Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31647 sale or marketed. The phrase ‘‘limited the Snake River basin of central Idaho (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). To the quantities,’’ in this context means: mountains, upper Clark Fork and west, bull trout range includes Puget (i) 200 or fewer units, provided the Flathead Rivers in Montana, and several Sound, various coastal rivers of British product is designed solely for operation streams in the Blue Mountains in Columbia, Canada, and southeast Alaska within one of the Commission’s Washington and Oregon. The decline of (Bond 1992). Bull trout are wide-spread authorized radio services for which an bull trout is primarily due to habitat throughout tributaries of the Columbia operating license is required to be degradation and fragmentation, blockage River basin, including its headwaters in issued by the Commission; or of migratory corridors, poor water Montana and Canada. Bull trout also (ii) 10 or fewer units for all other quality, past fisheries management occur in the Klamath River basin of products. practices, and the introduction of non- south central Oregon. East of the (iii) Prior to importation of a greater native species. The special rules allow Continental Divide, bull trout are found number of units than shown above, the take of bull trout in the Columbia in the headwaters of the Saskatchewan written approval must be obtained from River and Klamath River population River in Alberta and the MacKenzie the Chief, Office of Engineering and segments if in accordance with River system in Alberta and British Technology, FCC. applicable State and Native American Columbia (Cavender 1978; Brewin and (iv) Distinctly different models of a Tribal fish and wildlife conservation Brewin 1997). product and separate generations of a laws and regulations and conservation Bull trout were first described as particular model under development are plans approved by the Service. Salmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856 considered to be separate devices. The listing proposal was restricted by from a specimen collected on the lower * * * * * court order to information contained in Columbia River, and subsequently [FR Doc. 98–15395 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am] the 1994 administrative record. This described under a number of names BILLING CODE 6712±01±P final determination was based on the such as Salmo confluentus and best available scientific and commercial Salvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bull information including current data and trout and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR new information received during the malma) were previously considered a comment period. As a result, the single species (Cavender 1978; Bond Fish and Wildlife Service threatened listing status for the 1992). Cavender (1978) presented Columbia River population segment has morphometric (measurement), meristic 50 CFR Part 17 been retained, however, the listing (geometrical relation), osteological (bone structure), and distributional evidence RIN 1018±AB94 status for the Klamath River population segment is changed from endangered to to document specific distinctions Endangered and Threatened Wildlife threatened. This listing status change between Dolly Varden and bull trout. and Plants; Determination of occurred because bull trout interagency Bull trout and Dolly Varden were Threatened Status for the Klamath management and recovery efforts for the formally recognized as separate species River and Columbia River Distinct Klamath River basin are being by the American Fisheries Society in Population Segments of Bull Trout implemented and, consequently, threats 1980 (Robins et al. 1980). Although bull have been reduced. This rule trout and Dolly Varden co-occur in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, implements the protection and several northwestern Washington river Interior. conservation provisions afforded by the drainages, there is little evidence of ACTION: Final rule. Act for the Klamath River and Columbia introgression (Haas and McPhail 1991) River population segments of bull trout. and the two species appear to be SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service maintaining distinct genomes (Leary et DATES: Effective July 10, 1998. (Service) determines threatened status al. 1993; Williams et al. 1995; Kanda et for the Klamath River and the Columbia ADDRESSES: The complete file for this al. 1997; Spruell and Allendorf 1997). River distinct population segments of rule is available for inspection, by Bull trout exhibit resident and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), with appointment, during normal business migratory life-history strategies through special rules, pursuant to the hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife much of the current range (Rieman and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Service, Snake River Basin Field Office, McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout amended (Act). The Klamath River 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, complete their entire life cycle in the population segment is limited to seven Idaho 83709. tributary (or nearby) streams in which geographically isolated stream areas FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: they spawn and rear. Migratory bull representing a fraction of the historical Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, Snake River trout spawn in tributary streams where habitat. The distribution and numbers of Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section ) juvenile fish rear from one to four years bull trout have declined in the Klamath (telephone 208–378–5243, facsimile before migrating to either a lake River basin due to habitat isolation, loss 208–378–5262). (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in certain of migratory corridors, poor water SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: coastal areas, to saltwater (anadromous), quality, and the introduction of non- where maturity is reached in one of the native species. The Columbia River Background three habitats (Fraley and Shepard 1989; population segment is represented by Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Goetz 1989). Resident and migratory relatively widespread subpopulations members of the family Salmonidae, are forms may be found together and it is that have declined in overall range and char native to the Pacific northwest and suspected that bull trout give rise to numbers of fish. A majority of Columbia western Canada. Bull trout historically offspring exhibiting either resident or River bull trout occur in isolated, occurred in major river drainages in the migratory behavior (Rieman and fragmented habitats that support low Pacific Northwest from about 41° N to McIntyre 1993). numbers of fish and are inaccessible to 60° N latitude, from the southern limits Bull trout have more specific habitat migratory bull trout. The few remaining in the McCloud River in northern requirements compared to other bull trout ‘‘strongholds’’ in the California and the Jarbidge River in salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Columbia River basin tend to be found Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon Habitat components that appear to in large areas of contiguous habitats in River in Northwest Territories, Canada influence bull trout distribution and 31648 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations abundance include water temperature, Bitterroot River drainage, Montana, and C (39 to 51° F), with redds often cover, channel form and stability, valley suggested that suitable winter habitat constructed in stream reaches fed by form, spawning and rearing substrates, may be more restrictive than summer springs or near other sources of cold and migratory corridors (Oliver 1979; habitat. Maintaining bull trout habitat groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard requires stream channel and flow Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Bull trout 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn stability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). require spawning substrate consisting of 1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine and Buchanan 1992; Rieman and inhabit side channels, stream margins, sediments (Fraley and Shepard 1989). McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer Depending on water temperature, and Hillman 1997). Watson and Hillman and James 1997). These areas are incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (1997) concluded that watersheds must sensitive to activities that directly or (Pratt 1992), and after hatching, have specific physical characteristics to indirectly affect stream channel stability juveniles remain in the substrate. Time provide habitat requirements for bull and alter natural flow patterns. For from egg deposition to emergence may trout to successfully spawn and rear, example, altered stream flow in the fall surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge and that the characteristics are not may disrupt bull trout during the from early April through May necessarily ubiquitous throughout these spawning period and channel instability depending upon water temperatures and watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a may decrease survival of eggs and young increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992; patchy distribution, even in pristine juveniles in the gravel during winter Ratliff and Howell 1992). habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), through spring (Fraley and Shepard Growth varies depending upon life- the fish should not be expected to 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston history strategy. Resident adults range simultaneously occupy all available 1993). from 150 to 300 millimeters (mm) (6 to habitats (Rieman et al. in press). Preferred spawning habitat consists of 12 inches (in)) total length and Bull trout are found primarily in low gradient streams with loose, clean migratory adults commonly reach 600 colder streams, although individual fish gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and mm (24 in) or more (Pratt 1985; Goetz are found in larger river systems water temperatures of 5 to 9° C (41 to 1989). The largest verified bull trout is throughout the Columbia River basin 48° F) in late summer to early fall (Goetz a 14.6 kilogram (kg) (32 pound) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and 1989). Pratt (1992) indicated that specimen caught in Lake Pend Oreille, McIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan and increases in fine sediments reduce egg Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace Gregory 1997; Rieman et al. in press). survival and emergence. High juvenile 1982). Water temperature above 15° C (59° F) densities were observed in Swan River, Bull trout are opportunistic feeders is believed to limit bull trout Montana, and tributaries with diverse with food habits primarily a function of distribution, which may partially cobble substrate and low percentage of size and life-history strategy. Resident explain the patchy distribution within a fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984). and juvenile migratory bull trout prey watershed (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Juvenile bull trout in four streams in on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro- Rieman and McIntyre 1995). Spawning central Washington occupied slow- zooplankton and small fish (Boag 1987; areas are often associated with cold- moving water less than 0.5 m/sec (1.6 ft/ Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger 1993). water springs, groundwater infiltration, sec) over a variety of sand to boulder Adult migratory bull trout are primarily and the coldest streams in a given size substrates (Sexauer and James piscivorous, known to feed on various watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and 1997). fish species (Fraley and Shepard 1989; McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. in press). The size and age of bull trout at Donald and Alger 1993). For example, the only stream with maturity depends upon life-history Bull trout evolved with, and, in some substantial bull trout spawning in the strategy. Growth of resident fish is areas, co-occur with native cutthroat upper Blackfoot River in Montana was generally slower than migratory fish; trout (Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.), Copper Creek, which had maximum resident fish tend to be smaller at resident (redband) and migratory water temperatures less than 15° C (59° maturity and less fecund (Fraley and rainbow trout (O. mykiss), chinook F) (Hillman and Chapman 1996). Goetz Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Bull trout salmon (O. tshawytscha), sockeye (1989) suggested optimum water normally reach sexual maturity in 4 to salmon (O. nerka), mountain whitefish temperatures for rearing of about 7 to 8° 7 years and live as long as 12 years. (Prosopium williamsoni), various C (44 to 46° F) and optimum water Repeat and alternate year spawning has sculpin (Cottus spp.), sucker temperatures for egg incubation of 2 to been reported, although repeat (Catastomidae) and minnow species 4° C (35 to 39° F). In Granite Creek, spawning frequency and post-spawning (Cyprinidae spp.) (Mauser et al. 1988; Idaho, Bonneau and Scarnecchia (1996) mortality are not well known (Leathe Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout observed that juvenile bull trout and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard habitat overlaps with the range of selected the coldest water available in a 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre several fishes listed as threatened, plunge pool, 8 to 9° C (46 to 48° F) 1996). endangered, proposed, and petitioned within a temperature gradient of 8 to 15° Bull trout typically spawn from for listing under the Act, including the C (46 to 60° F). August to November during periods of endangered Snake River sockeye salmon All life history stages of bull trout are decreasing water temperatures. (November 20, 1991; 56 FR 58619); associated with complex forms of cover, However, migratory bull trout threatened Snake River spring and fall including large woody debris, undercut frequently begin spawning migrations as chinook salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR banks, boulders, and pools (Oliver 1979; early as April, and have been known to 14653); endangered Kootenai River Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; move upstream as far as 250 kilometers white sturgeon (Acipenser Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell and (km) (155 miles (mi)) to spawning transmontanus) (September 6, 1994, 59 Everest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992; grounds (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In FR 45989); threatened and endangered Rich 1996; Sexauer and James 1997; the Blackfoot River, Montana, bull trout steelhead (August 18, 1997, 62 FR Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober began migrations to spawning areas in 43937); and westslope cutthroat trout (1995) observed bull trout overwintering response to increasing temperatures (O. c. lewisi) (petitioned for listing in in deep beaver ponds or pools (Swanberg 1996). Temperatures during July 1997). Widespread introductions of containing large woody debris in the spawning generally range from 4 to 10° non-native fishes, including brook trout Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31649

