ranged in size from a portion of a single watershed unit used
by ICBEMP to several watersheds. For example, the best available
information concerning bull trout and ``native char'' in the Coastal-
Puget Sound population segment was based on a spatial scale consisting
of up to several ICBEMP watershed units. Although the spatial scale of
most subpopulations identified in the proposed rule occupy multiple
ICBEMP watershed units, we believe that the criteria offered useful
information in evaluating the status of bull trout.
We selected subpopulations as a convenient unit on which to analyze
bull trout within population segments, and defined subpopulation as ``a
reproductively isolated group of bull trout that spawns within a
particular area of a river system.'' We identified subpopulations based
on documented or likely barriers to fish movement (e.g., impassable
barriers to movement and unsuitable habitat). To be considered a single
subpopulation, two-way passage at a barrier is required, otherwise bull
trout upstream and downstream of a barrier are each considered a
subpopulation. Because it is likely that fish above a barrier could
pass downstream and mate with fish downstream, absolute reproductive
isolation was not required to be considered a subpopulation.
We viewed metapopulation concepts (see Rieman and McIntyre 1993) as
useful tools in evaluating bull trout, but, in querying biologists both
within the Service and elsewhere, we found considerable variability in
the definition of a metapopulation and the types of data suggestive of
a metapopulation. Some biologists may consider a subpopulation, as
defined by us, as a metapopulation if it has multiple spawning areas.
Likewise, subpopulations without reciprocal interactions (i.e.,
individuals from upstream of a barrier may mingle with individuals
downstream, but not vice versa) may be considered components of a
metapopulation consisting of more than one subpopulation. Because
little genetic and detailed movement information exists throughout bull
trout range in the population segments addressed in the proposed rule,
we believe that barriers to movement is an appropriate consideration
for identifying subpopulations.
Relative to dams, the WDFW (1998a) believes that bull trout were
able to commingle on both the Middle Fork Nooksack River and the Skagit
River prior to construction of the dams. There may have been a natural
barrier between La Grande and Alder dams on the Nisqually River.
Because the existence of ``native char'' above Alder Dam is not
established, we chose not to identify this area as a separate
subpopulation. Regardless, the DPS discreteness criterion can be
satisfied by natural or man-made barriers.
Issue 4: Several respondents believed the Federal listing was not
necessary due to current and recently improved regulations related to
forest land management.
Our Response: We believe that implementation of the Northwest
Forest Plan (NFP) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) should limit further degradation to
aquatic habitats from future forest management practices for the
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment. Only about 32 percent of the
Coastal-Puget Sound population segment is covered by either one of
these two plans. An additional 15 percent of the population segment
resides on National Park lands. Bull trout in this population segment
will continue to be negatively affected by severely degraded habitats
in many subbasins where ``native char'' occur (e.g., increased stream
temperatures and sedimentation, altered stream flows, and lack of
instream cover). These effects are expected to continue because many
river basins affected by past, poor forest practices that contain
``native char'' will take decades to fully recover.
Approximately 45 percent of the Coastal-Puget Sound population
segment occurs on lands under private ownership. Timber harvest
activities on lands in forest production are subject to Washington
State Forest Practice Rules (WFPR). Although State rules and
regulations governing forested land management activities on private
lands are improving, we believe they are not adequate to conserve and
recover bull trout or remedy the effects of past damage to bull trout
habitats (U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) et al. 1996a). The WFPR
are currently being renegotiated, and it is anticipated that there will
be some improvements over past rules. Because the State has not issued
new rules, we are unable to evaluate their adequacy to conserve and
recover bull trout on private lands within the Coastal-Puget Sound
area. If improved sufficiently, these rules could form the basis for a
delisting, 4(d) rule, or HCP.
Issue 5: The U.S. Forest Service proposed that we issue a special
rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act that would relax the
prohibition against incidental take associated with Federal actions
consistent with the NFP. Another respondent requested that we develop a
special rule that was sufficiently protective to address any threat to
bull trout from a specific development project.
Our Response: Under section 4(d) of the Act, we have the authority
to issue regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of a species listed as threatened. We recognize that
on-going and future land-use activities will occur on non-Federal lands
and that these activities may result in take of bull trout. Elsewhere
in today's Federal Register we have published a Notice of Intent to
prepare another special rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for
bull trout within the coterminous

[[Page 58920]]

