Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To List the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River Population Segments of Bull Trout as Threatened Species

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018--AF01

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To List

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

Population Segments of Bull Trout as Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list

the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus

confluentus) from the coastal drainages and Puget Sound in western

Washington; the Jarbidge River population segment of bull trout from

the Jarbidge River basin in southern Idaho and northern Nevada; and the

St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout in the St. Mary

and Belly rivers in northwestern Montana as threatened with a special

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

Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, composed of 35 subpopulations

of ``native char'', is threatened by habitat degradation, dams and

diversions, and interactions with non-native fishes. The Jarbidge River

population segment, composed of a single subpopulation, is threatened

by habitat degradation from past and ongoing land management activities

such as mining, road construction and maintenance, and grazing. The St.

Mary-Belly River population segment, composed of four subpopulations,

is threatened by the effects of water management such as dewatering,

entrainment, and passage barriers at diversion structures, and

interactions with introduced non-native fishes. The special rule allows

for take of bull trout within the three population segments if in

accordance with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and

wildlife conservation laws and regulations, and conservation plans.

This proposal, if made final, would extend protection of the Act to

these three bull trout population segments.

es, and

interactions with introduced non-native fishes. The special rule allows

for take of bull trout within the three population segments if in

accordance with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish and

wildlife conservation laws and regulations, and conservation plans.

This proposal, if made final, would extend protection of the Act to

these three bull trout population segments.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October

8, 1998. Public hearings locations and dates are set forth in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material concerning this proposal should be

sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Basin Field

Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709. Comments and

material received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake

River Basin Field Office, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243;

facsimile 208/378-5262).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearings locations and dates are:

1. Tuesday, July 7, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00

p.m. at the Norman Worthington Conference Center at St. Martin's

College, 5300 Pacific Avenue SE, Lacey, Washington.

2. Thursday, July 9, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00

p.m. at the Best Western Cotton Tree Inn, Mt. Adams Room, 2401

Riverside Dr, Mount Vernon, Washington.

3. Tuesday, July 14, 1998, from 2:00-until 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-

8:00 p.m. at Glacier Park Lodge, East Glacier, Montana.

4. Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00

p.m. at Cactus Petes, 1385 US Highway 93, Jackpot, Nevada.

Background

00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00

p.m. at the Best Western Cotton Tree Inn, Mt. Adams Room, 2401

Riverside Dr, Mount Vernon, Washington.

3. Tuesday, July 14, 1998, from 2:00-until 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-

8:00 p.m. at Glacier Park Lodge, East Glacier, Montana.

4. Tuesday, July 21, 1998, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and from 6:00-8:00

p.m. at Cactus Petes, 1385 US Highway 93, Jackpot, Nevada.

Background

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), members of the family

Salmonidae, are char native to the Pacific northwest and western

Canada. Bull trout historically occurred in major river drainages in

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

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

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

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

bull trout range includes Puget Sound, various coastal rivers of

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

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

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

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

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

Saskatchewan River in Alberta and the MacKenzie River system in Alberta

and British Columbia (Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter 1996; Brewin

and Brewin 1997).

Bull trout were first described as Salmo spectabilis by Girard in

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

subsequently described under a number of names such as Salmo

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

Varden (Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species

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

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

structure), and distributional evidence to document specific

distinctions between Dolly Varden and bull trout

as Salmo

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

Varden (Salvelinus malma) were previously considered a single species

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

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

structure), and distributional evidence to document specific

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

Varden were formally recognized as separate species distributional

evidence to document specific distinctions between Dolly Varden and

bull trout. Bull trout and Dolly Varden were formally recognized as

separate species by the American Fisheries Society in 1980 (Robins et

al. 1980). Although bull trout and Dolly Varden co-occur in several

northwestern Washington River drainages, there is little evidence of

introgression (Haas and McPhail 1991) and the two species appear to be

maintaining distinct genomes (Leary et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995;

Kanda et al. 1997; Spruell and Allendorf 1997).

Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life-history strategies

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

bull trout complete their life cycles in the tributary (or nearby)

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

tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from one to four years

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

certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity is

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

1989). Anadromy is the least studied life-history type in bull trout,

and some biologists believe the existence of anadromous bull trout may

be uncertain (McPhail and Baxter 1996).

years

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

certain coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), where maturity is

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

1989). Anadromy is the least studied life-history type in bull trout,

and some biologists believe the existence of anadromous bull trout may

be uncertain (McPhail and Baxter 1996).

However, historical accounts, collection records, and recent

circumstantial evidence suggests an anadromous life-history form for

bull trout (Suckley and Cooper 1860; Cavender 1978; McPhail and Baxter

1996). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and bull

trout may give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or

migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to

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

appear to influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water

temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning

and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors (Oliver 1979; Pratt

1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn

1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Rieman and

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). Watson and

Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical

characteristics to provide 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 likely not

simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. 1997).

Bull trout are most often found in colder streams, although

individual fish can occur throughout larger river systems. (Fraley and

Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory

1997; Rieman et al

exhibit a patchy distribution, even in undisturbed

habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), fish would likely not

simultaneously occupy all available habitats (Rieman et al. 1997).

Bull trout are most often found in colder streams, although

individual fish can occur throughout larger river systems. (Fraley and

Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and Gregory

1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Water temperature above 15 deg. C (59 deg.

F) is believed to limit 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

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 consists of low gradient streams with

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

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

1989). Pratt (1992) 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).

Juvenile bull trout in four streams in central Washington occupied

slow-moving water less than 0.5 meters/second (m/sec) (1.6 feet/second

(ft/sec)) over a variety of sand to boulder size substrates (Sexauer

and James 1997).

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

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

Repeat and alternate year spawning has been reported, although repeat

spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known

(Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman

and McIntyre 1996)

d to be smaller at maturity and

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

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

Repeat and alternate year spawning has been reported, although repeat

spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known

(Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman

and McIntyre 1996).

Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods

of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout

frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and move

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

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

bull trout began 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 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, 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).

Growth varies depending upon life-history strategy. Resident adults

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

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

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

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

Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a

function of size and life-history strategy

meters (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 are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a

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

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

zooplankton, 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 (Salmo spp.) and salmon

(Onchorynchus spp.), whitefish (Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Perca

flavescens), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald

and Alger 1993).

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

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

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

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

williamsoni), pygmy whitefish (P. coulteri), and various sculpin

(Cottus spp.), sucker (Catastomidae) and minnow (Cyprinidae) species

(Mauser et al. 1988; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; R2 Resource Consultants,

Inc. 1993). Bull trout habitat overlaps with the range of several

fishes listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, and petitioned for

listing under the Act, including the endangered Snake River sockeye

salmon (November 20, 1991; 56 FR 58619); threatened Snake River spring

and fall chinook salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR 14653); endangered

Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (September 6,

1994; 59 FR 45989); threatened and endangered steelhead (August 18,

1997; 62 FR 43937); Puget Sound chinook salmon

(DOD); Native American

tribal lands; state land in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and

Nevada; and private lands. As much as half of occupied bull trout

habitat occurs on non-federal lands.

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; M.

Gilpin, University of California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. 1997).

Migrations facilitate gene flow among local subpopulations because

individuals from different subpopulations interbreed when some return

to non-natal streams. Migratory fish can also reestablish extirpated

local subpopulations.

Metapopulation concepts of conservation biology theory are

applicable to the distribution and characteristics of bull trout

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

of local subpopulations with varying frequencies of migration and gene

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

become extinct, but can be reestablisheded by individuals from other

subpopulations. Metapopulations provide a mechanism for reducing risk

because the simultaneous loss of all subpopulations is unlikely.

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

The best available scientific and commercial information supports

designating five distinct population segments (DPSs) of bull trout in

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

er diversions, has fragmented habitats, eliminated

migratory corridors, and isolated bull trout, often in the headwaters

of tributaries (Rieman et al. 1997).

Distinct Population Segments

The best available scientific and commercial information supports

designating 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. A final listing determination for the Klamath River and Columbia

River bull trout DPSs, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register,

includes a detailed description of the rationale behind the DPS

delineation. The approach is consistent with 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). This proposed rule addresses only the Coastal-Puget Sound,

Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout DPSs.

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. 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 (i.e., marine)

ecological setting. In addition, the loss of this population segment

would significantly reduce the overall range of the taxon.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

de 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 (i.e., marine)

ecological setting. In addition, the loss of this population segment

would significantly reduce the overall range of the taxon.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

The Jarbidge River, in southwest Idaho and northern Nevada, is a

tributary in the Snake River basin and contains the southernmost

habitat occupied by bull trout. This population segment is discrete

because it is segregated from other bull trout in the Snake River basin

by a large gap (greater than 240 km (150 mi)) in suitable habitat and

several impassable dams on the mainstem Snake River. The occurrence of

a species at the extremities of its range is not necessarily sufficient

evidence of significance to the species as a whole. However, because

the Jarbidge River possesses bull trout habitat that is disjunct from

other patches of suitable habitat, the population segment is considered

significant because it occupies a unique or unusual ecological setting

and its loss would result in a substantial modification of the species'

range.

St. Mary-Belly Rivers

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 in 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. Bull trout in this

population segment are believed to migrate into Canada where a

substantial amount of habitat still remains.

Status and Distribution

ental 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. Bull trout in this

population segment are believed to migrate into Canada where a

substantial amount of habitat still remains.

Status and Distribution

To facilitate evaluation of current bull trout distribution and

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

Belly River population segments, the Service analyzed data on a

subpopulation basis within each 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

naturally occurring events if they were: (1) Unlikely to be

reestablished by individuals from another subpopulation (i.e.,

functionally or geographically isolated from other subpopulations); (2)

limited to a single spawning area (i.e., spatially restricted); (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 naturally occurring 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,

; 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 naturally occurring 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 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 fish upstream.