(S. fontinalis), lake trout (S. namaycush) headwaters of tributaries (Rieman et al. Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and (west of the Continental Divide), and in press). Service policy regarding the recognition brown trout (Salmo trutta), have also Though wide-ranging in parts of of distinct vertebrate populations occurred across the range of bull trout. Oregon, Washington, Idaho and published February 7, 1996 (61 FR These non-native fish have caused local Montana, bull trout in the interior 4722), was the basis for this bull trout declines and extirpations Columbia River basin presently occur in reexamination. Three elements are (Bond 1992; Ziller 1992; Donald and only about 44 to 45 percent of the considered in the decision on whether Alger 1993; Leary et al. 1993; Montana historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide a population segment could be treated Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1997; Rieman et al. in press). Declining as threatened or endangered under the 1996h). trends and associated habitat loss and Act—discreteness, significance, and Bull trout habitat in the coterminous fragmentation have been documented conservation status in relation to the United States is composed of a complex rangewide (Bond 1992; Schill 1992; standards for listing. Discreteness refers mosaic of land ownership, including Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and to the isolation of a population from McIntyre 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; Federal lands administered by the U.S. other members of the species and is Idaho Department of Fish and Game Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Bureau of based on two criteria—(1) marked (IDFG), in litt. 1995; McPhail and Baxter Land Management (BLM), U.S. National separation from other populations of the 1996). Several local extirpations have Park Service (NPS), and Department of same taxon resulting from physical, Defense (DOD); numerous Indian tribal been reported, beginning in the 1950s (Rode 1990; Ratliff and Howell 1992; physiological, ecological, or behavioral lands; State land in Montana, Idaho, factors, including genetic discontinuity; Oregon, Washington and Nevada; and Donald and Alger 1993; Goetz 1994; Newton and Pribyl 1994; Berg and Priest and (2) populations delimited by private lands. It is estimated that as international boundaries. Significance is much as half of present bull trout 1995; Light et al. 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997; Washington Department of Fish determined either by the importance or habitat is bordered by non-Federal contribution, or both, of a discrete lands. and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997). For example, bull trout were apparently population to the species throughout its Migratory corridors link seasonal extirpated around 1975 from the range. Four criteria were used to habitats for all bull trout life-history McCloud River, California, the determine significance—(1) persistence forms. For example, in Montana, southernmost range (Moyle 1976; Rode of the discrete population segment in an migratory bull trout make extensive 1990). ecological setting unusual or unique for migrations in the Flathead River system the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the (Fraley and Shepard 1989) and resident Distinct Population Segments discrete population segment would bull trout move to overwinter in The Service’s June 13, 1997, proposal result in a significant gap in the range downstream pools in tributaries of the to list the Klamath River and the of the taxon; (3) evidence that the Bitterroot River (Jakober 1995). The Columbia River population segments of discrete population segment represents ability to migrate is important to the bull trout (62 FR 32268) was based on the only surviving natural occurrence of persistence of local bull trout the 1994 administrative record, as the taxon that may be more abundant subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre required by the court. The Service’s elsewhere as an introduced population 1993; M. Gilpin, University of original June 10, 1994 (59 FR 30254), outside its historic range; and (4) California, in litt. 1997; Rieman et al. in 12-month petition finding found that evidence that the discrete population press). Migrations facilitate gene flow listing the bull trout was warranted but segment differs markedly from other among local subpopulations because precluded throughout the coterminous populations of the taxon in its genetic individuals from different United States. As explained in the characteristics. If a population segment subpopulations interbreed when some proposed rule, the approach to break the is discrete and significant, its evaluation stray and return to non-natal streams. range of bull trout into distinct for endangered or threatened status is Subpopulations that are extirpated by population segments in the reanalysis of based on the Act’s standards. catastrophic events may also become the 1994 petition finding was reestablished in this manner. undertaken because the fish occurs in Based on the best available Metapopulation concepts of widespread, but fragmented habitats information, numerous bull trout conservation biology theory are and has several life-history patterns. In subpopulations are isolated from each applicable to the distribution and addition, the threats to bull trout are other by either unsuitable habitat or characteristics of bull trout (Rieman and diverse, and the quality and quantity of impassible dams and diversions, or McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an information regarding the population both. Although many subpopulations interacting network of local status and trends varies greatly could be considered discrete, few meet subpopulations with varying throughout the range. By examining bull the ‘‘significance’’ criteria. For example, frequencies of migration and gene flow trout distinct population segments, the although some genetic differences were among them (Meefe and Carroll 1994). Service was better able to evaluate identified among subpopulations of bull Local subpopulations may become proposed listing of those segments, trout in specific watersheds of the extinct, but can be reestablished by based on the 1994 administrative Columbia River basin, the individuals from other subpopulations. record, that were a priority in need of subpopulations did not differ markedly Metapopulations provide a mechanism Federal protection. Future listing and they inhabit similar habitats. The for spreading risk because the actions could, thereby, be based on best best available current information simultaneous loss of all subpopulations available rather than outdated scientific supports designating five DPSs in the is unlikely. Habitat alteration, primarily information. coterminous United States—(1) Klamath through the construction of In the process of making this final River, (2) Columbia River, (3) Coastal- impoundments, dams, and water listing determination, the Service Puget Sound, (4) Jarbidge River, and (5) diversions that create unsuitable reexamined the appropriateness of St. Mary-Belly River. For purpose of this conditions, has fragmented habitats, applying the bull trout distinct final determination only the Klamath eliminated migratory corridors, and population segments (DPSs) for the River and Columbia River DPSs will be isolated bull trout often in the purposes of listing. The joint National addressed. The three remaining DPSs 31650 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations are the subject of a proposed rule in genetic characteristics from bull trout flood affecting the spawning area could published concurrently. in the Columbia River basin. eliminate the subpopulation, and reestablishment from fish downstream Although the range of bull trout Columbia River extends into Canada and Alaska, would be prevented by the impassable subpopulations outside the coterminous The Columbia River DPS occurs waterfall. However, a subpopulation United States are not being considered throughout the entire Columbia River residing downstream of the waterfall in this rulemaking. In accordance with basin within the United States and its would not be considered at risk of the distinct vertebrate population tributaries, excluding bull trout found in extirpation from naturally occurring policy, the Service may determine a the Jarbidge River, Nevada. Although events because there would be population to be discrete at an Williams et al. (1995) identified two establishment potential by fish from the international border where there are distinct clades in the Columbia River subpopulation upstream. Because significant differences in the control of basin (upper and lower Columbia River) resident bull trout may exhibit limited exploitation, management of habitat, based on genetic diversity patterns, a downstream movement (Nelson 1996), conservation status, or regulatory discrete geographical boundary between the Service’s determination of mechanisms. Bull trout management the two clades was not documented. subpopulations at risk of extirpation and conservation strategy in Canada The Columbia River DPS is significant from naturally occurring events may differs from the United States and such because the overall range of the species overestimate the number of activities are beyond the regulatory would be substantially reduced if this subpopulations that are likely to be discrete population were lost. scope of the Act. The best available reestablished. information also disclosed uncertainty Status and Distribution The status of subpopulations was based on modified criteria of Rieman et regarding the status of bull trout in The Service evaluated the status and Canada. Throughout British Columbia al. (in press), including the abundance, distribution of bull trout for each trends in abundance, and the presence and Alberta, data on bull trout status, subpopulation in the Klamath River and distribution, and the presence of of life-history forms of bull trout. The Columbia River population segments. Service considered a subpopulation ongoing threats is incomplete and The complete review of this evaluation covers only a portion of the species’ ‘‘strong’’ if 5,000 individuals or 500 is found in a status summary compiled spawners likely occur in the range within the provinces. The status by the Service (Service status summary of bull trout in Alaska is unknown. subpopulation, abundance appears 1998). A synopsis of the summary is stable or increasing, and life-history Within the coterminous United States, presented in this rule. forms were likely to persist; and bull trout distribution is highly To facilitate evaluation of current bull ‘‘depressed’’ if less than 5,000 fragmented and many subpopulations trout distribution and abundance for individuals or 500 spawners likely are geographically isolated. The best both the Klamath River and Columbia occur in the subpopulation, abundance available information indicates that bull River population segments, the Service appears to be declining, or a life-history trout in the coterminous United States, analyzed data on bull trout relative to form historically present has been lost. although still wide-ranging, have subpopulations because fragmentation If there was insufficient abundance, suffered a significant reduction in range. and barriers have isolated bull trout trend, and life-history information to In addition, bull trout are faced with throughout their current range. A classify the status of a subpopulation as varying degrees of ongoing threats. The subpopulation is considered a either ‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘depressed,’’ the Service now determines that listing bull reproductively isolated group of bull status was considered ‘‘unknown.’’ trout distinct population segments only trout that spawns within a particular Based on abundance, trends in within the coterminous United States is area of a river system. In areas where abundance, and the presence of life- warranted at this time. two groups of bull trout are separated by history forms, bull trout were a barrier (e.g., an impassable dam or Klamath River considered strong (i.e., 5,000 waterfall, or reaches of unsuitable individuals or 500 spawners likely The Klamath River originates in south habitat) that allows only individuals occur in the subwatershed or larger area, central Oregon near Crater Lake upstream access to those downstream abundance is stable or increasing with National Park, and flows southwest into (i.e., one-way passage), both groups at a minimum of half of historic northern California where it meets the were considered subpopulations. In abundance, and the presence of all life- Trinity River and empties into the addition, subpopulations were history forms historically present) in 13 Pacific Ocean. Bull trout in this considered at risk of extirpation from percent of the occupied range in the drainage are discrete because of naturally occurring events if they interior Columbia River basin (Quigley physical isolation from other bull trout were—(1) unlikely to be reestablished and Arbelbide 1997). Using various by the Pacific Ocean and several small by individuals from another estimates of bull trout range, Rieman et mountain ranges in central Oregon. subpopulation (i.e., functionally or al. (in press) estimated that bull trout Leary et. al. (1991) determined genetic geographically isolated from other were strong in 6 to 24 percent of the characteristics of bull trout in the subpopulations); (2) limited to a single subwatersheds in the Columbia River Klamath River and Columbia River spawning area (i.e., spatially restricted); basin. Bull trout declines have been drainages using protein electrophoresis. and either (3) characterized by low attributed to the effects of land and They concluded that these two groups individual or spawner numbers; or (4) water management activities, including of fish were reproductively isolated and primarily of a single life-history form. forest management and road building, evolutionarily distinct. In addition, For example, a subpopulation of mining, agricultural practices, and Williams et al. (1995) separated bull resident fish isolated upstream of an livestock grazing (Furniss et al. 1991; trout in the Klamath and Columbia impassable waterfall would be Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Craig Rivers into different clades (i.e., groups considered at risk of extirpation from and Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; derived from different lineages) based naturally occurring events if the McIntosh et al. 1994; Platts et al. 1995). on genetic diversity patterns. As a subpopulation had low numbers of fish Isolation and habitat fragmentation from result, the Klamath River DPS is that spawn in a restricted area. In such dams and agricultural diversions (Rode significant because it differs markedly cases, a natural event such as a fire or 1990; Mongillo 1993; Jakober 1995), Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31651 fisheries management practices, caused by naturally occurring events River is unknown. In addition, the nine poaching and the introduction of non- due to their isolation, single life-history major tributaries have numerous native species (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; form and spawning area, and low facilities, many of which do not provide Howell and Buchanan 1992; WDFW abundance (Service status summary upstream passage. 