United States (see ``Special Rule'' section). The special rule would
address two categories of non-Federal activities affecting bull trout:
(1) Habitat restoration; and (2) regulations that govern land and water
management activities. Special regulations addressing both categories
would provide for the conservation of bull trout. We have already
issued two special rules, one for Jarbidge River population segment on
April 8, 1999, and the other for the Klamath and Columbia River
population segments on June 10, 1998. In general, these special rules
exempt from the take prohibition fishing and activities that are
conducted in accordance with State, Tribal, and NPS laws and
regulations governing fish and wildlife conservation. The special rule
for the Coastal Puget-Sound and St. Mary-Belly population segments,
described in the ``Special Rule'' section, will also exempt from the
take prohibition fishing and activities conducted in accordance with
State, Tribal, and NPS laws and regulations.
A proposal to relax the prohibition against incidental taking of
bull trout associated with Federal actions consistent with the NFP
Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is an option we may address in the
future. There are a number of issues regarding the interpretation of
ACS objectives and ACS components that are being discussed at an
interagency level, but currently remain unresolved. It would not be
prudent for us to consider a 4(d) rule until these discussions are
concluded and the issues are satisfactorily resolved. The NFP applies
to Federal lands in the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment.
Although we have not finalized a programmatic biological opinion, we
have re-initiated programmatic consultations with three National
Forests, including conferencing on bull trout with the USFS regional
office for those three National Forests. Thus, we will address Federal
actions consistent with the NFP either through section 7 of the Act or
through a 4(d) rule.
Issue 6: One respondent felt it was inappropriate to include in the
final rule those streams or stream segments where only ``native char''
or both bull trout and Dolly Varden are documented to date. One
respondent suggested the listing of bull trout will be a (de facto)
listing of Dolly Varden, due to their similarities in appearance and
life-history characteristics.
Our Response: It is true that species composition is not yet known
in many streams in Washington containing ``native char.'' However, bull
trout are documented in most streams that biologists have investigated
(12 of 15 subpopulations). We are funding WDFW to collect and analyze
bull trout tissue samples in an effort to determine the genetic
identity of ``native char'' in the 19 subpopulations that biologists
have not evaluated. Information from these studies may eventually be
used to exclude stream systems with only Dolly Varden from the listing,
if we are satisfied that bull trout are not present in the system.
Based on the available evidence, we believe there is a high likelihood
that bull trout occur in the majority of the remaining 19
subpopulations. For subpopulations that contain both bull trout and
Dolly Varden it is completely appropriate to include those
subpopulations in the listing.
Bull trout and Dolly Varden are virtually indistinguishable based
upon physical appearance (Service 1998a) and share similar life-history
strategies and habitat requirements. Because of these similarities, the
WDFW manage the two species as one (WDFW 1998a), and we can evaluate
the threats to subpopulations currently known only as ``native char.''
Although the listing currently does not include Dolly Varden under the
similarity of appearance rule, the coexistence of Dolly Varden and bull
trout within a certain subpopulation would not be justification to
preclude listing of bull trout in that particular subpopulation.
Finally, there is no evidence demonstrating strong Dolly Varden
subpopulations coexisting with depressed bull trout subpopulations.
Issue 7: One respondent said we failed to identify and properly
address other threats to bull trout, primarily the reduction in the
bull trout forage base as a result of the commercial and recreational
harvest of returning salmon and steelhead.
Our Response: Ratliff and Howell (1992) suggest that due to its
highly piscivorous nature, bull trout may have been adversely affected
by declines in prey species. They present the example of declining bull
trout populations occurring above Hells Canyon Dam, where there is no
longer anadromous salmon and steelhead production. We acknowledge that
the depressed status or declining abundance of anadromous fish stocks
in some river basins may have negatively affected bull trout through a
decreased prey base. However, we are unable to determine from the
available information whether this is a threat or just a suppressing
factor to bull trout since they are opportunistic feeders and forage on
a wide variety of prey. In addition, we are unable to determine whether
current escapement goals set for anadromous salmon and steelhead are at
levels that may limit bull trout. A threat would clearly exist where
anadromous fish stocks are no longer accessible to a bull trout
subpopulation, and it is determined that an alternative forage base
does not exist.
Issue 8: One respondent questioned the rationale of our exclusion
of bull trout in Canada in delineating distinct population segments.
The respondent stated that bull trout in Canada were excluded because
fish there are outside the jurisdiction of the Act or that listing
would not have much effect on the Canadian government, as opposed to
the explanation in the proposed rule that data for bull trout in Canada
are limited and suggested we should clarify the issue.
Our Response: We acknowledge that additional information concerning
the status and threats to bull trout in Canada has been compiled in
recent years. Some of the available data indicate a decline of bull
trout in several areas in Canada. Although we recognize that more data
on bull trout in Canada currently exist than we originally considered,
this new information did not lead us to conclude that listing the bull
trout in Canada is necessary at this time. We believe that addressing
bull trout only in the coterminous United States relative to the Act is
appropriate. We acknowledge that for threatened or endangered species
that cross international boundaries, recovery is more complex. For
areas where bull trout subpopulations cross international boundaries,
we intend to work with all appropriate jurisdictional entities, Tribal,
provincial and Federal Canadian agencies and all entities in the United
States, in developing and implementing a recovery plan for bull trout.
Issue 9: One respondent noted that critical habitat is presently
not determinable. They noted that consistent patterns in juvenile fish
distribution, primarily with respect to stream elevation and water
temperature, is useful in predicting patches of spawning and rearing
habitats, which are probably sensitive to land use and important for
the overall productivity of local populations. Another respondent asked
us to consider including as critical habitat, streams that contribute
to the water quality of Puget Sound, but are not part of the current
known distribution of bull trout. Several respondents encouraged us to
consider several issues, such as designating all historic and existing
bull trout habitat as critical, protecting roadless and riparian areas,
establishing standards for water temperature, sediment delivery, and