Because resident bull trout may exhibit limited downstream movement

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

naturally occurring 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.

The Service considered a subpopulation ``strong'' if 5,000

individuals or 500 spawners likely occur in the subpopulation,

abundance appears stable or increasing, and life-history forms

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. 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 is emphasized that the assignment of

``unknown'' status implies only a deficiency of data to assign a

subpopulation as ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' not a lack of information

regarding the status or threats. Section 4 of the Act requires the

Service to make a determination solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available

' or ``depressed,'' the status

was considered ``unknown.'' It is emphasized that the assignment of

``unknown'' status implies only a deficiency of data to assign a

subpopulation as ``strong'' or ``depressed,'' not a lack of information

regarding the status or threats. Section 4 of the Act requires the

Service to make a determination solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available. Although complete status and trend

information is not available for all the subpopulations, bull trout are

naturally rare and as discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting

These Species'' there is sufficient information on threats to propose

these population segments for listing.

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 are sympatric with Dolly Varden. Because

the two species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate, the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) currently manages

bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char.'' The Coastal-

Puget Sound population segment contain 35 subpopulations of ``native

char'' (bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species) (Service 1998a). The

species can be differentiated by both genetic and morphological-

meristic analyses, of which one or both analyses have been conducted on

15 of the 35 subpopulations. Bull trout were confirmed in 12 of 15

subpopulations investigated (5 with only bull trout, 3 with only Dolly

Varden, and 7 with both species), and it is likely that bull trout

occur in the majority of the remaining 20 subpopulations (Service

1998a). In order to identify trends that may be specific to certain

geographic areas, the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations were grouped

into five analysis areas-- Coastal, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal,

Puget Sound, and Transboundary.

t, 3 with only Dolly

Varden, and 7 with both species), and it is likely that bull trout

occur in the majority of the remaining 20 subpopulations (Service

1998a). In order to identify trends that may be specific to certain

geographic areas, the 35 ``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 have confirmed

bull trout in two, the upper Quinault River and Queets River (Leary and

Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in

the upper Sol Duc River (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. 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). 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

y 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 are also present in

some park waters and threaten bull trout from competition and

hybridization. The Hoh River may have the largest subpopulation of

``native char'' on the Washington coast, although likely greatly

reduced since 1982 (Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) 1992; WDFW

1997a). Reasons for the decline are unknown, but overfishing is

believed to be a contributing factor (WDFW 1997a; WDFW, in litt. 1997).

The Service considers the Hoh River subpopulation ``depressed.'' The

current 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).

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

confirmed bull trout in 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 (Cavender 1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a)

opulations)--

Elwha River (2), Angeles basin (1), and Dungeness River (2). Recent

efforts to determine species composition in three subpopulations have

confirmed bull trout in 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 (Cavender 1978, 1984; 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. Although ``native char'' are 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 1992; WDFW 1997a). The Service considers subpopulations in the

lower Elwha River and lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River

``depressed.'' The remaining three ``native char'' subpopulations in

the Strait of Juan de Fuca coastal analysis area are considered

``unknown'' because

insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history information is

available (Service 1998a).

Hood Canal Analysis Area

DW 1992; WDFW 1997a). The Service considers subpopulations in the

lower Elwha River and lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River

``depressed.'' The remaining three ``native char'' subpopulations in

the Strait of Juan de Fuca coastal analysis area are considered

``unknown'' 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. Recent surveys have confirmed

bull trout in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River (Leary

and Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a) and Cushman Reservoir (Brown 1992;

Brenkman 1996 in WDFW 1997a). Bull trout in Cushman Reservoir have been

isolated and restricted to an adfluvial life-history form due to

Cushman Dam on the North Fork Skokomish River. Spawner surveys indicate

a decline in adult bull trout through the 1970's, subsequent increases

from 4 adults in 1985 to 412 adults in 1993, and relatively stable

numbers of 250 to 300 adults in recent years (WDFW 1997a). The increase

in adults 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 (L.

Oss, Olympia National Forest (ONF), in litt. 1997). Habitat in the

South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River has been degraded by past

forest and agricultural practices and hydropower development (Williams

et al. 1975; Hood Canal Coordination Council (HCCC) 1995; WDFW 1997a).

The upper North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation occurs within

Olympic National Park and habitat is likely relatively undisturbed

tional Forest (ONF), in litt. 1997). Habitat in the

South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River has been degraded by past

forest and agricultural practices and hydropower development (Williams

et al. 1975; Hood Canal Coordination Council (HCCC) 1995; WDFW 1997a).

The upper North Fork Skokomish River subpopulation occurs within

Olympic National Park and habitat is likely relatively undisturbed. The

Service considers the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River

subpopulation ``depressed.'' The remaining two ``native char''

subpopulations in the Hood Canal analysis area are considered

``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and life-history

information is available (Service 1998a).

Puget Sound Analysis Area

Sixteen ``native char'' subpopulations occur in eight river basins

in the Puget Sound analysis area (number of subpopulations)--Nisqually

River (1), Puyallup River (3), 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 eight

subpopulations have confirmed bull trout bull trout in six--Carbon

River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir, Skykomish River-Snohomish

River, lower Skagit River, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River (R2

Resource consultants, Inc. 1993; Samora and Girdner 1993; Kraemer 1994;

M. Barclay, Cascades Environmental Services, Inc., pers. comm. 1997;

Leary and Allendorf 1997; E. Warner, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT),

pers. comm. 1997). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in the Canyon

Creek (tributary to the Nooksack River) subpopulation (Leary and

Allendorf 1997).

The current abundance of ``native char'' in southern Puget Sound is

likely lower than occurred historically and declining (T. Cropp, WDW,

in litt. 1993; F. Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), pers.

comm. 1994a,b)

Indian Tribe (MIT),

pers. comm. 1997). Only Dolly Varden have been identified in the Canyon

Creek (tributary to the Nooksack River) subpopulation (Leary and

Allendorf 1997).

The current abundance of ``native char'' in southern Puget Sound is

likely lower than occurred historically and declining (T. Cropp, WDW,

in litt. 1993; F. Goetz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), pers.

comm. 1994a,b). Historical accounts from southern Puget Sound indicate

that anadromous 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 (Cropp, in litt. 1993; Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b). There is

only one 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-1980's (G. Walter, Nisqually Indian Tribe (NIT), pers. comm.

1997; WDFW 1997a). In the Puyallup River, ``native char'' are

occasionally caught by steelhead anglers (WDW 1992). In the Green

River, ``native char'' are rarely observed (Cropp, in litt. 1993;

Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b; Warner, pers. comm. 1997). Habitat in

watersheds of the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Green rivers has been

degraded by logging, agriculture, road construction, and urban

development. In the Chester Morse Reservoir subpopulation, fewer than

10 redds were observed in 1995 and 1996; and fry abundance was low in

spring 1996 and 1997 (D. Paige, Seattle Water Department (SWD), in

litt. 1997). Logging and extensive road construction have occurred

within the basin (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW 1997a), and

have likely affected ``native char'' 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

Seattle Water Department (SWD), in

litt. 1997). Logging and extensive road construction have occurred

within the basin (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW 1997a), and

have likely affected ``native char'' 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. 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) 1997a). The Service considers the

Nisqually River, Puyallup River, Green River, Chester Morse Reservoir,

and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek subpopulations ``depressed.''

Drainages in the northern Puget Sound area appear to support larger

subpopulations of ``native char'' than the southern portion (Goetz,

pers. comm. 1994a,b; S. Fransen, Service, pers. comm. 1997). The WDFW

conducts redd counts in two index reaches of the northern Puget Sound,

the upper South Fork Sauk River in the Skagit River basin (lower Skagit

River subpopulation) and the upper North Fork Skykomish River

(Snohomish River-Skykomish River subpopulation), which have healthy

habitats supporting stable numbers of ``native char'' (Kraemer 1994).

Redd surveys have been conducted since 1988 in both index reaches. In

the upper Sauk River, a substantial increase in redds was observed in

1991, a year after a minimum 508-mm (20-in) harvest restriction was

implemented; and redd numbers have remained relatively stable (WDFW

1997a). Harvest restrictions were implemented 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 in the basin (WDFW et al. 1997) and the number of

adults is estimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish (C. Kraemer, WDFW, pers.

comm. 1998)

have remained relatively stable (WDFW

1997a). Harvest restrictions were implemented 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 in the basin (WDFW et al. 1997) and the number of

adults is estimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish (C. 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 1993, with 75 or fewer redds observed since 1993. Within the

Puget Sound analysis area, the Service considers the lower Skagit River

subpopulation ``strong'' and five subpopulations ``depressed.'' The

remaining 10 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Puget Sound analysis

area are considered ``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. The species

composition of the subpopulation has not been determined. 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).

Jarbidge River Population Segment

atively 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).

Jarbidge River Population Segment

The Jarbidge River DPS consists of one bull trout subpopulation

occurring primarily in Nevada (Service 1998b). Resident fish inhabit

the headwaters of the East Fork and West Fork of the Jarbidge River and

several tributary streams, and low numbers of migratory (fluvial) fish

are present (Zoellick et al. 1996; L. McLelland, Nevada Division of

Wildlife (NDOW), in litt. 1998; K. Ramsey, Humboldt National Forest

(HNF), in litt. 1997). Bull trout were not observed during surveys in

the Idaho portion of the Jarbidge River basin in 1992 and 1995 (Warren

and Partridge 1993; Allen et al. 1997), however, a single, small bull

trout was captured when traps were operated on the lower East Fork and

West Fork Jarbidge River during August through October 1997 (F.