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary et 1997). Migratory bull trout are present with al 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Rieman Columbia River Population Segment resident fish or exclusively in at least 13 and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996h; of the 20 subpopulations in the lower Palmisano and Kaczynski, Northwest The Columbia River DPS includes Columbia River. Many migratory fish Forest Resources Council (NFRC), in litt. bull trout residing in portions of are adfluvial and inhabit reservoirs 1997) also threaten bull trout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and created by dams. However, this area populations. Montana. Bull trout are estimated to includes the only extant adfluvial have occupied about 60% of the Klamath River Population Segment subpopulation in Oregon, which exists Columbia River Basin, and presently in Odell Lake in the Deschutes River Historical records suggest that bull occur in 45% of the estimated historical basin (Ratliff and Howell 1992; trout were once widely distributed and range (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Buchanan et al. 1997). The Metolius exhibited diverse life-history traits in The Columbia River population segment River-Lake Billy Chinook subpopulation the Klamath River basin (Gilbert and is composed of 141 subpopulations. For is also found in the Deschutes River Evermann 1894; Dambacher et al. 1992; discussion and analysis, the Service basin. It is the only subpopulation Ziller 1992; Oregon Chapter of the considered four geographic areas of the considered ‘‘strong’’ and exhibits an American Fisheries Society (OCAFS) Columbia River basin—(1) lower increasing trend in abundance. The 1993). The earliest records of bull trout Columbia River (downstream of the Service considers 5 of the 20 in the basin are from Fort Creek Snake River confluence), (2) mid- subpopulations at risk of extirpation (formerly Linn Creek), a tributary to the Columbia River (Snake River confluence caused by naturally occurring events Wood River (L. Dunsmoor and C. Bienz, to Chief Joseph Dam), (3) upper exacerbated by isolation, single life- Klamath Tribe, in litt. 1997). Records Columbia River (upstream from Chief history form and spawning area, and from the late 1800s suggest that Joseph Dam), and (4) Snake River and low abundance. migratory fish (adfluvial) inhabited its tributaries (including the Lost River Klamath Lake (OCAFS 1993). Other drainage). Mid-Columbia River Geographical Area migratory bull trout (i.e., fluvial) were Lower Columbia River Geographical evidently present in some of the larger The mid-Columbia River area Area streams in the basin as recently as the includes watersheds of four major early 1970s (Ziller 1992). Bull trout are The lower Columbia River area tributaries of the Columbia River in thought to have been extirpated from includes all tributaries in Oregon and Washington, between the confluence of the Sycan River, the South Fork of the Washington downstream of the Snake the Snake River and Chief Joseph Dam. Sycan River, and four streams in the River confluence near the town of The Service identified 16 bull trout Klamath River basin (Cherry, Pasco, Washington. The Service subpopulations in the four watersheds Sevenmile, Coyote, and Callahan creeks) identified 20 subpopulations in (number of subpopulations in each since the 1970s. watersheds of nine major tributaries of watershed)—Yakima River (8), Currently, bull trout in the Klamath the lower Columbia River (number of Wenatchee River (3), Entiat River (1), River basin occur only as resident forms subpopulations in each watershed)—the and Methow River (4). Historically, bull isolated in higher elevation headwater Lewis River (2), Willamette River (3), trout occurred in larger areas of the four streams (Goetz 1989) within three White Salmon River (1), Klickitat River tributaries and Columbia River. Bull watersheds—Upper Klamath Lake, (1), Hood River (2), Deschutes River (3), trout are thought to have been Sprague River, and Sycan River (Light et John Day River (3), Umatilla River (2), extirpated in 10 streams within the al. 1996). Factors contributing to and Walla Walla River (3). The present area—Satus Creek, Nile Creek, Orr isolation include habitat degradation, distribution of bull trout in the lower Creek, Little Wenatchee River, water diversion, and habitat Columbia River basin is less than the Napecqua River, Lake Chelan, Okanogan fragmentation (OCAFS 1993; Light et al. historic range (Buchanan et al. 1997; River, Eightmile Creek, South Fork 1996). In addition, long distances Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Beaver Creek, and the Hanford Reach of separate each isolated subpopulation (ODFW) 1993). Bull trout are thought to the Columbia River. Most bull trout in (Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997). be extirpated from several tributaries in the mid-Columbia River geographic area According to Light et al. (1996), bull five river systems in Oregon—the are isolated by dams or unsuitable trout occupy approximately 38.2 km Middle Fork Willamette River, the habitat created by water diversions. (22.9 mi) of streams in the Klamath North and South Forks of the Santiam Bull trout in the mid-Columbia River River basin. More recently, Buchanan et River, the Clackamas River, the upper area are most abundant in Rimrock Lake al. (1997) indicated that bull trout Deschutes River (upstream of Bend, of the Yakima River basin and Lake occupy approximately 34.1 km (20.5 mi) Oregon) and the Crooked River Wenatchee of the Wenatchee River of streams. The risk of extinction for (tributary to the Deschutes River) basin. Both subpopulations are Klamath River bull trout over the next (Buchanan et al. 1997). considered ‘‘strong’’ and increasing or 100 years was recently estimated at 70 Hydroelectric facilities and large stable. The remaining 14 to 90 percent (K. Schroeder and H. expanses of unsuitable, fragmented subpopulations are relatively low in Weeks, OCAFS, in litt. 1997). The habitat have isolated these abundance, exhibit ‘‘depressed’’ or Service identified seven bull trout subpopulations. Large dams, such as unknown trends, and primarily have a subpopulations in three watersheds McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and single life-history form. The Service (number of subpopulations in each Bonneville, separate four reaches of the considers 10 of the 16 subpopulations at watershed)—Upper Klamath Lake (2), lower Columbia River. Although fish risk of extirpation because of naturally Sycan River (1), and Sprague River (4). may pass each facility in both upstream occurring events due to isolation, single The Service considers six of the and downstream directions, the extent life-history form and spawning area, and subpopulations at risk of extirpation to which bull trout use the Columbia low abundance. 31652 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Upper Columbia River Geographic Area (3), Asotin Creek (2), Grande Ronde some strongholds still exist, bull trout, The upper Columbia River geographic River (1), Imnaha River (4), and Salmon generally, occur as isolated area includes the mainstem Columbia River (2). Upstream of Hells Canyon subpopulations in headwater lakes or River and all tributaries upstream of Dam, major tributaries that support bull tributaries where migratory fish have Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, Idaho, trout include—Pine Creek (4), Powder been lost. River (3), Malheur River (2), Payette and Montana. Bull trout are found in Previous Federal Action two large basins, the Kootenai River and River (4), Weiser River (2), and Boise River (2). Although bull trout On September 18, 1985, the Service Pend Oreille River, which include the published an animal notice of review in Clark Fork River. Historically, bull trout distribution upstream of Hells Canyon Dam is limited primarily to the basin the Federal Register (50 FR 37958) were found in larger portions of the downstream of Shoshone Falls in designating the bull trout a category 2 area. Numerous dams and degraded southern Idaho, three geographically candidate for listing in the coterminous habitat have fragmented bull trout isolated bull trout subpopulations occur United States. Category 2 taxa were habitat and isolated fish into 71 upstream of Shoshone Falls in the Little those for which conclusive data on subpopulations in 9 major river basins Lost River drainage. Bull trout biological vulnerability and threats were (number of subpopulations in each subpopulations upstream of Hells not currently available to support basin)—Spokane River (1), Pend Oreille Canyon Dam are generally low in proposed rules. The Service published River (3), Kootenai River (5), Flathead abundance, fragmented, and isolated. updated notices of review for animals River (24), South Fork Flathead River The current distribution of bull trout in on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and (3), Swan River (3), Clark Fork River (4), the Snake River basin is less than November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), Bitterroot River (27), and Blackfoot historically (Ratliff and Howell 1992; reconfirming the bull trout category 2 River (1). Bull trout are thought to be Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997; Quigley status. The Service elevated bull trout in extirpated in 64 streams and lakes of and Arbelbide 1997), with recent the coterminous United States to various sizes—Nespelam, Sanpoil, and extirpations documented in Eagle Creek category 1 for Federal listing on Kettle rivers; Barnaby, Hall, Stranger, (Powder River basin) and Wallowa Lake November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). and Wilmont creeks; 8 tributaries to (Grande Ronde River basin) (Ratliff and Category 1 taxa were those for which the Lake Pend Oreille; 5 tributaries to Pend Howell 1992; Batt 1996; Buchanan et al. Service had on file substantial Oreille River below Albeni Falls Dam; 1997); and possibly in South Fork information on biological vulnerability Lower Stillwater Lake; Arrow Lake Asotin Creek (WDFW 1997). Numerous and threats to support preparation of (Montana); upper Clark Fork River, 12 impassable dams and large expanses of listing proposals. Upon publication of streams in the Coeur d’Alene River unsuitable habitat have isolated the February 28, 1996, notice of review basin; and approximately 25 streams in subpopulations within the historic (61 FR 7596), the Service ceased using the St. Joe River basin (e.g., IDFG, in litt. range. Isolation is most prominent category designations and included the 1995). upstream of Hells Canyon Dam bull trout as a candidate species. The upper Columbia River area (southwest Idaho and southeast Candidate species are those which the contains ‘‘strongholds’’ for bull trout. Oregon). The basin downstream of Hells Service has on file sufficient Bull trout are considered ‘‘strong’’ in Canyon Dam is relatively intact, and information on biological vulnerability Hungry Horse Reservoir and Swan Lake. connectivity among bull trout and threats to support proposals to list Trends in abundance are stable in subpopulations may still occur. the species as threatened or endangered. Hungry Horse Reservoir, and increasing Bull trout occupy large areas of On October 30, 1992, the Service in Swan Lake. Although high numbers contiguous habitat in the Snake River received a petition to list the bull trout of bull trout are found in Lake Pend basin downstream of Hell’s Canyon as an endangered species throughout its Oreille and the upper Kootenai River, Dam, such as in the Clearwater River range from the following conservation trends in abundance are either negative and Salmon River basins. High numbers organizations in Montana—Alliance for or unknown. The high number of of bull trout have been observed in the the Wild Rockies, Inc., Friends of the subpopulations (27) in the Bitterroot Tucannon River, Imnaha River, Wild Swan, and Swan View Coalition River basin, Montana, indicates a high Clearwater River, Salmon River, and (petitioners). The petitioners also degree of habitat fragmentation where Malheur River subpopulations, requested an emergency listing and numerous groups of resident bull trout however, trends in abundance are concurrent critical habitat designation are restricted primarily to headwaters. largely unknown or declining. The for bull trout populations in select The Service considers 47 of the 71 Service considers 9 of the 34 aquatic ecosystems where the biological subpopulations at risk of extirpation subpopulations at risk of extirpation information indicated that the species because of naturally occurring events because of naturally occurring events was in imminent threat of extinction. A due to isolation, single life-history form due to isolation, single life-history form 90-day finding, published on May 17, and spawning area, and low abundance. and spawning area, and low abundance. 