[[Page 58921]]

other habitat parameters and other management activities.
Our Response: The definition of critical habitat as stated in
section 3 of the Act holds that critical habitat may include specific
areas outside of the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it is listed, upon determination that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. At this time, we find that critical
habitat is not determinable for the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments. We appreciate the comments and believe
that patterns in fish distribution will likely be useful in determining
future critical habitat designations. This and other habitat
considerations will be important issues to be considered during
development of the recovery plan.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we determine the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly
River population segments of bull trout to be threatened species. We
followed procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations
(50 CFR part 424) implementing the listing provisions of the Act. 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 Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-
Belly River population segments of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range

Land and water management activities that degrade bull trout
habitat and continue to threaten all of the bull trout population
segments in the coterminous United States include dams, forest
management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture and agricultural
diversions, roads, and mining (Beschta et al. 1987; Chamberlin et al.
1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Sedell and
Everest 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; Henjum et al.
1994; McIntosh et al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1995,
1996, 1997; Light et al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-h).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Barriers, timber harvesting, agricultural practices, and urban
development are thought to be major factors affecting ``native char''
in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (Service 1998a). Bull trout are often
migratory (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre
1993; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1995; McPhail and
Baxter 1996), and migratory ``native char'' exhibit anadromous,
adfluvial, and fluvial strategies in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS.
Factors affecting ``native char'' may preclude or inhibit migratory
behavior or contribute to degradation of aquatic habitats used by
``native char'' (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence et al. 1996; WDFW
1997a).
Past forest management activities have contributed to degraded
watershed conditions, including increased sedimentation of bull trout
habitat (Salo and Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Bisson et al. 1992; USDA et
al. 1993; Henjum et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). Past activities
continue to negatively affect ``native char'' in the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment. Timber harvest and road building in riparian
areas reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, large woody
debris recruitment, and increase sedimentation and peak stream flows
(Chamberlin et al. 1991). These can alternatively lead to increased
stream temperatures and bank erosion, and decreased long-term stream
productivity. Over 35 percent of natural forested areas in Puget Sound
have been eliminated (WDFW 1997b).
Strict cold water temperature requirements make bull trout
particularly vulnerable to activities that warm spawning and rearing
waters (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Increased
temperature reduces habitat suitability, which can exacerbate
fragmentation within and between subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). Of the 34 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment, 11 are likely affected by elevated stream
temperatures resulting from past forest practices (lower Nooksack
River, Stillaguamish River, Snohomish River-Skykomish River, Green
River, lower Puyallup, Nisqually River, South Fork-lower North Fork
Skokomish, River, Goodman Creek, Copalis River, Moclips River, and
Chehalis River-Grays Harbor) (Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Williams et
al. 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993; WDFW 1997a; WDOE 1997). Bull trout are
documented in three of these ``native char'' subpopulations (Green
River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Snohomish
River-Skykomish River).
The effects of road construction and associated maintenance account
for a majority of sediment loads to streams in forested areas (Shepard
et al. 1984; Cederholm and Reid 1987; Furniss et al. 1991).
Sedimentation affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering
substrate composition, reducing interstitial space, and causing
braiding of channels (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), which reduce carrying
capacity. Sedimentation negatively affects bull trout embryo survival
and juvenile bull trout rearing densities (Shepard et al. 1984; Pratt
1992). In National Forests in Washington, large deep pools have been
reduced 58 percent due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming
structures such as boulders and large wood (USDA et al. 1993). The
effects of sedimentation from roads and logging are prevalent in 10
basins containing ``native char'' subpopulations (Nooksack, Skykomish,
Stillaguamish, Puyallup, upper Cedar, Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh,
Queets, and Coastal Plain-Quinault basins) (HCCC 1995; Olympic National
Forest 1995a,b; Sandra Noble and Shelley Spalding, Service, in litt.
1995; WDFW 1997a, WDOE 1997). Bull trout are documented in six of these
basins (upper Cedar, Skokomish, Dungeness, Queets, Quinault, and
Skykomish basins). We consider five subpopulations within these basins
to be ``depressed''. These are the Chester Morse Reservoir, lower
Puyallup River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, lower
Dungeness-Gray Wolf, and Hoh River subpopulations. The remaining six
affected subpopulations found in Canyon Creek, upper Middle Fork
Nooksack River, Snohomish River-Skykomish River, Stillaguamish River,
Queets River, and lower Quinault River are considered ``unknown.''
A recent assessment of the interior Columbia Basin ecosystem
revealed that increasing road densities were associated with declines
in four non-anadromous salmonid species (bull trout, Yellowstone
cutthroat trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout) within
the Columbia River Basin, likely through a variety of factors
associated with roads (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Bull trout were
less likely to use highly roaded basins for spawning and rearing, and
if present, were likely to be at lower population levels (Quigley and
Arbelbide 1997). Quigley et al. (1996) demonstrated that when average
road densities were between 0.4 to 1.1 km/km\2\ (0.7 and 1.7 mi/mi\2\)
on USFS lands, the proportion of subwatersheds supporting ``strong''
populations of key salmonids dropped substantially. Higher road
densities were associated with further declines.