Partridge, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), pers. comm. 1998).

A loss of range likely has occurred for migratory bull trout (fluvial)

in the lower Jarbidge and Bruneau rivers and perhaps downstream to the

Snake River (Johnson and Weller 1994; Zoellick et al. 1996). Low

numbers of migratory (fluvial) bull trout have been documented in the

West Fork Jarbidge River from the 1970's through the mid-1980's

(Johnson and Weller 1994).

The distribution of bull trout in Nevada includes at least six

headwater streams above 2,200 m (7,200 ft), primarily in wilderness

areas--East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River and Slide, Dave, Pine,

and Jack creeks (Johnson and Weller 1994). Zoellick et al

uvial) bull trout have been documented in the

West Fork Jarbidge River from the 1970's through the mid-1980's

(Johnson and Weller 1994).

The distribution of bull trout in Nevada includes at least six

headwater streams above 2,200 m (7,200 ft), primarily in wilderness

areas--East Fork and West Fork Jarbidge River and Slide, Dave, Pine,

and Jack creeks (Johnson and Weller 1994). Zoellick et al. (1996)

compiled data from 1954 through 1993 and estimated bull trout

population size in the middle and upper headwater areas of the West

Fork and East Fork of the Jarbidge River. In each stream, sampled areas

were located at elevations above 1,792 m (5,880 ft), and population

estimates were less than 150 fish/km (240 fish/mi) (Zoellick et al.

1996).

In general, bull trout represent a minor proportion of the fish

fauna downstream of the headwater reaches; native redband trout are the

most abundant salmonid and sculpin the most abundant fish (Johnson and

Weller 1994). Although accounts of bull trout distribution in the

Jarbidge River basin date to the 1930's, historic abundance is not well

documented. In 1934, bull trout were collected in the East Fork

Jarbidge River drainage downstream of the Idaho-Nevada border (Miller

and Morton 1952). In 1985, 292 bull trout ranging from 73 to 266 mm

(2.9 to 10.5 in) in total length, were estimated to reside in the West

Fork Jarbidge River (Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1992, the abundance

of bull trout in the East Fork Jarbidge River was estimated to be 314

fish ranging from 115 to 165 mm (4.5 to 6.5 in) in total length

(Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1993, bull trout numbers in Slide and

Dave creeks were estimated at 361 and 251 fish, respectively (Johnson

and Weller 1994). During snorkel surveys conducted in October 1997, no

bull trout were observed in 40 pools of the West Fork Jarbidge River or

in four 30-m (100-ft) transects in Jack Creek (G. Johnson, NDOW, pers.

comm. 1998)

4.5 to 6.5 in) in total length

(Johnson and Weller 1994). In 1993, bull trout numbers in Slide and

Dave creeks were estimated at 361 and 251 fish, respectively (Johnson

and Weller 1994). During snorkel surveys conducted in October 1997, no

bull trout were observed in 40 pools of the West Fork Jarbidge River or

in four 30-m (100-ft) transects in Jack Creek (G. Johnson, NDOW, pers.

comm. 1998). Only one bull trout had been observed at the four

transects in 1992 (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However, it is premature

to consider bull trout extirpated in Jack Creek (Service 1998b). There

is no information on whether bull trout have been extirpated from other

Jarbidge River headwater tributaries.

It is estimated that between 50 and 125 bull trout spawn throughout

the Jarbidge River basin annually (Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). However,

exact spawning sites and timing are uncertain (Johnson, pers. comm.

1998) and only two redds have been observed in the basin (Ramsey, in

litt. 1997; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). Presumed spawning streams have

been identified by records of one or more small bull trout (about 76 mm

(3 in)).

Population trend information for bull trout in the Jarbidge River

subpopulation is not available, although the current characteristics of

bull trout in the basin (i.e., low numbers and disjunct distribution)

have been described as similar to that observed in the 1950's (Johnson

and Weller 1994). Based on recent surveys, the subpopulation is

considered ``depressed.'' Past and present activities within the basin

are likely restricting bull trout migration in the Jarbidge River, thus

reducing opportunities for bull trout reestablishment in areas where

the fish are no longer found (Service 1998b).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

observed in the 1950's (Johnson

and Weller 1994). Based on recent surveys, the subpopulation is

considered ``depressed.'' Past and present activities within the basin

are likely restricting bull trout migration in the Jarbidge River, thus

reducing opportunities for bull trout reestablishment in areas where

the fish are no longer found (Service 1998b).

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 et al. 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

primarily fluvial and not adfluvial (Donald and Alger 1993). Within the

St. Mary River system, historic accounts of bull trout date to the

1930's (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Historic distribution of bull trout in

the Belly River 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 et al. 1996), but bull trout within the St. Mary-

Belly River DPS are isolated and fragmented by irrigation dams and

diversions (Fredenberg et al. 1996; R. 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 (Fredenberg et al. 1996).

Based on natural and artificial barriers to fish passage within the

St. Mary-Belly River DPS, the Service identified four bull trout

subpopulations-- (1) upper St. Mary River (from the U.S

ross 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 (Fredenberg et al. 1996).

Based on natural and artificial barriers to fish passage within the

St. Mary-Belly River DPS, the Service 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 Fork Belly River) (Service 1998c). The

current status of the bull trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly

River DPS is ``unknown'' because insufficient abundance, trend, and

life-history information is available (Service 1998c).

In summary, little information is available on the abundance,

trends in abundance, and distribution of bull trout in the Coastal-

Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSs. The

Coastal-Puget Sound population segment includes the only anadromous

bull trout found in the coterminous United States. The population

segment is composed of 35 ``native char'' subpopulations of which bull

trout have been confirmed in 12 of 15 subpopulations examined. The

remaining 20 subpopulations consist of ``native char'' that may include

bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species. At this time, Dolly Varden

only have been confirmed in three subpopulations. The

trout found in the coterminous United States. The population

segment is composed of 35 ``native char'' subpopulations of which bull

trout have been confirmed in 12 of 15 subpopulations examined. The

remaining 20 subpopulations consist of ``native char'' that may include

bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both species. At this time, Dolly Varden

only have been confirmed in three subpopulations. The

status of the lower Skagit River subpopulation is considered ``strong''

and nine additional subpopulations ``depressed.'' The Jarbidge River

population segment consists of one subpopulation found in the East Fork

and West Fork Jarbidge River and headwater tributaries in Nevada. The

population segment is isolated from other bull trout by a large expanse

of unsuitable habitat. Migratory fish (fluvial) may be present in low

abundance, but resident fish are the predominant life-history form. The

total population size is low, with spawner abundance throughout the

basin estimated to be from 50 to 125 fish. The status of the Jarbidge

River population segment of bull trout is considered ``depressed.'' 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. The status of bull

trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS is ``unknown.''

Previous Federal Action

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. The status of bull

trout subpopulations in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS is ``unknown.''

Previous Federal Action

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

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

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

that time, a category 2 species was one for which conclusive data on

biological vulnerability and threats was not available to support a

proposed rule. The Service published updated notices of review for

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

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

discontinued using category designations upon publication of a February

28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596) and now maintains a list of

candidate species. Candidate species are those for which the Service

has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and

threats to support a proposal to list the species as threatened or

endangered. The Service elevated the bull trout in the coterminous

United States to candidate status on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).

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

bull trout as an endangered species throughout its range from the

following conservation organizations in Montana--Alliance for the Wild

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

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

concurrent critical habitat designation for bull trout populations in

select aquatic ecosystems where the biological information indicates

that the species is in imminent threat of extinction

lowing 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 indicates

that the species is in imminent threat of extinction. A 90-day finding,

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

petitioners had provided substantial information indicating that

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

wide status review of the species concurrent with publication of the

90-day finding.

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

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

unavailable or insufficient data regarding threats to, and status and

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

the Service determined that sufficient information on the biological

vulnerability and threats to the species was available to support a

warranted finding to list bull trout within the coterminous United

States. Because the Service concluded that the threats were imminent

and moderate to bull trout in the coterminous United States, the

Service gave the bull trout within the coterminous United States a

listing priority number of 9. As a result, the Service found that

listing a distinct vertebrate population segment consisting of bull

trout residing in the coterminous United States was warranted but

precluded due to higher priority listing actions.

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

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

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

finding was arbitrary and capricious

e population segment consisting of bull

trout residing in the coterminous United States was warranted but

precluded due to higher priority listing actions.

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

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

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

finding was arbitrary and capricious. After the Service issued a

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

in the coterminous United States on June 12, 1995, the Court issued an

order declaring the plaintiffs' challenge to the original finding moot.

The plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint and appealed to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the plaintiffs'

challenge fell ``within the exception to the mootness doctrine for

claims that are capable of repetition yet evading review.'' On April 2,

1996, the circuit court remanded the case back to the district court.

On November 13, 1996, the Court issued an order and opinion remanding

the original finding to the Service for further consideration. Included

in the instructions from the Court were requirements that the Service

limit its review to the 1994 administrative record, and incorporate any

emergency listings or high magnitude threat determinations into current

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

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

the 1994 administrative record was delivered to the Court on March 13,

1997.