1993 (58 FR 28849), determined that the In summary, the Columbia River petitioners had provided substantial Snake River Geographical Area population segment of bull trout has information indicating that listing of the Bull trout occupy portions of 14 major declined in overall range and numbers species may be warranted. The Service tributaries in the Snake River basin of of fish. Though still widespread, there initiated a rangewide status review of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The have been numerous local extirpations the species concurrent with publication Service identified 34 bull trout reported throughout the Columbia River of the 90-day finding. subpopulations in the Snake River basin. In Idaho, for example, bull trout On June 6, 1994, the Service basin. The area consists of two primary have been extirpated from 119 reaches concluded in the original finding that portions separated by Hells Canyon in 28 streams (IDFG in litt. 1995) . The listing of bull trout throughout its range Dam. Downstream of Hells Canyon population segment is composed of 141 was not warranted due to unavailable or Dam, major tributaries that support bull subpopulations indicating habitat insufficient data regarding threats to, trout include (number of fragmentation, isolation, and barriers and status and population trends of, the subpopulations in each tributary)— that limit bull trout distribution and species within Canada and Alaska. Tucannon River (2), Clearwater River migration within the basin. Although However, the Service determined that Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31653 sufficient information on the biological agreed to issue a proposed rule in 60 and notice of public hearings were sent vulnerability and threats to the species days to list the Klamath River to at least 370 individuals, including was available to support a warranted population of bull trout as endangered Federal, State, county and city elected finding to list bull trout within the and the Columbia River population of officials, State and Federal agencies, coterminous United States. Because the bull trout as threatened based solely on interested private citizens and local area Service concluded that the threats were the 1994 record. newspapers and radio stations. imminent and moderate to this Based upon the Court agreement and Announcements of the proposed rule population segment, the Service gave stipulation, and information contained were also published in nine the bull trout within the coterminous solely in the 1994 record, the Service newspapers—the Oregonian, Portland, United States a listing priority number proposed the Klamath River population Oregon; the Spokesman Review, of 9. As a result, the Service found that of bull trout as endangered and Spokane, Washington; the Yakima listing a distinct vertebrate population Columbia River population of bull trout Herald, Yakima, Washington; the segment of bull trout residing in the as threatened on June 13, 1997 (62 FR Missoulian, Missoula, Montana; the coterminous United States was 32268). The proposal included a 60-day Kalispell Interlake, Kalispell, Montana; warranted but precluded due to higher comment period and gave notice of five the Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho; the priority listing actions. public hearings in Portland, Oregon; Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho; the On November 1, 1994, Friends of the Spokane, Washington; Missoula, Post Register, Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Wild Swan, Inc. and Alliance for the Montana; Klamath Falls, Oregon; and the Herald and News, Klamath Falls, Wild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suit Boise, Idaho. The comment period on Oregon. Public hearings were held on in the U.S. District Court of Oregon the proposal, which originally closed on July 1, 1997, in Portland, Oregon; July (Court) arguing that the warranted but August 12, 1997, was extended to 8, 1997, in Spokane, Washington; July precluded finding was arbitrary and October 17, 1997 (62 FR 42092), to 10, 1997, in Missoula, Montana; July 15, capricious. After the Service issued a provide the public with more time to 1997, in Klamath Falls, Oregon; and July ‘‘recycled’’ 12-month finding for the compile information and submit 17, 1997, in Boise, Idaho. In response to coterminous population of bull trout on comments. numerous requests for additional time June 12, 1995, the Court issued an order On December 4, 1997, the Court to complete compilation of information declaring the plaintiffs’ challenge to the ordered the Service to reconsider and meaningfully participate in the original finding moot. The plaintiffs several aspects of the 1997 reconsidered public comment process, the Service declined to amend their complaint and finding. On February 2, 1998, the Court published a notice on August 5, 1997 appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of gave the Service until June 12, 1998, to (62 FR 42092), extending the comment Appeals, which found that the respond. The final listing determination period to October 17, 1997. plaintiffs’ challenge fell ‘‘within the for the Klamath River and Columbia Eighty-four oral and 278 written exception to the mootness doctrine for River population segments of bull trout (including electronic mail) comments claims that are capable of repetition yet and the concurrent proposed listing rule were received on the proposed rule. evading review.’’ On April 2, 1996, the for the Coastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge These included comments from 7 circuit court remanded the case back to River, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSs Federal agencies, 9 State agencies, 6 the district court. On November 13, constitute the Service’s response. counties in Oregon and Idaho, 2 Native 1996, the Court issued an order and The Service published Listing Priority American tribes, 6 private timber opinion remanding the original finding Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and companies, and 20 industry or trade to the Service for further consideration. 1999 on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The associations and bureaus. Comments Included in the instructions from the guidance clarifies the order in which the were also received from the Idaho Court were requirements that the Service will process rulemakings giving Congressional delegation, and Service limit its review to the 1994 highest priority (Tier 1) to processing Governors from the states of Montana, administrative record, and incorporate emergency rules to add species to the Idaho and Oregon. any emergency listings or high Lists of Endangered and Threatened The Service did not specifically magnitude threat determinations into Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second solicit formal scientific peer review of current listing priorities. In addition, priority (Tier 2) to processing final the proposal as outlined in the Service’s reliance on other Federal agency plans determinations on proposals to add July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative and actions was precluded. The species to the Lists, processing new Policy (59 FR 34270) because the reconsidered 12-month finding based on proposals to add species to the Lists, proposal was based on the 1994 the 1994 Administrative Record was processing administrative findings on administrative record and not the best delivered to the Court on March 13, petitions (to add species to the Lists, available scientific information. 1997. delist species, or reclassify listed However, in the process of making this On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs filed species), and processing a limited final listing determination, a number of a motion for mandatory injunction to number of proposed or final rules to professional fishery biologists were compel the Service to issue a proposed delist or reclassify species; and third consulted and their comments and rule to list the Klamath River and priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed information were either incorporated Columbia River bull trout populations or final rules designating critical habitat. into the listing decision as appropriate within 30 days based solely on the 1994 Processing of this proposed rule is a or are addressed below. Administrative Record. In response to Tier 2 action. The Service considered all comments, this motion, the Service ‘‘concluded that including oral testimony at the five the law of this case requires the Summary of Comments and public hearings. A majority of publication of a proposed rule’’ to list Recommendations comments supported the listing the two warranted populations. On In the June 13, 1997, proposed rule proposal and 65 comments were in April 4, 1997, the Service requested 60 (62 FR 32268), all interested parties opposition. Opposition was based on days to prepare and review the were requested to submit comments or several concerns, including conflicts proposed rule. In a stipulation between information that might contribute to the between ongoing State conservation the Service and plaintiffs filed with the final listing determination for bull trout. efforts and Federal listing; possible Court on April 11, 1997, the Service Announcements of the proposed rule economic impacts from listing the bull 31654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations trout; lack of solutions to the bull trout the subject of this final rule and the however, the Service has reviewed and decline that would result from listing; remaining three population segments considered new information regarding and because the proposed rule was not are addressed in an accompanying distribution and life history for the peer-reviewed or based on the most proposed rule. Klamath River and Columbia River current information. Seventy-three In addressing the appropriateness in population segments of bull trout. This respondents provided new scientific designating additional DPSs within the includes, but is not limited to, new bull information considered by the Service Columbia River basin, the Service trout status, distribution, and threats for this determination. The states of reviewed new genetic and other information, and also descriptions of Idaho and Montana submitted biological data developed since 1994, ongoing conservation actions, contained conservation plans for bull trout for and determined that there is insufficient in reports and other written consideration by the Service in lieu of information available to further divide correspondence available since 1994 listing. The USFS (R. Joslin, USFS, in this DPS. Although many bull trout concerning bull trout in Idaho (Adams litt. 1997), BLM (A. Thomas, BLM, in groups in the Columbia River basin and Bjornn 1997; Batt 1996; Bonneau litt. 1997) and U.S. Bureau of were discrete according to the DPS and Scarnecchia 1996; Corley 1997; Elle Reclamation (USBR) (M. McClendon, policy, they failed to meet criteria for 1995; Espinoza et al. 1997; N. Horner, USBR, in litt. 1997) provided the significance (e.g. bull trout in the Little IDFG, in litt. 1997); Montana (Berg and Service with information on respective Lost River basin in Idaho and portions Priest 1995; Hillman and Chapman agency efforts to date to assess, evaluate, of the upper Columbia River basin). 1996; Hansen and DosSantos 1997; monitor, and conserve bull trout However, during the recovery process, Kanda et al. 1997; Long 1995, 1997; populations in habitats affected by each further division of the Columbia River Mathieus 1996; McDowell et al 1997; agency’s management. Because multiple DPS into recovery units or zones MBTSG 1995a–e; MBTSG 1996a–h; Rich respondents offered similar comments including separation of the bull trout in 1996; Swanberg 1996; Swanberg and in some cases, comments of a similar the Kootenai River, Clark Fork-Pend Burns 1997); Oregon (Buchanan et al. nature or point are grouped. These Oreille River, Little Lost River, 17 1997; Buchanan and Gregory 1997; comments and the Service’s response potential genetic conservation groups Capruso 1997; Crabtree 1996; Germond are discussed below— (GCGs) in the State of Washington, and et al. 1996a, b; Ratliff et al. 1996; Spruell Issue 1: Several respondents urged the 8 additional GCGs in Oregon can be and Allendorf 1997); Washington (Faler Service to list bull trout throughout its considered. For wide-ranging species, and Bair 1996; Northrop 1997; Raekes entire range. Two respondents designation of recovery units can focus 1996; Sexauer and James 1997; WDFW recommended that the Service include recovery objectives on the specific 1997); the Klamath River basin the Jarbidge River bull trout population threats, status and habitat requirements (Buktenica 1997; Buktenica and Larson as a threatened species. Another within the defined geographic area. 1997; Light et al. 1996; ODFW 1996) and respondent stated that the proposal to Although recovery units cannot be bull trout in the Columbia River basin list the entire Columbia River bull trout individually delisted without (Platts et al. 1995; Quigley and population was too broad and suggested consideration of the entire listed entity Arbelbide 1997; Rieman et al in press; that the area be analyzed for listing (species or DPS), the Service can Rieman and McIntyre 1995, 1996; purposes by major river segments. develop ‘‘special rules’’ (under section Watson and Hillman 1997; Williams et Conversely, another respondent 4(d) of the Act) for individual recovery # al 1995; R. Joslin, in litt, 1997; J. Kraft, requested that the Service designate bull units (see issue 6 below for more Plum Creek, in litt. 1997; M. trout in the Clark Fork and Kootenai information on special rules). McClendon, in litt, 1997; Palmisano and River basins as distinct population Issue 2: Several respondents stated Kacynski, in litt, 1997; Thomas, in litt, segments, citing geographic and historic that because the proposed rule was 1997). isolation, and biological significance to based on information gathered prior to the species as a whole as reasons. June 1994, listing should be deferred Based on the best information Additionally, several other commenters until new information is analyzed and currently available, bull trout in the suggested that smaller, more updated. Comments that ‘‘* * * quality Klamath River and Columbia River manageable distinct population of peer reviewed scientific data is population segments are not more segments be established to avoid listing noticeably lacking’’ were also received. widespread or found in other areas of healthy populations so that Some respondents questioned why the the Klamath or Columbia River basins conservation efforts can be applied to bull trout is now being considered for than shown in the 1994 administrative areas where restoration is truly needed. listing when the Service’s analysis in record. Bull trout occur over a large Other commenters, at the Federal, State the proposed rule concluded that bull geographic area in four states within the and local level suggested other trout had a widespread range and Columbia River drainage. However, bull delineations for the distinct population threats to the fish were only moderate. trout display a generally patchy segments, and questioned whether Respondents also stated that distribution (Rieman and McIntyre listing would afford protection of bull conclusions in the proposed rule 1993). The best available information trout only in currently occupied habitat. regarding population distribution and indicates that bull trout are in Service response: Based on the best population trends were inaccurate. widespread decline across the historic available scientific and commercial Service response: The U.S. District range and restricted to numerous information, and consistent with the Court of Oregon ordered the Service on reproductively isolated subpopulations distinct vertebrate population policy (61 November 13, 1996, to reconsider the in the Columbia River basin with many FR 4722, February 7, 1997), the Service original 1994 bull trout finding based recent local extirpations. The largest has determined that bull trout should be only information available to the agency contiguous areas supporting bull trout divided into five distinct vertebrate when it made the original 1994 