[[Page 58922]]

When USFS lands were compared to lands administered by all other
entities at a given road density, the proportion of lands supporting
``strong'' bull trout populations was lower on lands administered by
other entities. Although this assessment was conducted east of the
Cascade Mountain Range, some effects from high road densities may be
more severe in western Washington. Higher precipitation west of the
Cascade Mountains increases the frequency of surface erosion and mass
wasting (USDI et al. 1996b). Limited data concerning road densities are
available for the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. It is known, however, that
two bull trout subpopulations (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River
and Chester Morse Reservoir) occur in basins with road densities
greater than 1.1 km/km\2\ (1.7 mi/mi\2\), and the effects of
sedimentation from high road density on aquatic habitat is likely a
contributing factor to the ``depressed'' status of these two ``native
char'' subpopulations. Because basins in portions of the Queets River
drainage contain high road densities, ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 km/km\2\
(2.4 to 4.8 mi/mi\2\) (ONF 1995a; Cederholm and Reid 1987), we believe
that the Queets River ``native char'' subpopulation is affected by high
road density.
At least 22 ``native char'' subpopulations within the Coastal-Puget
Sound DPS are affected by past or present forest management activities.
Remaining subpopulations not affected by such activities occur
primarily within National Parks or Wilderness Areas. For example, five
``native char'' subpopulations lie completely within National Parks and
Wilderness Areas withdrawn from timber harvest. These include the upper
Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir,
and Ross Reservoir subpopulations. Although the status of these
``native char'' subpopulations is considered ``unknown'' at this time,
all except the upper Quinault River subpopulation are threatened by
non-native brook trout (see Factor E).
Agricultural practices and associated activities also affect
``native char'' and their aquatic habitats. Irrigation withdrawals
including diversions can dewater spawning and rearing streams, impede
fish passage and migration, and cause entrainment. Discharging
pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals, animal waste and
sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also detrimental (Spence
et al. 1996). Agricultural practices regularly include stream
channelization and diking, large woody debris and riparian vegetation
removal, and bank armoring (Spence et al. 1996). Improper livestock
grazing can promote streambank erosion and sedimentation, and limit the
growth of riparian vegetation important for temperature control,
streambank stability, fish cover, and detrital input. In addition,
grazing often results in increased organic nutrient input in streams
(Platts 1991). Eight ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS (lower Puyallup, Stillaguamish River, lower Skagit
River, lower Nooksack River, Green River, South Fork-lower North Fork
Skokomish River, Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, and Chehalis River-
Grays Harbor) are subject to the effects of past or ongoing
agricultural or livestock grazing practices (Williams et al. 1975; Hiss
and Knudsen 1993; WDF et al. 1993; HCCC 1995; ONF 1995b; WDFW 1997a).
Species composition has been examined in five of these subpopulations,
and bull trout are documented in four (Green River, lower Puyallup,
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Dungeness River-Gray
Wolf River).
Dams constructed with poorly designed fish passage or without fish
passage create barriers to migratory ``native char,'' precluding access
to suitable spawning, rearing, and migration habitats. Dams disrupt the
connectivity within and between watersheds essential for maintaining
aquatic ecosystem function (Naiman et al.1992; Spence et al. 1996) and
bull trout subpopulation interaction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Natural recolonization of historically occupied sites can be precluded
by migration barriers (e.g., McCloud Dam in California (Rode 1990)).
Within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, there are at least 41 existing or
proposed hydroelectric projects regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) within watersheds supporting ``native
char'' (Gene Stagner, Service, in litt. 1997). Of the 41 existing or
proposed projects, 17 are currently operating and most are run-of-the-
river small hydroelectric projects. Negotiated instream flows for these
projects are based primarily on resident cutthroat trout or rainbow
trout flow requirements, and may not meet seasonal migratory flow
requirements of bull trout (Tim Bodurtha, Service, in litt. 1995). Fish
passage has not been addressed for 28 of the existing or proposed
projects (G. Stagner, in litt. 1997). We are aware of at least seven
water diversions or other dams currently operating in watersheds with
``native char,'' and none currently providing for upstream fish
passage. These diversions and dams are located on the Middle Fork
Nooksack, Skagit, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually rivers. These seven
facilities currently affect the lower Nooksack River, upper Middle Fork
Nooksack River, lower Skagit River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir,
Ross Reservoir, lower Puyallup, upper Puyallup River subpopulations.
Projects in the Green and Nisqually rivers block fish passage in the
upper stream reaches of these basins, although ``native char'' use of
the river areas above the facilities remains unconfirmed. Various fish
surveys conducted in the upper Green River watershed above the
facility, did not detect ``native char'' (Ed Connor and Phil Hilgert,
R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., in litt. 1998). Surveys of the upper
Nisqually River watershed are underway (WDFW 1998a). Dams on the
Skokomish and Elwha rivers are also barriers to upstream fish migration
and have fragmented populations of ``native char'' within the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS. FERC published an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for three proposed hydroelectric projects on Skagit River tributaries.
The final EIS recommends two proposed hydroelectric projects on the
lower Nooksack River, affecting two subpopulations, the lower Skagit
River and the lower Nooksack River. We consider the status of these
subpopulations ``strong'' and ``unknown,'' respectively.
Urbanization has led to decreased habitat complexity (uniform
stream channels and simple nonfunctional riparian areas), impediments
and blockages to fish passage, increased surface runoff (more frequent
and severe flooding), and decreased water quality and quantity (Spence
et al. 1996). In the Puget Sound area, human population growth is
predicted to increase by 20 percent between 1987 and 2000, requiring a
62 percent increase in land area developed (Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority (PSWQA) 1988 in Spence et al.1996). The effects of
urbanization, concentrated at the lower most reaches of rivers within
Puget Sound, primarily affect ``native char'' migratory corridors and
rearing habitats. Five ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-
Puget Sound DPS (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, lower Puyallup
River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, and Stillaguamish
River) are negatively affected by urbanization (Williams et al. 1975;
WDFW 1997a).
Mining can degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy
metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream
channels