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

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

Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations within 30 days

based solely on the 1994 administrative record. In response to this

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

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

the plaintiffs filed a motion for mandatory

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

Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations within 30 days

based solely on the 1994 administrative record. In response to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

threatened based solely on the 1994 record. Based upon the Court

agreement and stipulation, and information contained solely in the 1994

record, the Service proposed to list 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 plaintiffs then challenged the Service's determination that

listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River,

and Saskatchewan River population segments of bull trout. On December

4, 1997, the Court ordered the Service to reconsider its designation of

five distinct bull trout population segments, as well as its

determination that listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget

Sound population. In compliance with the Court's order, the Service

reviewed the original 1994 administrative record, as well as a

substantial body of new information on the status of bull trout. In

light of that review, the Service has reached two conclusions

on of

five distinct bull trout population segments, as well as its

determination that listing was not warranted for the Coastal-Puget

Sound population. In compliance with the Court's order, the Service

reviewed the original 1994 administrative record, as well as a

substantial body of new information on the status of bull trout. In

light of that review, the Service has reached two conclusions. First,

the Service determined that its designation of five distinct population

segments remains valid, but has modified the boundraries of two to

those segments-- the Coastal-Puget Sound segment and the Saskatchewan

River segment-- to include only those portions within the coterminous

United States. The Service now refers to the portion of the

Saskatchewan River segment that is in the United States as the St.

Mary-Belly River segment. Second, the Service has determined that the

listing is warranted for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge

River, and St. Mary-Belly River distinct population segments.

The Service published Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years

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

order in which the Service will process rulemakings giving highest

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

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

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

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

the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions (to add

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

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

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

or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this

proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting These Species

inistrative findings on petitions (to add

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

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

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

or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this

proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting These Species

Procedures found in section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR

part 424) promulgated to implement the Act set forth the procedures for

adding species to the Federal lists. 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, Jarbidge River, 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 and continue to

threaten all of the bull trout distinct 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; Chamberlain 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; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) 1995, 1996, 1997; Light et al.

1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-h).

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

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). In the Coastal-Puget Sound

population segment, migratory ``native char'' exhibit both anadromous

and fluvial strategies

1995, 1996, 1997; Light et al.

1996; MBTSG 1995a-e, 1996a-h).

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

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). In the Coastal-Puget Sound

population segment, migratory ``native char'' exhibit both anadromous

and fluvial strategies. Flood control structures, hydroelectric

projects, water diversion structures including irrigation withdrawals,

forest practices, agricultural cultivation, grazing, urbanization, and

industrial development have all contributed to degradation of migratory

corridors used by bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence et al.

1996; WDFW 1997a).

In the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS, eight subpopulations (four

currently determined solely as bull trout based on genetic samples) are

currently known to be isolated or fragmented as a result of man-made

barriers. These are the lower Elwha River, upper Elwha River, South

Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Cushman Reservoir, Gorge

Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork

Nooksack River (Service 1998a).

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). These 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

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.

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 35 ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget

Sound population segment, 11 are likely affected by elevated stream

temperatures as a result of past forest practices (lower Nooksack

River, Stillaguamish River, Skykomish-Snohomish River, Green River,

White River, 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 1997a). Bull trout have been

confirmed in 3 of these ``native char'' subpopulations (Green River,

South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and Skykomish-Snohomish

River).

Road construction and maintenance account for a majority of man-

induced 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)

984; 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 basins containing

10 ``native char'' subpopulations (Nooksack, Skykomish, Stillaguamish,

Puyallup, upper Cedar, Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, and Coastal

Plain-Quinault basins) (HCCC 1995; ONF 1995a,b; S. Noble and S.

Spalding, Service, in litt. 1995; WDFW 1997a, WDOE 1997a). Bull trout

have been confirmed in six of these subpopulations (upper Cedar,

Skokomish, Dungeness, Queets, Quinault, and Skykomish basins).

A recent assessment of the Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem

revealed that increasing road densities and associated effects caused

declines in four non-anadromous salmonid species (bull trout,

Yellowstone cutthrout trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband

trout) within the basin (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/km2 (0.7 and 1.7

mi/mi2) on USFS lands, the proportion of subwatersheds

supporting ``strong'' populations of key salmonids dropped

substantially. Higher road densities caused further declines

ing 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/km2 (0.7 and 1.7

mi/mi2) on USFS lands, the proportion of subwatersheds

supporting ``strong'' populations of key salmonids dropped

substantially. Higher road densities caused further declines. 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, 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; however, 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/km2 (1.7 mi/

mi2). The effects of relatively high road density on aquatic

habitat may contribute to the ``depressed'' status of these two

``native char'' subpopulations. Other basins containing ``native char''

subpopulations also have relatively high road densities, ranging from

1.5 to 3.0 km/km2 (2.4 to 4.8 mi/mi2), in

portions of the Queets River basin (ONF 1995a; Cederholm and Reid

1987). ``Native char'' in these areas are likely negatively affected by

the presence of roads.

Approximately 65 percent of the ``native char'' subpopulations

within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS are affected by past or present

forest management activities. Areas not affected by such activities

occur primarily within National Parks or Wilderness Areas. Five

``native char'' subpopulations lie completely within National Parks and

Wilderness Areas withdrawn from timber harvest

nce of roads.

Approximately 65 percent of the ``native char'' subpopulations

within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS are affected by past or present

forest management activities. Areas not affected by such activities

occur primarily within National Parks or Wilderness Areas. Five

``native char'' subpopulations lie completely within National Parks and

Wilderness Areas withdrawn from timber harvest. These are the upper

Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir,

and Ross Reservoir. The status of these ``native char'' subpopulations

is ``unknown'' at this time. However, all but the upper Quinault River

subpopulation are threatened by non-native brook trout (see Factor D).

Of these five ``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has

been examined in two, and only the upper Quinault River subpopulation

is known to contain bull trout. Eleven ``native char'' subpopulations

(lower Quinault River, Queets River, Hoh River, upper Elwha River,

lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, upper Dungeness River, upper

North Fork Skokomish River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish

River, lower Skagit River, and Chilliwack River-Selesia Creek) lie

partially within withdrawn Federal areas. Species composition has been

examined in seven subpopulations, and bull trout were confirmed in six

(Queets River, upper Elwha River, Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River,

Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish River, and lower Skagit River).

Agricultural practices and associated activities can affect bull

trout and their habitat. Irrigation withdrawals including diversions

can dewater spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and

migration, and cause entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms

suspended in water are pulled through a pump or other device).

Discharging pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals,

animal waste and sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also

detrimental (Spence et al. 1996)

thdrawals including diversions

can dewater spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and

migration, and cause entrainment (process by which aquatic organisms

suspended in water are pulled through a pump or other device).

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 can increase input of organic nutrients

into streams (Platts 1991). Ten ``native char'' subpopulations in the

Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (Carbon River, White River, Puyallup River,

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 negatively

affected by past or ongoing agricultural or livestock grazing practices

(Williams et al. 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993; Washington Department of

Fisheries (WDF) et al. 1993; HCCC 1995; ONF 1995b; WDFW 1997a). Species

composition has been examined in five of these subpopulations, and bull

trout were confirmed in four (Green River, Carbon River, 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 bull trout, precluding access to

former 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)

ted with poorly designed fish passage or without fish

passage create barriers to migratory bull trout, precluding access to

former 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) that are within watersheds supporting bull

trout (G. Stagner, Service, in litt. 1997). Of the 41 projects or

proposals, 17 are currently operating and most are run-of-the-river

small hydroelectric projects. Negotiated instream flows for these

projects have been primarily based on resident cutthroat or rainbow

trout flow requirements, and may not meet the needs of species with

different life-history strategies, such as bull trout (T. Bodurtha,

Service, in litt. 1995). Of the 41 existing or proposed projects, fish

passage has not been addressed for 28 (Stagner, in litt. 1997). In

addition, the Service is aware of 10 water diversions or other dams,

not regulated by FERC, currently operating in watersheds with ``native

char''. None of these 10 facilities provide for upstream fish passage.

Dams on the Middle Fork Nooksack, Skagit, Baker (Skagit tributary),

Green, Puyallup, White, Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha rivers are

barriers to upstream fish migration and have fragmented populations of

``native char'' within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. A draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been published for three

proposed hydroelectric projects on Skagit River tributaries, and a

final EIS recommends two proposed hydroelectric projects on the lower

Nooksack River

e, Nisqually, Skokomish, and Elwha rivers are

barriers to upstream fish migration and have fragmented populations of

``native char'' within the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS. A draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been published for three

proposed hydroelectric projects on Skagit River tributaries, and a

final EIS recommends two proposed hydroelectric projects on the lower

Nooksack River. This illustrates that FERC is close to licensing

decisions on these projects.

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. Six ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-

Puget Sound DPS (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, Puyallup River,

White River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, and

Stillaguamish River) are known to be 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 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

n degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy

metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream

channels 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.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

Although timber was historically removed from the Jarbidge River

basin, forest management is not thought to be a major factor currently

affecting bull trout habitat. The steep terrain of the Jarbidge River

basin has been a deterrent to grazing (J. Frederick, HNF, in litt.

1998a); and grazing does not occur in approximately 60 percent of the

watershed. Although much of the remaining 40 percent of public and

private lands are grazed, the effects are localized and considered of

relatively minor importance to bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge River

basin. For example, livestock grazing is affecting about 3.2 km (2 mi)

of the East Fork Jarbidge River and portions of Dave Creek and Jack

Creek (Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998).

Ongoing threats affecting bull trout habitat have maintained

degraded conditions in the West Fork Jarbidge River (McNeill et al.

1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Ramsey, pers. comm. 1998a). At least

11.2 km (7 mi) of the West Fork Jarbidge River has been affected by

over a century of human activities such as road development and

maintenance, historic mining and adit (horizontal passage from the

surface in a mine) drainage, channelization and removal of large woody

debris, residential development, and road and campground development on

USFS lands (McNeill et al. 1997)

m. 1998a). At least

11.2 km (7 mi) of the West Fork Jarbidge River has been affected by

over a century of human activities such as road development and

maintenance, historic mining and adit (horizontal passage from the

surface in a mine) drainage, channelization and removal of large woody

debris, residential development, and road and campground development on

USFS lands (McNeill et al. 1997). As a result of these activities, the

riparian canopy and much of the upland forest has been removed,

recruitment of large woody debris has been reduced, and channel

stability has decreased (McNeill et al. 1997; Ramsey, in litt. 1997;

Frederick, in litt. 1998a). These activities reduce habitat complexity

and likely elevate water temperatures seasonally. For example, water

temperatures recorded near Bluster Bridge were 15 to 17 deg.C (59 to

63 deg.F) for 24 days in 1997.