finding. are ‘‘strongholds’’ in central Idaho and populations for listing purposes, but Therefore, the Service was mandated to Montana, such as the upper Flathead only in the coterminous United States move ahead with a listing proposal River basin. Many remaining bull trout (see Distinct Population Segment based on the information contained in subpopulations are characterized by section). The Klamath River and the the 1994 administrative record. In declining trends, low relative Columbia River population segments are making this final listing determination, subpopulation size, loss of migratory Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31655 fish or the presence of a single life- undertaken by States (for instance, the a few local areas. The Service is history form, and isolated from other Klamath River Basin Bull Trout encouraged by State of Montana’s bull trout by large geographic Working Group has been implementing progress in implementing the Montana separation(s). Habitat loss, conservation activities and planning plan and developing appropriate fragmentation and other changes that efforts since 1993), and harvest strategies to remove threats and promote have isolated and continue to impact regulations for bull trout have become conservation and recovery of bull trout. bull trout subpopulations also increase more restricted. However, based on the The Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe their susceptibility to naturally best available information, the Service Salmon Recovery Plan (Wallowa County occurring processes (both cannot determine or predict the and Nez Perce Tribe, in litt. 1997) in demographically and environmentally). effectiveness of the conservation actions Oregon is intended to primarily aid in Many remaining subpopulations in both in reducing threats to the bull trout in the recovery of listed chinook salmon the Klamath River and Columbia River the Klamath River and Columbia River and steelhead. Twenty-six stream population segments are at risk of population segments to the extent that segments in the County have been extirpation from the combined effects of listing is unnecessary. identified for restoration, with two to habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of The Idaho Bull Trout Conservation five stream segments scheduled to be migration corridors, and inability to Plan (Plan) (Batt 1996), approved in July addressed each year over the next 15 reestablish extirpated subpopulations 1996, addresses bull trout conservation years. By 2008, some positive steps through emigration, and recovery in 59 key watersheds to provide for the towards improved land and water actions are required to slow the rate of conservation and recovery of bull trout management in Wallowa County should habitat loss and continued reductions in statewide. The Plan emphasizes locally occur; however, the limited scope of the range. Existing regulations have not developed, site-specific programs with plan will not benefit bull trout outside arrested the decline of bull trout and technical assistance from appropriate the County or necessarily address newly developed State and local State and Federal agencies. Although threats on Federal lands. conservation strategies are largely not the Plan establishes a mechanism for Bull trout conservation and planning implemented. generating 59 conservation plans by the efforts in the Klamath River basin were Issue 3: Several respondents opposed year 2008, it lacks any description of initiated earlier than similar State the Federal listing or believed it not how specific practices that currently conservation efforts, and incorporated necessary, and expressed support for affect bull trout (e.g., timber harvest, all land owners of occupied bull trout various State and local conservation mining, grazing, hydropower habitat. The Klamath River Basin Bull plans developed for bull trout. Two operations) will be modified. This Trout Working Group (Working Group) respondents stated that State forest specificity would provide a basis for the functions under a Memorandum of practice rules and regulations are development of future conservation Understanding, and has been actively adequate to conserve and restore bull plans and help ensure adequate implementing portions of the Klamath trout. In addition, others recommended protection for bull trout. It must also be Basin Bull Trout Conservation Strategy that if the bull trout is eventually listed, clear how Federal agencies and private (Light et al. 1996). These proactive the Service should defer to the States for landowners in key watersheds will be interagency efforts to stabilize and management and recovery. required to institute bull trout expand bull trout in the Klamath River Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of conservation measures. Given the extent basin are unique in their early initiation the Act, requires that listing decisions of Federal lands in Idaho, and multi-entity approach. The Service be made solely on the best scientific and implementation of bull trout supports and encourages the Working commercial data available after conservation measures by the USFS and Group to continue implementing phases conducting a review of the status of the BLM are critical to the Plan. The Plan I and II of the Conservation Strategy and species. The Act also instructs the also cites hydropower and irrigation complete a formal implementation plan Service to consider ‘‘existing regulatory practices contributing to the decline of for conservation of bull trout in the mechanisms, including taking into bull trout, but the Plan needs to address Klamath River basin. account those efforts by State, local and these practices in light of the existing Bull trout have declined across much other entities to protect a species, Idaho water law, USBR water of their former range due to a variety of including conservation plans or commitments, and existing Federal factors, including effects of dam practices.’’ However, several recent Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) construction, agricultural practices, Federal court decisions have limited the licenses. The Plan provides potential introduced non-native fishes, and forest extent to which the Service may rely future benefits to bull trout conservation practices. A thorough discussion of the upon land management plans, and recovery once adequate funding and factors affecting bull trout is found in agreements and other documents that full implementation occurs. ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the are under development and promise The Montana bull trout conservation Species.’’ Existing State law addressing proposed future actions, as a basis for effort was initiated in 1994. Since 1994, forest practices is discussed under determining that listing is not warranted 11 basin-specific status reports and two Factor D in the ‘‘Summary of Factors (Southwest Center for Biological technical, peer-reviewed papers have Affecting the Species.’’ Although State Diversity v. Babbitt, 926 F. Supp. 920 been completed. Local watershed rules and regulations governing forested (D. Ariz. 1996); Biodiversity Legal groups are being established; however, land management activities are Foundation v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 23 few on-the-ground local efforts have improving, they are generally not (D. D.C. 1996). been completed or are underway. The adequate to conserve and recover bull The Service has reviewed Service is a member of the Montana Bull trout or remedy the effects of past conservation plans developed by the Trout Restoration Team which has been damage to bull trout habitats. States of Montana and Idaho, and other formed as part of the State’s Montana Issue 4: Several respondents opposed local conservation agencies for bull Bull Trout Plan. Although actions taken the proposed listing of bull trout trout. These actions are encouraging for to date under the Montana Plan have because possible ‘‘activity restrictions’’ long term bull trout conservation and provided some benefits, not all threats and economic impacts might occur. recovery. It is recognized that individual to bull trout have been addressed, partly Service response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of restoration projects have been by lack of State jurisdiction, except in the Act, requires that a listing 31656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations determination be based solely on the that is inconsistent with conservation of species to the point at which listing is best scientific and commercial bull trout, the 4(d) rule would not allow no longer appropriate under the criteria information available. The legislative the take of bull trout. provided in section 4 of the Act (50 CFR history of this provision clearly states The Service also has discretion under 402.02). Two goals of the recovery the intent of Congress to ‘‘ensure’’ that section 4(d) of the Act to issue special process are: (1) The maintenance of listing decisions are ‘‘based solely on regulations for activities other than secure, self-sustaining wild populations biological criteria and to prevent non- harvest regulations for a threatened of the species; and (2) restoration of the biological considerations from affecting species that are deemed necessary and species to the point where it is a viable, such decisions’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 97–835, advisable for its conservation. The self-sustaining component of its 97th Congress 2nd Session 19 (1982)). Service recognizes that on-going and ecosystem. Because the Service is specifically future land-use activities will occur on The Service recognizes that captive prohibited from considering economic non-Federal lands that may result in propagation and hatchery and other non-biological impacts of take of bull trout. In the future, the supplementation can be valid species listing, such impacts are not Service will consider issuing special conservation tools and assist in recovery addressed in this final rule. rules that would define the conditions efforts, but by themselves, do not Issue 5: Some respondents suggested under which take associated with State contribute to secure, self-sustaining bull that bull trout listing and recovery may permitted, or other activities deemed trout populations in the wild. For conflict with recovery of other listed necessary and advisable for the species’ example, the Service agrees with the fish, notably endangered Snake River conservation, would be authorized for findings of the Montana Bull Trout salmon species. bull trout. Special rules allow for more Scientific Group that stocking or Service response: Concerns regarding efficient management of threatened supplementation is a potential tool in the possible adverse environmental and species, and encourage and enhance the the restoration of bull trout and should non-biological effects from conservation of species through the only be used if the actual cause(s) of implementing future recovery measures development of regulations the Service local extirpations are identified and cannot be considered in a decision to deems necessary and advisable to corrected first (MBTSG 1996g). Any list a species. However, these concerns provide for conservation of the species. such project ‘‘* * * involving stocking are important in developing recovery For example, conservation actions or must be appropriate in scope, measures that take into account other activities implemented as part of judiciously applied, rigorously environmental effects on other species, the Idaho Governor’s bull trout plan, designed, and thoroughly monitored.’’ including listed Snake River salmon. Wallowa County-Nez Perce Salmon Issue 8: Several respondents stated The Service will fully evaluate the Plan, Montana Bull Trout Recovery that the introduction of exotic fishes, environmental effects and consequences Plan, and Klamath Basin Bull Trout hybridization with brook trout, and past of implementing future recovery Conservation Strategy may qualify for agency efforts to eradicate bull trout are measures for bull trout in the Columbia consideration under a special rule. The the primary causes of decline. River and Klamath River basins. It Service will consider the development Response: The Service agrees that the should be noted that bull trout co- and approval of special rules that will introduction of exotic fishes by fish evolved with Snake River salmon and lead to the conservation of bull trout, management agencies, ongoing recovery actions that benefit one species allowing certain specific land hybridization with brook trout, and past may also benefit other native fishes. management activities that may allow efforts to eradicate bull trout have Issue 6: The Service received several take of bull trout to continue or occur, contributed to the decline of the species. comments on the proposed special rule with certain restrictions. Under a The significance of these threats, that would allow for take of bull trout special rule, this take of bull trout as a however, varies by subpopulation within the Columbia River population result of these activities would not be location and habitat characteristics (See segment when it is in accordance with considered a violation of section 9 of the Factors B, C and E of the ‘‘Summary of applicable State fish and wildlife Act. Factors Affecting the Species’’ section). conservation laws and regulations. This process can provide non-Federal Issue 9: Several respondents While some respondents supported the landowners with the flexibility to requested that the Service designate proposed special rule, others were develop prescriptions or restrictions for critical habitat as part of the final opposed to the special rule in its current their lands which would achieve the rulemaking process. A representative of form. Various activities were cited that level of bull trout conservation the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, continue to threaten bull trout, consistent with the special rule. stated that ‘‘* * * the delineation of including poaching, electrofishing, and Issue 7: Several respondents stated critical habitat should be based on mis-identification of bull trout by that since hatcheries will be relied on repeatable, verifiable scientific data fisherman. for bull trout restoration efforts, habitat followed by a common sense approach Service response: Based on comments threats would not be addressed and to economics.’’ received during the public comment hatchery-reared fish could transmit and Service response. A majority of the period, the Service modified the special introduce disease to wild bull trout. comments in this regard were rule to address those concerns. The 4(d) Service response: According to standardized requests advocating special rule conditions in this final rule section 2(b) of the Act, one of the critical habitat designation with special relate to existing State and Tribal purposes of the Act is ‘‘to provide a attention on roadless areas and riparian conservation laws and harvest means whereby the ecosystems upon buffers. These comments included no regulations pertaining to bull trout at which endangered species and sight-specific analysis and provided no the time of publication of this rule. The threatened species depend may be information to aid the Service in Service has determined that, as conserved.’’ Once a species becomes delineation of critical habitat. The currently constituted, the applicable listed as threatened or endangered, proposed rule included a ‘‘not State and Tribal fishing regulations section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service determinable’’ finding for designation of provide conservation of bull trout. In to develop and implement recovery critical habitat based on the 1994 the event any of these laws and plans for that species. Recovery means administrative record and solicited regulations are modified in a manner improvement in the status of a listed comments on whether any habitat Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31657 should be determined critical bull trout rearing areas in headwaters and river in the Columbia River basin except habitat. The Service received no precluding recolonization of areas the Salmon River in Idaho. For instance, substantial new information regarding where bull trout have been extirpated six dams were constructed without fish critical habitat during the open (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). passage in the Boise River, Idaho, and comment period for the proposed rule. Existing dams can be passage and of these, Arrowrock and Anderson Therefore, based on the best scientific migratory barriers for bull trout and Ranch dams isolate bull trout information currently available, the these structures may isolate bull trout subpopulations. Historically, bull trout Service finds in this final rule that subpopulations, eliminate individuals in the Boise River likely functioned as critical habitat designation is ‘‘not from subpopulations, reduce or a single subpopulation with migratory determinable’’ (see Critical Habitat eliminate genetic exchange, and adults moving among areas that are now section). separate spawning areas from isolated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995). productive overwintering and foraging Similarly, bull trout were thought to Summary of Factors Affecting the areas (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Rieman Species have ranged throughout the Yakima and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1995a, River, Washington, prior to construction After a thorough review and 1996b,c). Dams have fragmented bull of several dams beginning in 1905 consideration of all information trout habitat and resulted in numerous (WDFW 1997). Storage dams (Tieton, available, the Service has determined isolated subpopulations. Within the Bumping Lake, Keechelus Lake, Kachess that the Klamath River and Columbia Columbia River population segment, 66 Lake, and Cle Elum Lake dams) now River distinct population segments of percent of bull trout subpopulations are isolate five of eight bull trout bull trout should be classified as isolated by dams or indirectly by dam subpopulations in the Yakima River threatened. Procedures found at Section or water diversion operations that alter basin, with agricultural diversion dams 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 habitat conditions. Individuals that pass isolating three additional bull trout CFR part 424) were followed. A species downstream over or through dams are subpopulations (WDFW 1997). may be determined to be an endangered often lost from the upstream Operation of irrigation diversion dams or threatened species due to one or more subpopulations. Dams have converted also disrupts annual migrations of of the five factors described in section historic rearing habitats for migratory fluvial bull trout in five of seven 4(a)(1). These factors and their fish in the larger river system to spawning streams in the Methow River application to the Klamath River and reservoirs with conditions that basin, Washington (WDFW 1997). In the Columbia River population segments of frequently are unsuitable for bull trout mainstem Methow River, up to 79 bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are as (MBTSG 1996b), especially where non- percent of the average flow is removed follows— native salmonids occur. from a 64 km (40 mi) reach, occasionally A. The present or threatened Although the predominant effects of destruction, modification, or stranding and killing bull trout (Mullan dams affect the long term viability of et al. 1992). Due primarily to curtailment of bull trout habitat or bull trout subpopulations (Rieman and range. Land and water management temperature constraints in partially McIntyre 1993; Gilpin, in litt. 1997), dewatered tributaries to the Methow activities that degrade and continue to dams can benefit bull trout by threaten bull trout and its habitat River, 60 percent of the total spawning preventing introduced non-native and rearing areas for bull trout has been include dams, forest management species access to upstream areas. For practices, livestock grazing, agriculture lost (Mullan et al. 1992; WDFW, in litt. example, dams on the Swan River and 1995). Also in Washington, bull trout in and agricultural diversions, roads, and South Fork Flathead River, Montana, mining (Beschta et al. 1987; the North Fork Lewis River were have prevented lake trout from moving separated into two subpopulations by Chamberlain et al. 1991; Furniss et al. into these major river systems (MBTSG 1991; Meehan 1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; the construction of Swift and Yale 1995e, 1996a). Dams may also increase reservoirs, and the Condit Dam on the Sedell and Everest 1991; Craig and the potential forage base for bull trout Wissmar 1993; Frissell 1993; U.S. White Salmon River also isolated a by creating reservoirs that support prey subpopulation (WDFW 1997). In Department of Agriculture (USDA) and species (Faler and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Oregon, bull trout were thought to have ODFW, in litt. 1993). historically occurred throughout the 1995; Henjum et al. 1994; McIntosh et The extirpation of bull trout in the al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994; Light et Willamette River basin, but are McCloud River basin, California, has presently found only in the McKenzie al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a–e, 1996a–h; been attributed primarily to USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). River basin. Dams in the basin construction and operation of McCloud (Trailbridge and Carmen) isolate bull Dams Dam, which began operation in 1965 trout into three subpopulations. (Rode 1990). McCloud Dam inundated Dams affect bull trout by changing bull trout spawning and rearing In the mainstem Clark Fork River, various biological and physical habitats, and isolated these fish from Idaho and Montana, bull trout moved processes. Dams can alter habitats; flow, habitats used by migratory adults. The and migrated freely from Lake Pend sediment, and temperature regimes; dam also altered the stream flow regime Oreille upstream to the headwaters of migration corridors; and interspecific and elevated water temperature to levels the Clark Fork and Flathead rivers prior interactions, especially between bull detrimental to bull trout. to construction of five dams (Pratt and trout and introduced species (Rode Huston 1993; MBTSG 1996b; Frissell 1990; Washington Department of Klamath River Population Segment 1997). The construction of Albeni Falls, Wildlife (WDW) 1992; Craig and Dams are not known to affect bull Cabinet Gorge, Noxon Rapids, Wissmar 1993; ODFW, in litt. 1993; trout subpopulations in the Klamath Thompson Falls, and Milltown dams Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Wissmar et River basin. isolated four bull trout subpopulations al. 1994; T. Bodurtha, Service, in litt. in the mainstem Clark Fork-Pend Oreille 1995; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). Columbia River Population Segment rivers. The uppermost dam, Milltown, Impassable dams have caused declines Bull trout passage is prevented or isolates downstream fish from those in of bull trout primarily by preventing inhibited at hydroelectric, flood-control, the upper Clark Fork River and prevents access of migratory fish to spawning and or irrigation dams in almost every major fish downstream of the dam from 31658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations moving into the Blackfoot River, a major runoff patterns, the magnitude of peak et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997) tributary of the upper Clark Fork River. and low flows, and annual water yield and Klamath River basins (Light et al. Annually, some bull trout congregate (Cacek 1989; Furniss et al. 1991; 1996; USDA and USDI 1996, 1997). The below Milltown Dam, attempting to Wissmar et al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). effects of timber harvest on streams are move upstream. Radio-tagged bull trout Activities that promote excessive long lasting, and recovery is slow collected below Milltown Dam and substrate movement lower bull trout (Furniss et al. 1991; Henjum et al. 1994). released above the dam moved into production by increasing egg and The MBTSG ranked forestry, especially Rock Creek, a tributary to the upper juvenile mortality, and reduce or the legacy left by past forestry practices, Clark Fork system (Swanberg 1996). eliminate habitat important to later life- as a limitation to bull trout restoration Movement of bull trout from the history stages, such as when pools are in all major watersheds in Montana mainstem Clark Fork River to the filled with substrates (Shepard et al. (MBTSG 1995a–e, 1996a–f). Flathead Lake system is prevented by 1984; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Brown Klamath River Population Segment Kerr Dam on the lower Flathead River. 1992). The length and timing of bull Sport harvest of bull trout from Lake trout egg incubation and juvenile Much of the forest in the Klamath Pend Orielle, Idaho, abruptly declined development (typically more than 200 River basin has been managed for timber more than 50 percent after Albeni Falls days during winter and spring) and the production, with substantial activity and Cabinet Gorge dams blocked access strong association of juvenile fish with beginning in 1940. Extensive harvesting, to historic spawning streams and stream substrate make bull trout including partial cutting with overstory reduced adult numbers (Ellis 1940; Pratt vulnerable to changes in peak flows and removal, clearcutting, and selective and Huston 1993). timing that affect channels and substrate logging for old-growth pine occurred on Major tributaries of the Flathead River (Shepard et al. 1984; Goetz 1989; Pratt private lands, and low intensity harvest basin, Montana, were historically 1992). occurred on some of the USFS lands. interconnected so that migratory bull Logging and road building in riparian Past forest management activities in the trout were widely distributed zones reduce stream shading and widen Klamath River basin have temporarily throughout the drainage (MBTSG stream channels, allowing greater reduced riparian vegetative cover and 1995d). Bull trout from the Flathead sunlight penetration, surface water increased water temperature in some River system had access to the South warming, and winter anchor ice streams, including Threemile Creek Fork Flathead River drainage and the formation (Beschta et al. 1987; (Light et al. 1996). Roads were built in Swan River drainage. However, Chamberlain et al. 1991). Timber the basin for access to timber, causing upstream passage from the Flathead extraction in riparian areas that results increased sedimentation and substrate River has been blocked by dams on the in increased water temperatures in embeddedness. Sediment from existing South Fork Flathead River (Hungry spawning and rearing areas may cause roads continues to degrade stream Horse Dam) and the Swan River (Bigfork bull trout to decline (Goetz 1989; Pratt habitat (Light et al. 1996). Weyerhauser Dam). 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Timber Company began an improved On the Kootenai River, Montana, Logging in riparian areas reduces road maintenance program in 1994 to Libby Dam is an upstream passage recruitment of large woody debris, reduce sediment inputs from roads on barrier to bull trout. The dam also has thereby reducing stream habitat its lands adjacent to occupied bull trout altered the flow regime, water complexity. Loss of riparian vegetation stream reaches in the Klamath River temperature, and sediment load in the destabilizes streambanks and increases basin, and U.S. Timberlands is presently Kootenai River (MBTSG 1996e). Dam erosion and sediment delivery to continuing the practice (B. Johnson, operation has typically reduced spring streams. Road construction that involves pers. comm. 1997). Two recent timber flows, which has made upstream channelizing streams may cause harvest activities occurred on U.S. passage over Kootenai Falls, located reduced habitat complexity and Timberlands property along Boulder downstream of Libby Dam, impossible. increased sediment delivery. Creek in 1994 and Long Creek in 1995 Therefore, fish below the falls do not Although bull trout occur in (Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, pers. have the opportunity to interbreed with watersheds affected by past timber comm. 1997). A review of the activities fish above (MBTSG 1996e). extraction, bull trout strongholds persist concluded that leaving buffer strips and An additional effect of dams on bull in a greater percentage of watersheds obliterating existing roads left the trout is the loss of individuals from a experiencing little or no past timber riparian habitat in better condition than subpopulation. During a 7-month study harvest, such as the wilderness areas of before the timber harvest (B. Johnson, in the Boise River, bull trout were Central Idaho and the South Fork pers. comm. 1997). No timber harvests marked in Arrowrock Reservoir and 5 Flathead River drainage in Montana are currently planned for areas adjacent percent of them were recaptured in (Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995e; to streams occupied by bull trout. Six of Lucky Peak Reservoir (USBR, in litt. USDA and USDI 1997; Rieman et al. in the seven bull trout subpopulations 1997). Lucky Peak Dam is downstream press). One bull trout stronghold subject identified in the Klamath River basin of the Arrowrock and Anderson Ranch to extensive logging and road have been affected by past forest subpopulations, and neither Lucky Peak construction is in the Swan River basin management practices. Reservoir nor the reach downstream of (Watson and Hillman 1997). It is Columbia River Population Segment the dam provide any known spawning difficult to assess the overall effects of habitat. Thus, fish entering Lucky Peak forestry practices on bull trout in parts Perhaps the greatest threat to bull Reservoir are lost from the upstream of the basin because of the complex trout involving forest practices and subpopulations. geomorphology and geology of the roads stems from the ongoing and latent drainage (MBTSG 1996a). However, the adverse effects caused by over a century Forest Management Practices Swan River tributaries also drain large of logging. Latent threats are illustrated Forest management activities, areas of contiguous roadless lands that by approximately 2,300 land slides including timber extraction and road provide important protected bull trout correlated with high logging road building, affect streams habitats by habitat. density on national forest lands in the altering recruitment of large woody Timber harvest has occurred Clearwater and Spokane rivers basins debris, erosion and sedimentation rates, throughout the Columbia River (Henjum during high runoff events in 1995 and Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31659