[[Page 58923]]

and flow (Martin and Platts 1981). Although not currently active,
mining in the Nooksack River Basin, where ``native char'' occur, has
adversely affected streams. For example, the Excelsior Mine on the
upper North Fork Nooksack River was active at the turn of the century
and mining spoils were placed directly into Wells Creek (Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest (MBSNF) 1995), a known spawning stream for
``native char.'' Spoils in and adjacent to the stream may continue to
be sources of sediment and heavy metals.
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Forest management practices, livestock grazing, and mining are not
thought to be major factors affecting bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly
River DPS. However, bull trout subpopulations are fragmented and
isolated by dams and diversions (Fredenberg 1996; Clayton 1998; Mogen
1998). Specifically, the USBR diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary
Lake is an unscreened trans-Basin diversion (i.e., transferring water
to the Missouri River drainage via the Milk River) that threatens the
species in the St. Mary River Basin (upper St. Mary River, lower St.
Mary River, and Swiftcurrent Creek subpopulations). This diversion
restricts upstream bull trout passage into the upper St. Mary River.
Consequently, migratory (fluvial) bull trout are prevented from
reaching suitable spawning habitat in Divide and Red Eagle creeks
(Fredenberg 1996; R. Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly, the
irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne) physically blocks
bull trout passage into the upper watershed (Fredenberg 1996; R.
Wagner, pers. comm. 1998), affecting the three St. Mary River
subpopulations. In the Belly River drainage, two adult bull trout
implanted with radio transmitters that spawned in the North Fork Belly
River near the international border in 1997 were subsequently passed
down the Mountain View Irrigation District Canal and captured (Terry
Clayton, Alberta Conservation Association (ACA), in litt. 1998).
In addition to the dams physically isolating subpopulations, the
associated diversions seasonally dewater the streams, effectively
decreasing available habitat for migratory and resident bull trout
(Fredenberg 1996). The diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary Lake
may result in a reduction (up to 50 percent) of instream flow of the
St. Mary River, possibly affecting juvenile and adult bull trout (R.
Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). The diversion is unscreened and recent
information suggests downstream loss through entrainment of bull trout
(R. Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly, the irrigation dam on
Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne) seasonally dewaters the creek
downstream, effectively eliminating habitat (Fredenberg 1996; R.
Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Declines in bull trout abundance have prompted States to institute
restrictive fishing regulations and eliminate the harvest of bull trout
in most waters in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, and Washington. These
more restrictive regulations resulted in an increase in recent
observations of adult bull trout in some areas of their range. However,
illegal harvest and incidental hook and release of ``native char'' in
fisheries targeting other species still threaten bull trout in some
areas.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Fishing for ``native char'' is currently closed in most of the
waters within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment. The State of
Washington implemented most of these closures in 1994. Harvest of
``native char'' is still allowed in the area of the lower Skagit River
subpopulation in the mainstem Skagit River and several of its
tributaries (Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck and Sauk rivers) (508 mm (20
in.) minimum size limit and two fish daily bag limit); the Snohomish
River-Skykomish River subpopulation in the Snohomish River mainstem and
the Skykomish River below the forks (508 mm (20 in.) minimum size limit
and two fish daily bag limit) (WDFW 1997a); and portions of the
Quinault and Queets rivers that are within the Quinault Indian
Reservation (QIN) boundary (4 fish daily bag limit with no minimum size
restriction) (Scott Chitwood, Quinault Indian Nation, pers. comm. 1997;
WDFW 1997a). Olympic National Park has recently closed fishing for
``native char'' in all park waters (D. Morris, in litt. 1998). Fishing
for bull trout in Mount Rainier National Park is prohibited. There is
likely some mortality from incidental hook and release of ``native
char'' in fisheries targeting other species, especially in streams
where restrictive angling regulations (i.e., artificial flies or lures
with barbless single hook, bait prohibited) are not established.
The objective of the 508 mm (20 in.) minimum size limit in the
Skagit River and Snohomish-Skykomish River systems is to allow most
females to spawn at least once before harvest (WDFW 1997a), and
evidence suggests that more females are allowed to spawn in these two
systems where the regulation is in place (WDFW 1998b). However, the
minimum size limit allows the selective harvest of larger, mature fish
that are more fecund (Jim Johnston, WDFW, pers. comm. 1995).
Regulations on the Quinault Indian Reservation in the lower
Quinault River and Queets River systems offer less bull trout
conservation opportunity because there is no minimum size limit to
allow most females to reach maturity before being subject to harvest.
Consistent with the June 1997 Secretarial Order on Tribal-Federal Trust
responsibilities and the Act, we will continue to assess the effects of
these regulations and work with the Tribes to assure that the
conservation needs of bull trout are met. The State of Washington has
closed areas of the lower Quinault River and Queets River watersheds
outside of the Quinault Indian Reservation to harvest of ``native
char'' (WDFW 1997a).
In 1993, WDFW increased the catch limit for brook trout in order to
reduce interactions with bull trout (WDFW 1995). The increased brook
trout catch has the potential to increase the incidental harvest of
bull trout due to misidentification by anglers. For example, only 40
percent of Montana anglers surveyed correctly identified bull trout out
of six species of salmonids found locally (Mack Long and Sean Whalen,
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, in litt. 1997).
Poaching is still a factor that threatens ``native char'' in nine
drainages within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment. These are
the South Fork Nooksack River, North Fork Nooksack River (above and
below the falls), Sauk River and tributaries, North Fork Skykomish
River, Chester Morse Reservoir, lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River,
Hoh River, Goodman Creek, and Morse Creek (WDW, in litt. 1992; Mongillo
1993; WDFW 1997a; Service 1998a).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Historically, the harvest of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River
DPS was considered ``extensive'' (Fredenberg 1996). Currently, legal
angler harvest in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS occurs only on the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation, which has a five fish per day limit with
only one fish over 508 mm (20 in.) (Fredenberg 1996).
In 1994, the Blackfeet Tribe reported harvest of at least 19 adult
and subadult bull trout in gill nets set for a commercial fishery for
lake whitefish