Culverts installed at road crossings may act as barriers to bull

trout movement in the Jarbidge River basin. For example, an Elko County

road culvert had prevented upstream movement of bull trout in Jack

Creek, a West Fork Jarbidge River tributary, for approximately 17

years. Private and public funding was used to replace the culvert with

a bridge in the fall of 1997 (Frederick, in litt. 1998b); however, a

rock structure approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) upstream from the bridge

in Jack Creek may still impede bull trout movement, at least seasonally

during low flows.

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 et al. 1996). 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 bull trout

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 et al. 1996). 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 bull trout.

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 et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly, the

irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne) physically blocks

bull trout passage into the upper watershed (Fredenberg et al. 1996;

Wagner, pers. comm. 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 et al. 1996). The diversion at the outlet of lower St. Mary

Lake may result in a reduction (up to 50 percent) of instream flow,

possibly affecting juvenile and adult bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm.

1998). The diversion is unscreened and recent information suggests

downstream loss through entrainment of bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm.

1998). Similarly, the irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake

Sherburne) seasonally dewaters the creek downstream, effectively

eliminating habitat (Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

ened and recent information suggests

downstream loss through entrainment of bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm.

1998). Similarly, the irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek (Lake

Sherburne) seasonally dewaters the creek downstream, effectively

eliminating habitat (Fredenberg et al. 1996; Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Declines in bull trout have prompted states to institute

restrictive fishing regulations and eliminate the harvest of bull trout

in most waters in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Montana.

Recent observations of increased numbers of adult bull trout in some

areas have been attributed to more restrictive regulations. However,

illegal harvest and incidental harvest still 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. Most of these

closures were implemented in 1994. Areas where harvest of ``native

char'' is still allowed are the mainstem Skagit River and several of

its tributaries (Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck and Sauk rivers) (508-mm

(20-in) minimum size limit); the Snohomish River mainstem and the

Skykomish River below the forks (508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit and

2 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) (S.

Chitwood, Quinault Indian Nation, pers. comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a).

Olympic National Park has catch-and-release regulations for ``native

char'' in all park waters. Fishing for bull trout in Mount Rainier

National Park is prohibited

rtions 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) (S.

Chitwood, Quinault Indian Nation, pers. comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a).

Olympic National Park has catch-and-release regulations for ``native

char'' in all park waters. 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) have not been established.

The objective of the 508-mm (20-in) minimum size limit is to allow

most females to spawn at least once before harvest (WDFW 1997a),

however, there is concern that this size limit will have minimal

effects in conserving bull trout (J. Johnston, WDFW, pers. comm. 1995).

The regulation protects smaller fish, but older, larger fish are more

fecund and able to use a greater range of substrates for spawning

(Johnston, 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. Areas of the lower Quinault and Queets rivers outside of

the Quinault Indian Reservation have been closed to harvest for

``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 liberalization of

the brook trout catch has the potential to increase harvest of bull

trout due to misidentification by anglers. In a Montana study, only 40

percent of the anglers surveyed correctly identified bull trout out of

six species of salmonids found locally (M. Long and S. Whalen,

creased the catch limit for brook trout in order to

reduce interactions with bull trout (WDFW 1995). The liberalization of

the brook trout catch has the potential to increase harvest of bull

trout due to misidentification by anglers. In a Montana study, only 40

percent of the anglers surveyed correctly identified bull trout out of

six species of salmonids found locally (M. Long and S. Whalen,

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), in litt. 1997).

Poaching is considered a factor negatively affecting ``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 1992;

Mongillo 1993; WDFW 1997a).

Jarbidge River Population Segment

Overutilization by angling was a concern in the past for the

Jarbidge River DPS of bull trout. Although Idaho prohibited harvest of

bull trout beginning in 1995, Nevada, until recently, allowed harvest

of up to 10 trout per day, including bull trout, in the Jarbidge River

basin. An estimated 100 to 400 bull trout were harvested annually in

the Jarbidge River basin (Johnson 1990; P. Coffin, Service, pers. comm.

1994; Coffin, in litt. 1995). Nevada State regulations were recently

amended to allow only catch-and-release of bull trout starting March 1,

1998 (G. Weller, NDOW, in litt. 1997; Johnson, pers. comm. 1998). We

anticipate that this change in the regulations will have a positive

effect on conservation of bull trout, however, the effects of the new

harvest regulations may require five years to evaluate (Johnson, pers.

comm. 1998).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Historically, the harvest of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River

DPS was considered ``extensive'' (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Currently,

legal angler harvest in the St

egulations will have a positive

effect on conservation of bull trout, however, the effects of the new

harvest regulations may require five years to evaluate (Johnson, pers.

comm. 1998).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Historically, the harvest of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River

DPS was considered ``extensive'' (Fredenberg et al. 1996). Currently,

legal angler harvest in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS only occurs on the

Blackfeet Indian Reservation, which has a five fish per day limit

(Fredenberg et al. 1996).

In 1994, at least 19 adult and subadult bull trout were harvested

in gill nets set for a commercial fishery for lake whitefish (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 not strictly enforced.

C. Disease and Predation

Diseases affecting salmonids are present or likely present in the

Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly DPSs, but are

not thought to be a factor threatening bull trout. However,

interspecific interactions, including predation, likely negatively

affect bull trout where non-native salmonids have been introduced (J.

Palmisano and V. Kaczynski, Northwest Forestry Resources Council

(NFRC), 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 (K. Amos, WDFW,

pers. comm. 1997). The susceptibility of bull trout to the parasite is

unknown

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 (K. 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, but

it has not been documented in Washington (Bergersen and Anderson 1997).

Apparently, most species of salmonids are susceptible to the organism,

and it has been diagnosed in Dolly Varden (Post 1987). However,

laboratory testing indicates that bull trout may be one of the least

susceptible salmonids (McDowell et al. 1997). It is not currently

treatable in the wild.

Predation is not considered a primary factor in the decline of

Coastal-Puget Sound ``native char'' and bull trout. However, the recent

discovery of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Cushman

Reservoir on the Skokomish River may potentially affect the bull trout

subpopulation (S. Brenkman, Oregon State University, pers. comm. 1997;

WDFW 1997a). Warm-water species (centrarchids and percids), which may

prey on ``native char,'' are also established in portions of the

Sammamish River system and Lake Washington.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the

survival of bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the

survival of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River basin. However, non-

native brook trout are present and may prey on juvenile bull trout.

Whirling disease has also been documented in numerous Missouri River

watersheds in central Montana.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Disease or predation are not known to be factors affecting the

survival of bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River basin. However, non-

native brook trout are present and may prey on juvenile bull trout.

Whirling disease has also been documented in numerous Missouri River

watersheds in central Montana.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Although efforts are underway to assist in conserving bull trout

throughout the coterminous U.S. (e.g., Batt 1996; R. Joslin, USFS, in

litt. 1997; A. Thomas, BLM, in litt. 1997), the implementation and

enforcement of existing Federal and State laws designed to conserve

fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat

have not been sufficient to prevent past and ongoing habitat

degradation leading to bull trout declines and isolation. Regulatory

mechanisms, including the National Forest Management Act, the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act,

the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 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

sional 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 22 percent

of the total acreage within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment

lies within USFS jurisdiction, and would thus be subject to Northwest

Forest Plan standards and guidelines (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in

litt. 1996). 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). Almost all projects developed under the

Northwest Forest Plan in this DPS have been determined to have ``no

effect'' on bull trout. However, existing habitat conditions are

severely degraded in many subbasins. 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 can be exacerbated due to future slides, 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

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 face threats from ongoing and future timber

harvest activities on these lands that are in forest production. 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 minimum widths are insufficient to

fully protect riparian ecosystems (USDI et al. 1996a). Thus, bull trout

will continue to be negatively affected by forest practices on lands

guided by the WFPR.

In January 1997, the Washington State Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) entered into a multispecies HCP with the Service,

covering all WDNR-owned lands within the range of the northern spotted

owl. The WDNR HCP was initiated primarily to address the conservation

needs for old-growth forest dependent species, 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 managed under the

HCP

dependent species, 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 managed under 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 continued 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 that have been 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)

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 Washington Department of Wildlife (now the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife) 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). At this time,

the management plan has not been finalized and implemented. The Wild

Salmonid Policy has been described as an umbrella document to the

management plan, and in an effort to avoid contradicting documents,

WDFW has postponed finalizing the plan.

Since 1994, WDFW has been in the process of 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 sensitive salmonid

species such as bull trout because the primary focus is wild salmon and

steelhead. Although other wild salmonids, including bull trout, are

referred to in an ancillary manner in the document, the proposed policy

does not address the unique requirements of bull trout

ecological values well into the future (WDFW 1997b). The

WSP, in its current form, may not adequately protect sensitive salmonid

species such as bull trout because the primary focus is wild salmon and

steelhead. Although other wild salmonids, including bull trout, are

referred to in an ancillary manner 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, 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 1997a) reflects the poor condition

of lower stream reaches of some systems containing bull trout and Dolly

Varden. At least 30 stream reaches, occupied by 14 subpopulations of

``native char'', are listed on the Washington State proposed 1998

303(d) list of water quality impaired streams (WDOE 1997a)

e Section 303(d) list of water quality limited streams. The

Washington State 303(d) list (WDOE 1997a) reflects the poor condition

of lower stream reaches of some systems containing bull trout and Dolly

Varden. At least 30 stream reaches, occupied by 14 subpopulations of

``native char'', are listed on the Washington State proposed 1998

303(d) list of water quality impaired streams (WDOE 1997a). Waters on

the 303(d) list that inhibit these subpopulations because of

temperature exceedances are--Chehalis River-Grays Harbor, lower

Quinault River, Hoh River, lower Elwha River, Nisqually River, White

River, Green River, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, Stillaguamish

River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout have been identified in one

of these subpopulations (Green River). 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).