1996 (L. McLaud, Idaho Conservation roadless headwaters of the Crooked, characteristic of areas degraded by land League, in litt. 1997; R. Patten, Bear, and North Fork Boise rivers (Boise use activities (Rich 1996). Eighty-five Panhandle National Forest, in litt. 1997). National Forest, in litt. 1995). percent of the drainages classified as The same runoff events also triggered an The long-lasting effects of past timber ‘‘high risk’’ supported brook trout estimated 2,000 land slides on adjacent management activities on aquatic (Clancy 1993) (see Factor E). non-Federal timber lands in the habitats is illustrated by conditions in Extensive logging activity has Clearwater River basin (McLaud, in litt. the 3,289 km2 (1,270 mi2) South Fork impaired water quality in many 1997). On over half of the non- Salmon River watershed, Idaho. The tributaries of the Blackfoot River, wilderness lands within National watershed was first logged in the 1940’s Montana, including the North Fork Forests across northern Idaho and and logging activity peaked in 1961 Blackfoot River (Montana Department of western Montana, the environmental (Chapman et al. 1991). Sedimentation in Health and Environmental Sciences effects of past forest practices now the South Fork Salmon River increased (MDHES) 1994). Wide-spread canopy constrain forest management (USFS approximately 350 percent above pre- removal, alterations to riparian map, in litt. 1994). For example, 70 logging levels (Chapman et al. 1991). vegetation, and water irrigation returns percent of stream miles on the Wallowa- Resident and anadromous salmonids, have increased the historic temperature Whitman National Forest are degraded including bull trout, declined after regime of the Blackfoot River (MBTSG beyond Land and Resource Management timber extraction and associated road 1995c; Pierce et al. 1997). Water Plan (LRMP) standards for fine sediment building. Despite a 25-year logging temperatures in the mainstem Blackfoot and temperature parameters on the moratorium in the watershed, fish frequently exceeded the bull trout ° ° forest (Wissmar et al. 1994). On the habitat has not returned to pre-logging preferred range of 15 C (60 F) in 1994, Panhandle National Forest, Idaho, pool quality, and salmon production has not 1995 and 1996, making coldwater volumes, quality and frequency in recovered (Chapman et al. 1991). refuges during this time critical for bull managed watersheds (mainly A relationship between forest trout (Pierce et al. 1997). The effect of watersheds with past timber extraction management, watershed conditions, forest practices was considered a and road construction) were reduced aquatic habitat degradation, and loss of limitation to bull trout restoration in the compared to non-managed watersheds. occupied bull trout range has been Blackfoot River drainage (MBTSG Further, decreases in pool volume and documented in the Spokane River basin, 1995c). frequency were correlated with Idaho. Streambed aggradation and loss Timber management is the dominant decreases in the distribution and of pool habitat are attributed to forest land use in the Kootenai River abundance of bull trout (Cross and management and associated roads in the watershed, Montana. Extensive road Everest 1995). In the Lake Pend Oreille basin (G. Kappesser, Panhandle construction to support forestry and Priest River basins, 31 percent of National Forest, in litt. 1993). The loss activities exists throughout the of pool habitat correlates to reductions watershed. Many reaches of streams in streams in National Forest lands are in bull trout range and abundance in the Kootenai drainage have impaired degraded beyond LRMP standards, and managed watersheds (Cross and Everest water quality as a result of silviculture 51 percent of streams are in the most 1995). Sixty-one percent of the basin’s activities (MDHES 1994). As a result of degraded category (B. Kasun, USFS, in managed watersheds do not meet forest salvage logging in 1996, the number of litt. 1993). Streams in the most degraded plan standards (B. Kasum, Panhandle timber sales and clearcuts have category generally do not support bull National Forest, in litt. 1992). The Nez substantially increased over the past trout because of stream morphology Perce National Forest, Idaho, provides three years (Kootenai National Forest changes, increased cobble an example of the rate of watershed 1997). embeddedness and high summer degradation. Significantly degraded Past forest practices, including road temperatures. Jones and Espinosa (1992) watersheds with forest management construction, log skidding, riparian tree determined that 71 percent of the stream increased by 12 percent in only 5 years; harvest, clearcutting, and splash dams, or watershed areas in the managed 40 percent of all non-wilderness land are considered a cause in the historic portion of the Clearwater National were in degraded condition (Gloss and decline of bull trout and have limited Forest did not meet LRMP standards, Gearhardt 1992). restoration opportunities in the Flathead and that streams in poor condition The USFS classified watersheds in the Lake basin (MBTSG 1995d). This basin generally did not support bull trout. Bitterroot National Forest, Montana, supports over 30 subpopulations in Similarly, 67 percent of the non- into three categories, ‘‘healthy,’’ wilderness, national park, national wilderness portion of the Nez Perce ‘‘sensitive,’’ and ‘‘high risk’’ based on forest, and private lands of Montana. National Forest did not meet LRMP sediment yield from road construction Because bull trout are sensitive to standards, and streams in the most and increased water yield and peak flow habitat and water quality degradation, degraded category increased 12 percent from timber harvest (Decker 1991 in Fraley and Shepard (1989) considered over a five year period between 1987 MBTSG 1995b). About one third of all timber harvest and road construction in and 1992 (Gloss and Gerhardt 1992). watersheds were assigned to each of the both the North and Middle Fork In the Wenatchee National Forest, three categories. Bull trout with Flathead River drainages to be threats to Washington, bull trout spawning and estimable numbers were found only in bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. rearing is correlated with streams not watersheds rated as ‘‘healthy’’ or Although forest practices have subject to past timber harvest (Brown ‘‘sensitive drainages’’ (Clancy 1993). improved, effects of past activities still 1992). Timber harvest activities were The effects of past forest practices, affect bull trout because the existing responsible in the decline and isolation including road construction, continue to road systems continue to erode, cause of bull trout in Pataha Creek, affect Bitterroot tributaries (MBTSG sedimentation, and increase water yield Washington (WDFW 1997), a tributary 1995b). Generally, bull trout numbers to streams. Silvicultural activities have in the Tucannon River drainage. In the were higher where stream substrates contributed to 323.2 km (202 mi) in 17 North Fork Boise River basin, Idaho, the were larger, but numbers tended to be streams being classified as water quality majority of bull trout spawning and lower in areas high in fine sediments impaired in the Flathead basin (MDHES rearing habitat for the Arrowrock (Clancy 1993). In contrast, habitat where 1994). Existing roads in two National Reservoir subpopulation exists in the brook trout were found were Forests of Idaho (Boise and Payette) 31660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations created slides and slumps during 1997, Henjum et al. 1994; MBTSG 1995a,b,c; and limits bull trout restoration in these a high water year. In some areas of USDA and USDI 1996,1997). drainages (MBTSG 1995a,b; Maxell Montana and Idaho, culverts, that are Livestock grazing impacts on bull 1996). Overall, livestock grazing in passage barriers for bull trout, are being trout habitat maybe minimized if portions of the Wieser, Grande Ronde, replaced at road crossings (P. Batt, grazing is managed appropriately for Imnaha, and Malheur rivers has Governor of Idaho, in litt. 1997, P. conditions at a specific site. Practices degraded streamside habitat (Adams Graham, Montana Fish and Wildlife and generally compatible with the 1994; Buchanan et al. 1997). Of the 141 Parks (MFWP), and B. Clinch, Montana preservation and restoration of bull subpopulations the Service identified in Department of Natural Resources and trout habitat may include fences to the Columbia River population segment, Conservation (MDNRC), in litt. 1997). exclude livestock from riparian areas, approximately 50 percent were Future proposed timber harvests also rotation schemes to avoid overuse of threatened by ongoing livestock grazing. areas, and stock tanks so that livestock threaten bull trout. For instance, in Agricultural Practices Oregon, the Malheur National Forest would concentrate outside of riparian proposes to salvage trees and build areas for water. Agricultural practices, such as cultivation, irrigation, and chemical roads in a roadless area containing bull Klamath River Population Segment trout, site of the 1996 Summit Fire in application can affect bull trout. Intensive livestock grazing the John Day River watershed, and a Agriculture has been identified a source historically occurred throughout most of designated riparian habitat conservation of nonpoint source pollution in some the Klamath River basin, and continues areas within the range of bull trout area in the Environmental Assessment to be widespread (Light et al. 1996). (Idaho Department of Health and for the Interim Strategies for Managing Livestock grazing is a major land use Welfare (IDHW) 1991; Washington Anadromous Fish-producing within the Sprague River drainage, Department of Ecology (WDE) 1992; Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and mostly in the lowland meadows and to MDHES 1994). These practices can Washington, Idaho, and Portions of a lesser extent in some forested areas. release sediment, nutrients, pesticides California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995). The Grazing has been eliminated along bull and herbicides into streams, increase project has not been completed, but it trout streams on U.S. Timberlands temperature, reduce riparian vegetation, would likely degrade bull trout habitat property (B. Johnson, U.S. Timberlands, and alter the hydrologic regime, if implemented as presently planned. in litt. 1997) and adjacent National typically with low flows in the spring In summary, forestry activities that Forest lands. However, documented and summer. Irrigation diversions also adversely affect bull trout and its habitat cattle trespass on Long and Deming affect bull trout by altering stream flow are primarily timber extraction and road creeks indicates that livestock continue and through entrainment. Bull trout construction, especially when impacting to locally affect bull trout habitats (Light may enter unscreened irrigation riparian areas. These activities, when et al. 1996; Buchanan et al. 1997). The diversions and become stranded in conducted without adequate protective meadows in upper Long Creek exhibit ditches and agricultural fields. measures, alter bull trout habitat by bank instability and diminished Diversion dams, without proper passage increasing sedimentation, reducing availability of undercut banks caused by facilities, prevent bull trout from habitat complexity, increasing water livestock (Buchanan et al. 1997). migrating and may isolate temperature, and promoting channel Channelization and intense grazing by subpopulations (Dorratcaque 1986; instability. Although certain forestry cattle degraded lower Sun Creek and an Light et al. 1996). practices have been prohibited or adjoining stream in the Klamath River altered in recent years to improve basin and may have contributed to the Klamath River Population Segment protection of aquatic habitats, the extirpation of migratory bull trout in Historical agricultural use in the consequences of past activities continue Sun Creek (Dambacher et al. 1992). Klamath River basin has had a profound to affect bull trout and their habitat. effect on bull trout habitat in the larger Columbia River Population Segment Within the Columbia River population tributaries and mainstem rivers segment, approximately 74 percent of Livestock grazing has caused habitat (Buchanan et al. 1997). Channelization, bull trout subpopulations are threatened degradation in stream reaches water diversions, removal of streamside by forestry management practices. supporting bull trout. On Squaw Creek, vegetarian, and disturbances have a tributary of the Payette River, Idaho, Livestock Grazing altered the aquatic environment by livestock grazing has damaged elevating water temperature, reducing Livestock grazing degrades aquatic streambank and riparian vegetation. water quantity and quality, and habitat by removing riparian vegetation, While fencing and grazing changes are increasing sedimentation (Light et al. destabilizing streambanks, widening underway to reduce impacts in this 1996). Deming, Long, Threemile, and stream channels, promoting incised area, future damage from grazing will Sun creeks have diversions immediately channels and lowering water tables, not be eliminated (M. Huffman, Boise downstream of occupied bull trout reducing pool frequency, increasing soil National Forest (BNF), in litt. 1997). habitat (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. erosion, and altering water quality Livestock grazing continues to affect 1997). Unscreened diversions result in (Platts 1981; Kauffman and Krueger bull trout habitat for spawning, rearing, the transport of fish into irrigation 1984; Henjum et al. 1994; Overton et al. and migration in Bear Valley Creek and canals (e.g., Deming and Sun creeks), 1993). These effects increase summer its tributaries in the BNF, Idaho (T. often resulting in mortality (Light et al. water temperatures, promote formation Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997). 