[[Page 58924]]

(Coregonus clupeaformis) in lower St. Mary Lake (Blackfeet Tribe, in
litt. 1998). Given the apparent low abundance of adult bull trout in
the upper St. Mary Lake subpopulation and restricted migration
opportunities over the USBR diversion on lower St. Mary Lake, any
harvest of bull trout from this subpopulation represents a threat.
Record-keeping by the two commercial fishers is a requirement of the
Blackfeet Tribal Fish and Game Commission, but is not strictly
enforced. As discussed in Issue 2 in the ``Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section'', a cooperative agreement exists among us, the
Blackfeet Tribe, and the Bureau of Reclamation which establishes a
partnership focused on the conservation and restoration of native
salmonids and habitat in the St. Mary River drainage. We have recently
met with the Blackfeet Tribe to address our concerns about bull trout.
We will continue to assess the effects of their harvest regulations
and, in accordance with the June 1997 Secretarial Order on Tribal-
Federal Trust responsibilities and the Act, we will continue work with
the Tribe to assure that the conservation needs of bull trout are met.
Specifically, the ongoing research carried out under the cooperative
agreement is evaluating movement patterns, population status, and
genetic structure of the bull trout in the St. Mary River drainage. We
will utilize the results as a basis to develop future management
recommendations.

C. Disease or Predation

Diseases affecting salmonids are present or likely present in both
population segments, but are not thought to be a factor threatening
bull trout. Instead, interspecific interactions, including predation,
likely negatively affect bull trout where non-native salmonids are
introduced (Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et al.
1993; MBTSG 1996a; J. Palmisano and V. Kaczynski, Northwest Forestry
Resources Council, in litt. 1997).
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
Disease is not believed to be a factor in the decline of bull trout
in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. Outbreaks of the parasite
Dermocystidium salmonis in the lower Elwha River may negatively affect
``native char'' in years of high chinook salmon returns (Kevin Amos,
WDFW, pers. comm. 1997). The susceptibility of bull trout to the
parasite is unknown. There is concern about whirling disease (Myxobolus
cerebralis), which occurs in wild trout waters of western states, and
though this may be a potential threat to bull trout, we do not have
specific information on it at this time.
Predation is not considered a primary factor in the decline of
Coastal-Puget Sound ``native char.'' The only exception may be
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Cushman Reservoir on the
Skokomish River that may potentially affect the bull trout
subpopulation (Sam Brenkman, Oregon State University, pers. comm. 1997;
WDFW 1997a).
St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment
Disease and predation are not known to be factors affecting the
survival of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River Basin. Whirling
disease has been documented in numerous Missouri River watersheds in
central Montana, though not in the Saskatchewan River drainage where
the St. Mary-Belly River bull trout subpopulations occur.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Although varying efforts are underway to assist in conserving bull
trout throughout the coterminous United States (e.g., Batt 1996; Light
et al. 1996; Robert Joslin, USFS, in litt. 1997; Allan Thomas, BLM, in
litt. 1997; Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team 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 been sufficient to prevent past and
ongoing habitat degradation leading to bull trout declines and
isolation. Statutory 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, Federal Power Act, State Endangered Species
Acts and numerous State laws and regulations oversee an array of land
and water management activities that affect bull trout and their
habitat.
Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment
In April 1994, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior adopted
the Northwest Forest Plan for management of late-successional forests
within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
caurina) (USDA and USDI 1994a). This plan set forth objectives,
standards, and guidelines to provide for a functional late-successional
and old-growth forest ecosystem. Included in the plan is an aquatic
conservation strategy involving riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and habitat restoration. Approximately 35 percent
of the total acreage within the Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout
population segment are Federal lands subject to Northwest Forest Plan
standards and guidelines (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in litt.
1996). In 1994, an assessment panel determined that the proposed
standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan would result in
an 85 percent future likelihood of attaining sufficient aquatic habitat
to support well-distributed populations of bull trout on Federal lands
(USDA and USDI 1994b). Prior to 1997, most projects developed under the
Northwest Forest Plan in this DPS were determined to have ``no impact''
on bull trout and its habitat. However, these determinations were made
prior to the development of specific criteria (Service 1998c) to
evaluate the effects of Forest Service activities on bull trout and
their habitat. Because existing aquatic habitat conditions are severely
degraded in many subbasins, the effects from past land management
activities can be expected to continue into the foreseeable future in
the form of increased stream temperatures, altered stream flows,
sedimentation, and lack of instream cover. These effects are often
exacerbated by landslides, road failures, and debris torrents. Many of
these aquatic systems will require decades to fully recover (USDA et
al. 1993). Until then, future habitat losses can be expected due to
past activities, potentially resulting in local extirpations, migratory
barriers, and reduced reproductive success (Spence et al. 1996).
Washington State Forest Practice Rules (WFPR) apply to all State,
city, county, and private lands not currently covered under a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or other conservation agreement in Washington.
Approximately 45 percent of the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment
is held under private ownership and 1.5 percent under city or county
ownership. Bull trout and their habitats continue to face threats from
ongoing and future timber harvest activities on many of these lands.
The WFPR set forth timber harvest regulations for non-Federal and non-
Tribal forested lands in the State of Washington. These rules set
standards for timber harvest activities in and around riparian areas,
in an effort to protect aquatic resources. These riparian management
zone widths, as specified by the WFPR, do not ensure protection of the
riparian components, because the

[[Page 58925]]