Waters on the 303(d) list that do not meet instream flow standards

and

contain ``native char'' subpopulation include--Dungeness River-Gray

Wolf River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Puyallup

River, lower Skagit River, and lower Nooksack River. Bull trout are

known to occur in three of these subpopulations (Dungeness River-Gray

Wolf River; South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River; and lower

Skagit River). Although minimum instream flow requirements for bull

trout have not been determined, 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).

Subpopulations in waters that occur on the 303(d) list for not

meeting the standards for dissolved oxygen are--Chehalis River-Grays

Harbor and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek (WDOE 1997a)

rmined, 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).

Subpopulations in waters that occur on the 303(d) list for not

meeting the standards for dissolved oxygen are--Chehalis River-Grays

Harbor and Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek (WDOE 1997a). Although no

dissolved oxygen standards have been developed 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. For each of these classes a set of

criteria have been established for water quality parameters such as

temperature, fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and toxic

deleterious material concentrations. With the exception of dissolved

oxygen, parameters are not to exceed the maximum levels specified 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 low temperature

requirements of bull trout, these temperature standards are inadequate

to protect bull trout spawning, rearing or migration (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). Segments of the Quinault, Queets, Elwha, Skokomish,

Nisqually, White, Green, and Snohomish rivers do not meet existing

State standards for their respective classes

e stream

segments that fall in classes AA, A, and B. Given the low temperature

requirements of bull trout, these temperature standards are inadequate

to protect bull trout spawning, rearing or migration (Rieman and

McIntyre 1993). 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 quality.

Jarbidge River Population Segment

Regulatory mechanisms addressing alterations to stream channels,

riparian areas, and floodplains from road construction and maintenance,

and the effects associated with roads and past mining on water quality,

have been inadequate to protect bull trout habitat in the Jarbidge

River basin. For example, the Jarbidge Canyon Road parallels the West

Fork Jarbidge River for much of its length and includes at least seven

undersized bridges for the stream and floodplain. Maintenance of the

road and bridges requires frequent channel and floodplain modifications

that affect bull trout habitat, such as channelization; removal of

riparian trees and beaver dams; and placement of rock, sediment, and

concrete (McNeill et al. 1997; Frederick, pers. comm. 1998; Frederick,

in litt. 1998a). In 1995, debris torrents washed out a portion of the

upper Jarbidge Canyon Road above Pine Creek, and plans to reestablish

the road include channelizing the river (McNeill et al. 1997). The

Service has recommended that this road segment be closed to vehicular

traffic and that a trail be maintained to reduce the effects of the

road and its maintenance on the river (R. Williams, Service, in litt.

1998)

debris torrents washed out a portion of the

upper Jarbidge Canyon Road above Pine Creek, and plans to reestablish

the road include channelizing the river (McNeill et al. 1997). The

Service has recommended that this road segment be closed to vehicular

traffic and that a trail be maintained to reduce the effects of the

road and its maintenance on the river (R. Williams, Service, in litt.

1998). Periodic channelization in the Jarbidge River by unknown parties

has occurred without the oversight provided by the COE Clean Water Act

section 404 regulatory program (M. Elpers, Service, pers. comm. 1998),

and the HNF has been unable to control trespass (unauthorized road

openings) on Federal lands. Several old mines (adits) are releasing

small quantities of warm water and other contaminants into the West

Fork Jarbidge River.

The Nevada water temperature standards throughout the Jarbidge

River are 21 deg.C (67 deg.F) for May through October, and 7 deg.C

(45 deg.F) for November through April, with less than 1 deg.C (2 deg.F)

change for beneficial uses (Nevada Department of Environmental

Protection (NDEP), in litt. 1998). Water temperature standards for May

through October exceed temperatures conducive to bull trout spawning,

incubation, and rearing (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Buchanan and Gregory

1997). There is no Clean Water Act section 303(d) designation in the

destabilized seven mile reach of the West Fork Jarbidge River (J.

Heggeness, NDEP, pers. comm. 1998).

In 1994, a local Bull Trout Task Force was formed to gather and

share information on bull trout in the Jarbidge River. The task force

is open to any representative from Elko and Owyhee counties, the towns

of Jarbidge (Nevada) and Murphy Hot Springs (Idaho), road districts,

private land owners, NDOW, IDFG, the Boise District of BLM, HNF, and

the Service. The task force was successful in 1997 in obtaining nearly

$150,000 for replacing the Jack Creek culvert with a concrete bridge to

facilitate bull trout passage into Jack Creek

open to any representative from Elko and Owyhee counties, the towns

of Jarbidge (Nevada) and Murphy Hot Springs (Idaho), road districts,

private land owners, NDOW, IDFG, the Boise District of BLM, HNF, and

the Service. The task force was successful in 1997 in obtaining nearly

$150,000 for replacing the Jack Creek culvert with a concrete bridge to

facilitate bull trout passage into Jack Creek. However, the task force

has not yet developed a comprehensive conservation plan addressing all

threats to bull trout in the Jarbidge River basin.

In 1995, the Humbolt National Forest plan was amended to include

the Inland Native Fish Strategy. This fish and wildlife habitat policy

sets a no net loss objective and is currently guiding possible

reconstruction of a portion of the Jarbidge Canyon Road (Ramsey 1997).

St. Mary-Belly River Population Segment

Two USBR structures likely affect bull trout by dewatering stream

reaches, acting as passage barriers, or exposing fish to entrainment

(Service 1998c). The Service is not aware that the effects of the

structures were considered in their construction (1902 and 1921) or

operation. Currently, operators attempt to minimize passage and

entrainment problems by staging the fall dewatering of the canal and

removing boards in the dam during winter. The effectiveness of the

operations has not been evaluated.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

at the effects of the

structures were considered in their construction (1902 and 1921) or

operation. Currently, operators attempt to minimize passage and

entrainment problems by staging the fall dewatering of the canal and

removing boards in the dam during winter. The effectiveness of the

operations has not been evaluated.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Natural and manmade factors affecting the continued existence of

bull trout include--previous introductions of non-native species that

compete, hybridize, and prey on bull trout; fragmentation and isolation

of bull trout subpopulations from habitat changes caused by human

activities; and subpopulation extirpations due to naturally occurring

events such as droughts, floods and other environmental events.

Previous introductions of non-native species by the Federal

government, State fish and game departments and unauthorized private

parties, across the range of bull trout has resulted in declines in

abundance, local extirpations, and hybridization of bull trout (Bond

1992; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and Alger

1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al. 1995;

Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-native species may

exacerbate stresses on bull trout from habitat degradation,

fragmentation, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman and McIntyre

1993). In some

tions, and hybridization of bull trout (Bond

1992; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and Alger

1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al. 1995;

Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-native species may

exacerbate stresses on bull trout from habitat degradation,

fragmentation, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman and McIntyre

1993). In some

lakes and rivers, introduced species, such as rainbow trout or kokanee,

may benefit large adult bull trout by providing supplemental forage

(Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993; MBTSG 1996a).

However, the same introductions of game fish can negatively affect bull

trout due to increased angling and subsequent incidental catch, illegal

harvest of bull trout, and competition for space (Rode 1990; Bond 1992;

WDW 1992; MBTSG 1995d).

Coastal-Puget Sound Population Segment

Competition and hybridization with introduced brook trout threatens

the persistence of some ``native char'' subpopulations in the Coastal-

Puget Sound DPS. Brook trout have been introduced into headwater areas

occupied by bull trout and ``native char''; however, the distribution

of brook trout within many of these areas appears to be limited. Brook

trout can threaten bull trout even in areas with undisturbed habitats

(e.g., National Parks). Brook trout may have a reproductive advantage

(earlier maturation) over resident bull trout, which can lead to

species replacement (Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992). At present,

portions of 14 ``native char'' subpopulations overlap with brook trout

(Sol Duc River, upper Elwha River, lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf

River, upper North Fork Skokomish River, South Fork-lower North Fork

Skokomish River, Green River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish

River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, Lower Skagit

River, upper Middle Fork Nooksack River, and Canyon Creek) (R. Glesne,

North Cascades National Park (NCNP), in litt. 1993; Mongillo and

Hallock 1993; J

lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf

River, upper North Fork Skokomish River, South Fork-lower North Fork

Skokomish River, Green River, Carbon River, Skykomish River-Snohomish

River, Gorge Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, Lower Skagit

River, upper Middle Fork Nooksack River, and Canyon Creek) (R. Glesne,

North Cascades National Park (NCNP), in litt. 1993; Mongillo and

Hallock 1993; J. Meyer, ONP, pers. comm. 1995; Morrill and McHenry

1995; Brenkman, pers. comm. 1997; B. Green, MBSNF, pers. comm. 1997).

Of the 14 subpopulations, species composition has been examined in 10

and bull trout have been confirmed in 8 (Service 1998a).

``Native char'' subpopulations that have become geographically

isolated may no longer have access to migratory corridors. ``First-,

and second-order streams in steep headwaters tend to be hydrologically

and geomorphically more unstable than large, low-gradient streams.