minimum buffer widths are likely insufficient to fully protect riparian
ecosystems (USDI et al. 1996a).
In January 1997, the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) developed a multispecies HCP under section 10 of the
Act, covering all WDNR-owned lands within the range of the northern
spotted owl. The WDNR HCP primarily addresses the conservation needs
for old-growth forest-dependent species, such as the northern spotted
owl and marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus), while
allowing WDNR to meet its trust responsibilities to the State. The HCP
also addresses the conservation needs of other terrestrial and aquatic
species on WDNR lands. Approximately 10 percent of the Coastal-Puget
Sound population segment is in State ownership and is covered by the
HCP. The HCP specifically provides Riparian Conservation Strategies
designed to maintain the integrity and function of freshwater stream
habitat necessary for the health and persistence of aquatic species,
especially salmonids. Road maintenance and network planning strategies
included in the HCP also play important roles in protecting aquatic
habitats, but are often reliant on the Riparian Conservation Strategy
stream buffers for complete protection. If fully and properly
implemented, the HCP should aid in the restoration and protection of
freshwater salmonid habitat on the Olympic Peninsula and the areas on
the west slope of the Cascades. There are still ``legacy'' threats to
bull trout subpopulations on State lands even with the HCP in place.
For example, the HCP states, ``Adverse impacts to salmonid habitat will
continue to occur because past forest practices have left a legacy of
degraded riparian ecosystems, deforested unstable hillslopes, and a
poorly planned and maintained road network'' (WDNR 1997). Areas logged
in the past will take decades to fully recover. In addition, ``Some
components of the riparian conservation strategy require on-site
management decisions, and adverse impacts to salmonid habitat may occur
inadvertently.'' For example, timber harvesting in the riparian buffer
must ``maintain or restore salmonid habitat,'' but, at present, the
amount of timber harvesting in riparian ecosystems compatible with high
quality salmonid habitat is unknown (WDNR 1997).
In 1992, the WDFW (formerly the WDW) developed a draft bull trout-
Dolly Varden management and recovery plan. In 1995, WDFW released a
draft EIS for the management plan. The plan establishes a goal of
restoring and maintaining the health and diversity of ``native char''
stocks and their habitats in the State of Washington (WDFW 1995). In
1998, WDFW distributed a revised draft of the bull trout and Dolly
Varden management plan to us for review (WDFW 1998b). Although
commendable goals and strategies are presented in the new draft plan,
specific guidance on how these goals and strategies would be
accomplished is not provided. Our review of the plan determined that it
does not fully address all elements necessary to conserve and restore
bull trout populations (Nancy Gloman, Service, in litt. 1998). Because
all elements necessary for conservation and restoration of bull trout
are not fully addressed and there are uncertainties concerning
implementation of the plan, the effect of the plan on future bull trout
conservation in Washington is unknown.
Since 1994, WDFW has been developing a Wild Salmonid Policy (WSP)
to address management of all native salmonids in the State. In
September 1997, WDFW released the final EIS for the WSP. The policy
establishes a goal to protect, restore, and enhance the productivity,
production, and diversity of wild salmonids and their ecosystems to
sustain ceremonial, subsistence, commercial, and recreational
fisheries; non-consumptive fish benefits; and related cultural and
ecological values well into the future (WDFW 1997b). The WSP, in its
current form, may not adequately protect bull trout because the primary
focus is restoring wild salmon and steelhead. Although other wild
salmonids, including bull trout, are referred to in the document, the
proposed policy does not address the unique requirements of bull trout.
As a result, proposed habitat and water quality standards (current
State surface water quality standards), originally developed with a
focus on salmon, may fall short in protection for bull trout. The final
EIS is not considered a policy document to direct WDFW. The EIS
describes a set of alternatives presented to the Washington State Fish
and Wildlife Commission (Commission). The Commission has the final
responsibility for taking action on the preferred alternative and
recommending policy direction. When implemented, the policy would
present guidelines for actions that WDFW must follow, but would not be