Thus, salmonids are being restricted to habitats where the likelihood

of extirpation because of random environmental events is greatest''

(Spence et al. 1996). ``Native char'' subpopulations likely more prone

to naturally occurring events as a result isolation are Cushman

Reservoir, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, Gorge

Reservoir, Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, upper Middle Fork Nooksack

River, upper Quinault River, upper Sol Duc River, upper Dungeness

River, and Chester Morse Reservoir (Service 1998a). Of these 10

``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has been examined

in 7 and bull trout have been confirmed in 5 (Cushman Reservoir, South

Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, upper Quinault River, Chester

Morse Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River) (Service 1998a)

inault River, upper Sol Duc River, upper Dungeness

River, and Chester Morse Reservoir (Service 1998a). Of these 10

``native char'' subpopulations, species composition has been examined

in 7 and bull trout have been confirmed in 5 (Cushman Reservoir, South

Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, upper Quinault River, Chester

Morse Reservoir, and upper Middle Fork Nooksack River) (Service 1998a).

Jarbidge River Populations Segment

``The smaller and more isolated parts of the range [such as the

bull trout remaining in the Owyhee Uplands ecological reporting units

or Jarbidge River basin] likely face a higher risk'' of naturally

occurring extirpation relative to other bull trout populations (Rieman

et al. 1997). One such risk is fire. In 1992, a 4,900 hectare (ha)

(12,000 acre (ac)) fire (Coffeepot Fire) occurred at lower elevations,

up to 2,286 m (7,500 ft), in areas adjacent to the Bruneau River basin

and a small portion of the Jarbidge River basin. Although the Coffeepot

Fire did not affect areas currently occupied by bull trout, similar

conditions likely exist in nearby areas where bull trout occur. Adverse

effects of fire on bull trout habitat may include loss of riparian

canopy, increased water temperature and sediment, loss of pools, mass

wasting of soils, altered hydrologic regime and debris torrents. Fires

large enough to eliminate one or two suspected spawning streams are

more likely at higher elevations where bull trout are usually found in

the Jarbidge River basin (Frederick, in litt. 1998a; Ramsey, pers.

comm. 1998b).

Hybridization with introduced brook trout is also a potential

threat. In the West Fork Jarbidge River, approximately one percent of

the harvest from the 1960's through the 1980's was brook trout (Johnson

1990). Some brook trout may spill out of Emerald Lake into the East

Fork Jarbidge River during peak runoff events, but the lake lacks a

defined outlet so that the event appears unlikely (Johnson, pers. comm.

1994)

oduced brook trout is also a potential

threat. In the West Fork Jarbidge River, approximately one percent of

the harvest from the 1960's through the 1980's was brook trout (Johnson

1990). Some brook trout may spill out of Emerald Lake into the East

Fork Jarbidge River during peak runoff events, but the lake lacks a

defined outlet so that the event appears unlikely (Johnson, pers. comm.

1994). Although low numbers of brook trout persist in the Jarbidge

River basin, conditions are apparently not conducive to the expansion

of a brook trout population.

Other naturally occurring risks have been recently documented. The

Jarbidge River Watershed Analysis (McNeill et al. 1997) indicates that

65 percent of the upper West Fork Jarbidge River basin has a 45 percent

or greater slope. Debris from high spring runoff flows in the various

high gradient side drainages such as Snowslide, Gorge, and Bonanza

gulches provide the West Fork Jarbidge River with large volumes of

angular rock material. This material has moved down the gulches at

regular intervals, altering the river channel and damaging the Jarbidge

River Canyon road, culverts, and bridge crossings. Most of the river

flows are derived from winter snowpack in the high mountain watershed,

with peak flows corresponding with spring snowmelt, typically in May

and June (McNeill et al. 1997). Rain on snow events earlier in the year

(January and February) can cause extensive flooding problems and has

the potential for mass-wasting, debris torrents, and earth slumps,

which could threaten the existence of bull trout in the upper Jarbidge

River and tributary streams. In June, 1995, a rain on snow event

triggered debris torrents from three of the high gradient tributaries

to the Jarbidge River in the upper watershed (McNeill et al. 1997). The

relationship between these catastrophic events and the history of

intensive livestock grazing, burning to promote livestock forage,

timber harvest and recent fire control in the Jarbidge River basin is

unclear

reams. In June, 1995, a rain on snow event

triggered debris torrents from three of the high gradient tributaries

to the Jarbidge River in the upper watershed (McNeill et al. 1997). The

relationship between these catastrophic events and the history of

intensive livestock grazing, burning to promote livestock forage,

timber harvest and recent fire control in the Jarbidge River basin is

unclear. However, debris torrents may potentially affect the long-term

viability of the Jarbidge River bull trout subpopulation.

St. Mary-Belly Population Segment

Non-native species are pervasive throughout the St. Mary and Belly

rivers (Fitch 1994; Fredenberg et al. 1996; Clayton 1997). Brook,

brown, and rainbow trout have been widely introduced in the area. The

Service is not aware of any studies conducted in the DPS evaluating the

effects of introduced non-native fishes on bull trout. However, because

brook trout occur in the four bull trout subpopulations, competition

and hybridization are threats in the St. Mary and Belly rivers (Service

1998c), especially on resident bull trout (Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and

St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout in determining

to propose this rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is

to list the bull trout as threatened in each of the three population

segments. Determinations by distinct population segment follow:

Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull trout and ``native char'' in the Coastal-

Puget

by the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and

St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout in determining

to propose this rule. Based on this evaluation, the proposed action is

to list the bull trout as threatened in each of the three population

segments. Determinations by distinct population segment follow:

Coastal-Puget Sound. Bull trout and ``native char'' in the Coastal-

Puget

Sound population segment, despite their relative widespread

distribution, have declined in abundance and distribution within many

individual river basins. Bull trout and ``native char'' currently occur

as 35 isolated subpopulations, which indicates the level of habitat

fragmentation and geographic isolation. Eight subpopulations are

isolated by dams or other diversion structures, with at least 17 dams

proposed in streams inhabited by other bull trout or ``native char''

subpopulations. Bull trout and ``native char'' continue to be

threatened by the effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation,

blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, harvest, and

introduced non-native species.

Jarbidge River. This population segment is composed of a single

subpopulation, characterized by low numbers of resident fish.

Activities, such as mining and grazing, threaten bull trout in the

Jarbidge River basin. Although some of these activities have been

modified or discontinued in recent years, the lingering effects

continue to alter water quality, contribute to channel and bank

instability, and inhibit habitat recovery. Ongoing threats include

channel and bank alterations associated with road construction and

maintenance, a proposed stream rechannelization project, recreational

fishing (intentional and unintentional harvest), and competition with

brook trout.

St. Mary-Belly River This population segment is composed of four

subpopulations primarily isolated by dams and unsuitable habitat

conditions created by irrigation diversions

channel and bank alterations associated with road construction and

maintenance, a proposed stream rechannelization project, recreational

fishing (intentional and unintentional harvest), and competition with

brook trout.

St. Mary-Belly River This population segment is composed of four

subpopulations primarily isolated by dams and unsuitable habitat

conditions created by irrigation diversions. The primary threat to bull

trout are effects of introduced non-native fishes. Three of the four

subpopulations are threatened by dams and irrigation diversions.

Based on this evaluation, the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River,

and St. Mary-Belly River population segments of bull trout are likely

to become endangered within the foreseeable future, and thus, these

population segments fit the definition of threatened as defined in the

Act.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the

specific area within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the

species and (II) that may require special management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to

bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no

longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened

ans the use of all methods and procedures needed to

bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no

longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is not

determinable if information sufficient to perform required analysis of

impacts of the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of the

species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an

area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the

Service to consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating

a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best

scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from

critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion

outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in

the extinction of the species.

The Service finds that the determination of critical habitat is not

determinable for these distinct population segments based on the best

available information. When a ``not determinable'' finding is made, the

Service must, within 2 years of the publication date of the original

proposed rule, designate critical habitat, unless the designation is

found to be not prudent. The Service reached this conclusion because

the biological needs of the species in the three population segments

are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of areas as

critical habitat. No information is available on the number of

individuals required for a viable population throughout the distinct

population segment and the extent of habitat required for recovery of

these fish has not been identified. In addition, within the Coastal-

Puget Sound bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden

are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of areas as

critical habitat. No information is available on the number of

individuals required for a viable population throughout the distinct

population segment and the extent of habitat required for recovery of

these fish has not been identified. In addition, within the Coastal-

Puget Sound bull trout are sympatric with Dolly Varden. These two

species are virtually impossible to visually differentiate and genetic

and morphological-meristic analyses to determine the presence or

absence of bull trout and Dolly Varden have only been conducted on 15

of the 35 ``native char'' subpopulations. The presence of bull trout in

the remaining 20 subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget Sound along with

the information noted above is considered essential for determining

critical habitat for these population segments. Therefore, the Service

finds that designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the

Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River and St. Mary-Belly River distinct

population segments is not determinable at this time. Protection of

bull trout habitat will be addressed through the recovery process and

through section 7 consultations to determine whether Federal actions

are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition through listing encourages and

results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private

agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires that recovery

actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below

gh listing encourages and

results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private

agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires that recovery

actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

insure that activities that they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action

may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

The three bull trout population segments occur on lands

administered by the USFS, NPS, and BLM; various State-owned properties

in Washington (Coastal-Puget Sound population segment), Idaho and

Nevada (Jarbidge population segment), and Montana (St. Mary-Belly River

population segment); Blackfeet Tribal lands in Montana and various

Tribal lands in Washington; and

consultation with the Service.