binding on other State, Tribal, or private entities. The publication of
a WSP will likely occur in the near future, but the format and exact
content of the document is unknown. Given the uncertainties surrounding
implementation of the plan and lack of specificity concerning bull
trout, including funding, possible benefits to bull trout can not be
evaluated.
Section 305(b) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires States
to identify water bodies biennially that are not expected to meet State
surface water quality standards (WDOE 1996). These waters are reported
in the section 303(d) list of water quality limited streams. The
Washington State 303(d) list (WDOE 1997) reflects the poor condition of
lower stream reaches of some systems containing bull trout and Dolly
Varden. At least 30 stream reaches within habitat occupied by 13
subpopulations of ``native char'' are listed on the Washington State
proposed 1998 303(d) list of water quality impaired streams (WDOE
1997). Eight of these subpopulations are ``depressed,'' one is
``strong,'' and four are ``unknown.'' Waters included on the 303(d)
list due to temperature exceedances are found in areas where the
Chehalis River-Grays Harbor, lower Quinault River, Hoh River, lower
Elwha River, Nisqually River, lower Puyallup, Green River, Sammamish
River-Issaquah Creek, Stillaguamish River, and lower Nooksack River
subpopulations occur. We have identified bull trout in two of these
subpopulations (Green River and lower Puyallup). The State temperature
standards are likely inadequate for bull trout because temperatures in
excess of 15 deg. C (59 deg. F) are thought to limit bull trout
distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993) and the State temperature
standard for the highest class of waters is 16 deg. C (61 deg. F).
Subpopulations that occur in waters on the 303(d) list not meeting
instream flow standards include the Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River,
South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, lower Puyallup River,
lower Skagit River, and lower Nooksack River ``native char''
subpopulations. Bull trout are known to occur in four of these
subpopulations (Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River; South Fork-lower North
Fork Skokomish River; lower Puyallup; and lower Skagit River). Although
no minimum instream flow requirements exist for bull trout, variable
stream flows and low winter flows are thought to negatively influence
the embryos and alevins (a young fish which has not yet absorbed its
yolk sac) of bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
The Chehalis River-Grays Harbor and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek
``native char'' subpopulations occur in waters on the 303(d) list for
not meeting the standards for dissolved oxygen. Although no dissolved
oxygen

[[Page 58926]]

standards exist for bull trout, poor water quality and highly degraded
migratory corridors may hinder or interrupt migration (Spence et al.
1996), leading to the further fragmentation of habitat and isolation of
bull trout.
Surface waters are assigned to one of five classes under the Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (WAC
173-201A-130). These classes are AA (extraordinary), A (excellent), B
(good), C (fair) and Lake class. These classes of criteria are
established for the following water quality parameters: temperature,
fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and toxic deleterious
material concentrations. With the exception of dissolved oxygen,
parameters are not to exceed specified maximum levels for each class.
Maximum water temperature criteria range from 16 deg. C (60.8 deg. F)
(Class AA), 18 deg. C (64.4 deg. F) (Class A), 21 deg. C (69.8 deg. F)
(Class B), to 22 deg. C (71.6 deg. F) (Class C). Bull trout streams
within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment have stream segments
that fall in classes AA, A, and B. Given the apparent low temperature
requirements of bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), these
temperature standards are likely inadequate to protect bull trout
spawning, rearing or migration. Segments of the Quinault, Queets,
Elwha, Skokomish, Nisqually, White, Green, and Snohomish rivers do not
meet existing State standards for their respective classes. It is
unknown whether the current standards established for other water
quality parameters (fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, toxic
deleterious material concentrations) within the various classes, are
adequate to protect bull trout. See Factor A for additional discussion
of water

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-28295. Public record. Not legal advice.