The three bull trout population segments occur on lands

administered by the USFS, NPS, and BLM; various State-owned properties

in Washington (Coastal-Puget Sound population segment), Idaho and

Nevada (Jarbidge population segment), and Montana (St. Mary-Belly River

population segment); Blackfeet Tribal lands in Montana and various

Tribal lands in Washington; and

private lands. Federal agency actions that may require conference or

consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include COE

involvement in projects such as the construction of roads and bridges,

and the permitting of wetland filling and dredging projects subject to

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.); FERC

licensed hydropower projects authorized under the Federal Power Act;

USFS and BLM timber, recreational, mining, and grazing management

activities; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) land management activities;

Environmental Protection Agency authorized discharges under the

National Pollutant Discharge System of the Clean Water Act; NPS

activities such as construction on park lands; and U.S. Housing and

Urban Development projects.

The Act and its implementing regulations, found at 50 CFR 17.21 and

17.31, set forth a series of general trade prohibitions and exceptions

that apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part,

make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or

export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,

carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken

illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies

; or attempt any of these), import or

export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,

carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken

illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are available for

scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the

species, and/or for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful

activities. For threatened species, permits are also available for

zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes

consistent with the purpose of the Act. Private landowners seeking

permits under section 10 of the Act for incidental take are a means of

protecting bull trout habitat through the voluntary development of

habitat conservation plans. Information collections associated with

these permits are approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget clearance

number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning these permits

and associated requirements, see 50 CFR 17.32.

It is the policy of the Service published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would

or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent

of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this

listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range.

The Service believes the following actions would not be likely to

result in a violation of section 9:

um extent

practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would

or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent

of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this

listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range.

The Service believes the following actions would not be likely to

result in a violation of section 9:

(1) Actions that may affect bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound,

Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments that are

authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency when the action

is conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by

the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act;

(2) Possession of Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.

Mary-Belly River population segments bull trout caught legally in

accordance with state fishing regulations (see Special Rule section).

With respect to the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.

Mary-Belly River bull trout population segments, the following actions

likely would be considered a violation of section 9:

(1) Take of bull trout without a permit, which includes harassing,

harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,

capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions, except in

accordance with applicable State fish and wildlife conservation laws

and regulations within the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St.

Mary-Belly River bull trout population segments;

(2) Possession, sale, delivery, carriage, transportation, or

shipment of illegally taken bull trout;

(3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across

state and international boundaries) and import/export of bull trout (as

discussed earlier in this section);

(4) Introduction of non-native fish species that compete or

hybridize with, or prey on bull trout;

opulation segments;

(2) Possession, sale, delivery, carriage, transportation, or

shipment of illegally taken bull trout;

(3) Unauthorized interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across

state and international boundaries) and import/export of bull trout (as

discussed earlier in this section);

(4) Introduction of non-native fish species that compete or

hybridize with, or prey on bull trout;

(5) Destruction or alteration of bull trout habitat by dredging,

channelization, diversion, in-stream vehicle operation or rock removal,

or other activities that result in the destruction or significant

degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate composition,

temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging,

cover, migration, and spawning;

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other

pollutants into waters supporting bull trout that result in death or

injury of the species; and

(7) Destruction or alteration of riparian or lakeshore habitat and

adjoining uplands of waters supporting bull trout by recreational

activities, timber harvest, grazing, mining, hydropower development, or

other developmental activities that result in destruction or

significant degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate

composition, temperature, and migratory corridors used by the species

for foraging, cover, migration, and spawning.

Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-

by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may

be likely to result from such activity. The Service does not consider

these lists to be exhaustive and provides them as information to the

public.

Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the Service's Snake River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed species and

inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the

U.S

stive and provides them as information to the

public.

Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the Service's Snake River Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed species and

inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE.

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6241;

facsimile 503/231-6243).

Special Rule

Section 4(d) of the Act provides authority for the Service to

promulgate special rules for threatened species that would relax the

prohibition against taking. In this case, the Service proposes a

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

Belly River bull trout distinct population segments (see ``Proposed

Regulations Promulgation'' section). The Service recognizes that

statewide angling regulations have become more restrictive in an

attempt to protect bull trout throughout Washington, Idaho, Montana,

and Nevada. The Service intends to continue to work with the States in

developing management plans and agreements with the objective of

recovery and eventual delisting (in the event that they are listed) of

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

trout distinct population segments. Further, the Service, acting under

the June, 1997, Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trust

responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, will work with Tribal

governments who manage bull trout streams to restore ecosystems and

ventual delisting (in the event that they are listed) of

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

trout distinct population segments. Further, the Service, acting under

the June, 1997, Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trust

responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, will work with Tribal

governments who manage bull trout streams to restore ecosystems and

enhance Tribal management plans affecting the species. The Service is

consequently proposing a special rule under section 4(d) that offers

additional management flexibility for these population segments. The

special rule would allow for take of bull trout within the Coastal-

Puget Sound, Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout

distinct population segments when it is in accordance with applicable

State and Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations,

and conservation plans approved by the Service. The Service believes

that this special rule will allow for more efficient management of the

species, thereby facilitating its conservation. The Service also feels

that this special rule is consistent with the Secretarial Order

designed to enhance Native American participation under the Act and

will allow more efficient management of the species on Tribal lands.

Similarity of Appearance

Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes listing based on similarity of

appearance if--(A) The species so closely resembles in appearance an

endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have

substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and

unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an

additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such

treatment will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the

policy of the Act.

Within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, bull trout occur

sympatrically within the range of Dolly Varden

culty in differentiating between the listed and

unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an

additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such

treatment will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the

policy of the Act.

Within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, bull trout occur

sympatrically within the range of Dolly Varden. These two species so

closely resemble one another in external appearance, that it is

virtually impossible for the general public to visually differentiate

the two. Currently, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

manages bull trout and Dolly Varden together as ``native char''.

Fishing for bull trout and Dolly Varden is open in four subpopulations

within the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment, two under WDFW

regulations and two under Native American Tribal regulations. These

``native char'' fisheries may adversely affect these subpopulations of

bull trout. However, under current harvest management there is no

evidence that the specific harvest for Dolly Varden creates an

additional threat to bull trout within this population segment.

Therefore, a similarity of appearance rule is not being proposed for

Dolly Varden at this time. However, if bull trout and Dolly Varden are

managed in Washington State as separate species in the future, the

Service may consider at that time the merits of proposing Dolly Varden

under the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service

will follow its peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) in the

processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:

rate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service

will follow its peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) in the

processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

threat (or lack thereof) to these three population segments;

(2) The location of any additional populations of the three

segments and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be

determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional and updated information concerning the range,

distribution, and population size of the three segments;

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on the three population segments; and

(5) Promulgation of the special rule.

The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information received by the Service,

and such communications may lead to a final determination that differs

from this proposal.

The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,

if requested. However, given the high likelihood of several requests

throughout the range of the population segments, the Service has

scheduled four hearings in advance of any request. The hearings are

scheduled for Lacey, Washington, on July 7, 1998; Mount Vernon,

Washington, on July 9, 1998; East Glacier, Montana on July 14, 1998;

and Jackpot, Nevada on July 21, 1998. For additional information on

public hearings, see the DATES section.

National Environmental Policy Act

e range of the population segments, the Service has

scheduled four hearings in advance of any request. The hearings are

scheduled for Lacey, Washington, on July 7, 1998; Mount Vernon,

Washington, on July 9, 1998; East Glacier, Montana on July 14, 1998;

and Jackpot, Nevada on July 21, 1998. For additional information on

public hearings, see the DATES section.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's reasons

for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October

25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other

than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning

permit and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR

17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Snake River Basin Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author: The primary authors of this proposed rule include--Jeffery

Chan, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, WA; Timothy

Cummings, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, Vancouver, WA;

Stephen Duke, Snake River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Robert Hallock,

Upper Columbia River Basin Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, Snake

River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Leslie Propp, Western Washington State

Office, Olympia, WA.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

e, Snake River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Robert Hallock,

Upper Columbia River Basin Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, Snake

River Basin Office, Boise, ID; Leslie Propp, Western Washington State

Office, Olympia, WA.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under Fishes, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate

-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special

Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules

Common name Scientific name threatened

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

* * * * * * *

FISHES:

* * * * * * *

Trout, bull.................. Salvelinus U.S.A. (Pacific NW), Coastal-Puget Sound T ........... NA 17.44 (w)

confluentus. Canada (NW (U.S.A.-WA) all

Territories). pacific coast

drainages north of

Columbia R..

Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ Jarbidge R. (U.S.A.-- T ........... NA Do.

ID, NV).

Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ St. Mary-Belly R. T ........... NA Do

ic NW), Coastal-Puget Sound T ........... NA 17.44 (w)

confluentus. Canada (NW (U.S.A.-WA) all

Territories). pacific coast

drainages north of

Columbia R..

Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ Jarbidge R. (U.S.A.-- T ........... NA Do.

ID, NV).

Do........................... ......do............ ......do............ St. Mary-Belly R. T ........... NA Do.

(U.S.A.--MT east of

Continental Divide).

* * * * * * *

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

3. Amend Sec. 17.44 by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.44 Special rules--fishes.

* * * * *

(w) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Coastal-Puget Sound,

Jarbidge River, and St. Mary-Belly River bull trout distinct population

segments.

(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (w)(2) of this

section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR

17.32 shall apply to the bull trout Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge

River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segments within the

contiguous United States.

(2) Exceptions. No person shall take this species, except in

accordance with with applicable State and Native American Tribal fish

and wildlife conservation laws and regulations, as constituted in all

aspects relevant to protection of bull trout in effect on [date of

publication of final determination in the Federal Register].

(3) Any violation of applicable State and Native American Tribal

fish and wildlife conservation laws or regulations with respect to the

taking of this species is also a violation of the Endangered

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