1996). of anchor ice in winter, and increase Livestock grazing was a factor in the sediment into spawning and rearing decline of bull trout habitat in Pataha Columbia River Population Segment habitats. Cover for bull trout is reduced. Creek, Washington (WDFW 1997). In In 1988, the Idaho Department of Occupied bull trout habitat is also Montana, severe overgrazing occurs in Environmental Quality (IDEQ) negatively affected by livestock grazing the Bitterroot River valley bottom conducted an assessment of nonpoint (Howell and Buchanan 1992; Mullan et streams and along the mainstem Clark source pollution of the Salmon River al. 1992; Platts et al. 1993; R. Uberuaga, Fork River in the Deerlodge valley, Flint basin. Of 4,080 km (2,550 mi) of streams Payette National Forest, in litt. 1993; Creek valley, and parts of Rock Creek, assessed, an estimated 2,059 km (1,287 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31661 mi) were affected by nonpoint sources, tributaries by reduced summer flows exceed bull trout tolerance limits of which 1,374 km (859 mi) were and dams (WDW 1992). The lower (MBTSG 1995a). In the Blackfoot River affected by agricultural practices (IDHW reaches of the Walla Walla River in basin, irrigation returns have 1991). Dewatering of stream reaches due Washington are often dewatered during contributed to the warming of this to irrigation has restricted bull trout the irrigation season, isolating three bull historic coldwater river (MBTSG 1995c; migration and isolated bull trout into trout subpopulations in perennial Pierce et al. 1997). Irrigation diversions, subpopulations. Examples include the headwater reaches (Martin et al. 1992). particularly in the Little Blackfoot River Powder, Malheur, Grande Ronde, In 1991, MFWP listed Montana and in Flint Creek of the upper Clark Umatilla, and John Day rivers in Oregon streams that support or contribute to Fork River, are physical and thermal (Buchanan et al. 1997); the Tucannon, important fisheries and are substantially passage barriers to bull trout (MBTSG Snake, Yakima, Methow, and Walla dewatered from diversions and 1995a). Diversion for irrigation is the Walla rivers in Washington (WDW 1992; appropriated streamflows (MFWP, in primary cause of 622 km (389 mi) of WDFW 1997); the upper Salmon and litt. 1991). Within the range of bull streams in the upper Clark Fork basin Lemhi rivers in Idaho (Dorratcaque trout, 101 stream reaches totaling 958.4 being chronically dewatered (MDHES 1986; Chapman et al. 1991); and the km (599 mi) were listed as chronically 1994). Irrigation diversions also Clark Fork, Blackfoot, and Bitterroot dewatered due to irrigation withdrawals continue to limit restoration of rivers in Montana (Clancy 1993; MBTSG and an additional 220.8 km (138 mi) migratory bull trout in the Blackfoot 1995a,b,c; 1996b,c; Swanberg 1996). were listed as periodically dewatered. River basin (MBTSG 1995c). Recently, The mainstem Umatilla River is Although bull trout do not occur in all several diversions have been renovated frequently dry during the irrigation streams cited, all are within the range of to provide passage and eliminate ditch season, effectively isolating bull trout bull trout and dewatering likely affects entrainment (MBTRT 1997). (M. Northrop, Umatilla National Forest, fish migration and connectivity among Unscreened irrigation diversions in pers. comm. 1997). Moreover, two subpopulations. eastern Washington are known to trap or diversion facilities in the Umatilla River The extirpation of bull trout in the divert bull trout in Ahtanan Creek inhibit migration during portions of the mainstem Bitterroot River, Montana, (Yakima River basin), Ingalls and year (Buchanan et al. 1997). Walla Walla and the loss of migratory fish are Peshastin creeks (Wenatchee River River basin bull trout subpopulations attributed to chronic dewatering of the basin), Roaring Creek (Entiat River are segregated in the Touchet River, Mill mainstem Bitterroot and the lower basin), and Buttermilk, Little Bridge, Creek, and South Fork and North Fork reaches of most of its tributaries (Clancy Eagle, and Wolf Creeks (Methow River of the Walla Walla River by four 1993, 1996; MBTSG 1995b). Some basin) (J. Easterbrooks, WDFW, pers. irrigation diversion dams (Buchanan et diversions on the mainstem Bitterroot comm. 1997). Channelization has al 1997; WDFW 1997). Streams are also are fish passage barriers or entrain altered 56 km (35 mi) of the Methow channelized in agricultural areas, downstream migrants into irrigation River (Mullan et al. 1992). reducing stream length and area of ditches (MBTSG 1995b). Nearly 104 km Approximately 72 km (45 mi) of the aquatic habitat, altering stream channel (65 mi) of 18 tributary streams are lower Coeur d’Alene, St. Joe, and St. morphology, and diminishing aquatic chronically dewatered in the Bitterroot Maries rivers of the Spokane River basin habitat complexity. River basin (MBTSG 1995b). Dewatering have been channelized. These streams In Idaho, Dorratcaque (1986) of tributary streams is a limitation to were once considered important rearing documented chronic flow and passage restoration of bull trout in the Bitterroot areas and migratory corridors for problems on the Lemhi River, where the River basin (MBTSG 1995b) and the migratory (fluvial) bull trout. stream has been dewatered during the cause of habitat fragmentation isolating Approximately 47 percent of the bull irrigation season. An irrigation 27 subpopulations. trout subpopulations in the Columbia diversion dewaters the upper Salmon In the Clark Fork River basin, River population segment are affected River in Idaho from mid-July to the end Montana, irrigation diversions, canals, by the past and ongoing effects from of the irrigation season, preventing and dams in the Jocko and lower agricultural practices, including chinook salmon access to spawning Flathead rivers eliminated bull trout diversions. areas. Juvenile chinook salmon, which access to spawning and rearing areas; are used as prey by bull trout, are, however, some of these structures are in Road Construction and Maintenance thereby, no longer available (Chapman the process of being modified (MBTSG Non-forest roads degrade salmonid et al. 1991). Streamflows in the Umatilla 1996c; Hansen and DosSantos 1997; habitat by creating flow constraints in River basin in Oregon have been fully MBTRT 1997). The lower reaches of the ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial appropriated during the irrigation Jocko River are severely affected by channels; increasing erosion and season since 1920 (Oregon Water grazing and irrigated agriculture sedimentation; creating passage barriers; Resources Division (OWRD), in litt. (Hansen and DosSantos 1997). Because channelization; and reducing riparian 1988). Over-appropriations have migratory bull trout can no longer vegetation (Furniss et al. 1991; resulted in dewatered stream reaches ascend Grant Creek from the mainstem Ketcheson and Megahan 1996). that limit bull trout distribution within Clark Fork River due to irrigation the basin. Similarly, the Oregon State diversions, only resident bull trout exist Klamath River Population Segment Game Commission (OSGC) first upstream (MBTSG 1996c; R. Berg, Streamside roads may have multiple recognized the negative effects of MFWP, pers. comm. 1997). Dewatering, locations of elevated sediment delivery. irrigation diversions on fisheries irrigation return flows, and denuded Some level of sedimentation is normal, resources in the Deschutes River as riparian areas have increased water and can be documented along parts of early as 1950 (OSGC, in litt. 1950). In temperatures in the Blackfoot River and Boulder, Deming, Threemile, Washington, over 80 percent of the Clark Fork River basins, Montana Brownsworth, and Leonard creeks. In annual stream flow in the Yakima River (MBTSG 1995a,c). Water temperatures contrast, Long and Sun creeks have basin is seasonally diverted for in the mainstem upper Clark Fork River relatively little sediment delivery from irrigation (WDW 1992). Bull trout in the frequently exceed 20°C (68° F) and roads in reaches occupied by bull trout basin are isolated into eight temperatures in tributaries, including (Light et al. 1996). Streamside roads subpopulations in upper watershed the Little Blackfoot and Flint Creek, may inadequately constructed with 31662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations misplaced water bars and culverts still degradation from airborne emissions, tailings dam in 1975, which spilled discharge sediment laden waters and the discharge of massive quantities contaminated tailings into the Blackfoot directly into streams. Over-road flow of waste materials, including the release River (MBTSG 1995c). Research in the can lead to gullying and direct sediment into the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Blackfoot drainage demonstrated that delivery, as found in parts of Deming of 72 million tons of hazardous mine heavy metal contaminants released in Creek (Light et al. 1996). Streamside wastes laden with heavy metals such as the headwaters affect chemical trends, roads can also reduce large woody lead, zinc, and cadmium (Coeur d’Alene metal concentrations, metal debris recruitment and vegetation shade tribe of Idaho et al. 1991). During the bioavailabilty, and fish for 25 km (15.6 by occupying the growing space next to early 1930s, the South Fork Coeur mi) from the contaminant source (Moore streams. In addition, road construction d’Alene River and about 20 miles of the et al. 1991). may require stream straightening or lower Coeur d’Alene River were New open-pit mines using cyanide channel reconfiguration next to roads, considered devoid of aquatic life due to leach pads are planned for watersheds resulting in channelization as along mining waste discharge (Ellis 1940). currently occupied by bull trout in the Boulder and Deming creeks (Light et al. Although some aquatic species have Middle Fork Boise River basin, Idaho, 1996; Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. returned to the river, bull trout are not and in the Stibnite area of the East Fork 1997). Habitat degradation from among them. In Montana, bull trout South Fork Salmon River, Idaho (G. channelization includes decreased pool have not recolonized the upper Visconty, Boise National Forest, in litt. habitat, decreased sediment transport, mainstem Clark Fork River where 1996; Payette National Forest (PNF), in increased embeddedness, and reduced mining-related stream degradation litt. 1996). In Montana, a large interstitial space in substrates extirpated all fish prior to the turn of the underground copper-silver mine (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997). century (MBTSG 1995a; Titan proposed for Rock Creek in the lower Environmental Corp. 1997). The Clark Fork River basin is currently in Columbia River Population Segment lingering effects of mining done over the the permitting process. Tailings would Construction and improvement of past century in the Butte and Anaconda be stored at the confluence of Rock Interstate 90 is a contributing factor to reaches of the upper Clark Fork River Creek and the Clark Fork River (MBTSG the decline and suppression of bull has resulted in four Superfund sites 1996b; R. Stewart, USDI, in litt. 1995). trout in Gold Creek, a tributary of the being designated. Mining continues to Rock Creek is one of only two bull trout Yakima River, Washington (Craig and impair water quality in 558 km (349 mi) ‘‘core’’ areas in this subpopulation Wissmar 1993). In Montana, Interstate of stream in these reaches (MDHES (MBTSG 1996b). A proposal for a large 90 and a railroad system parallel to the 1994). Eleven fish kills documented open-pit gold mine using cyanide heap Clark Fork and St. Regis rivers has between 1959 and 1991 were attributed leach processing is proposed for the contributed to channelization and to mining contamination of the river upper Blackfoot River basin, Montana. increased the risk of hazardous spills (Titan Environmental Corporation Much of the ore body occurs below the (MBTSG 1996b,c). Approximately 18 1997). water table, requiring pumping of groundwater. Thus, the hydrology of the percent of the bull trout subpopulations Numerous abandoned mines, such as in the Columbia River basin are affected upper Blackfoot River system could be the Blackbird and Cinnabar mines in the affected and an increase in by road construction and ongoing Salmon River drainage, Idaho, degrade maintenance. contamination risks could result (S. water quality where toxic heavy metals Cody, Environmental Protection Agency Mining continue to leach from mine sites into (EPA), in litt. 1997; K. McMaster, Mining can degrade aquatic habitat by streams or groundwater. Old mine Service, in litt. 1997). altering water acidity or alkalinity, tailings in the floodplains of Newsome The North Fork Flathead River changing stream morphology and flow, Creek, American River, and Crooked headwaters in Canada contain a large and causing sediment, fuel, and heavy River, tributaries to the Clearwater River coal deposit that could be developed metals to enter streams (Martin and in Idaho, continue to prevent recovery (MBTSG 1995d). Mining this deposit Platts 1981; Spence et al. 1996). The of riparian areas (N. Gearhardt, Nez could destroy spawning habitat and types of mining that occur within the Perce National Forest, pers. comm. degrade water quality in the Montana range of bull trout include extraction of 1997). In Idaho, mine tailings portion of the Flathead River system hard rock minerals, coal, gas, oil, and abandoned decades ago contaminated a (MBTSG 1995d). nonminerals. Past and present mining tributary of the Middle Fork Boise River Approximately 20 percent of the bull activities have adversely affected bull with heavy metals, including arsenic, trout subpopulations in the Columbia trout and bull trout habitats in Idaho, during flood flows in 1997 when River population segment are threatened Oregon, Montana, and Washington migrating bull trout were present (R. by past, ongoing, or potential future (Martin and Platts 1981; Johnson and Barker, Idaho Statesman, in litt. 1997: S. mining activities. West, IDEQ, in litt. 1997). In Montana, Schmidt 1988; Moore et al. 1991; WDW Residential Development 1992; Platts et al. 1993; MBTSG 1995a,c, historic mining in many tributaries of 1996b,c). the Middle Clark Fork River has Residential development is rapidly impaired water quality in 245 km (153 increasing within portions of the range Klamath River Population Segment mi) of stream (MDHES 1994). The of bull trout. Development increases Mining effects are not known to be a MBTSG (1995c) ranked mining in the threaten to alter stream and riparian factor affecting bull trout Blackfoot River drainage as a limitation habitats through streambank subpopulations in the Klamath River to bull trout restoration. Many mines modification and destabilization, basin. exist in the western and southern increased nutrient loads, and increased portions of the Blackfoot River basin water temperatures (MBTSG 1995b). Columbia River Population Segment causing direct loss of bull trout habitat Indirectly, urbanization within Mining severely impacts large and contamination of waters from mine floodplains alters groundwater recharge portions of the Spokane River basin. effluents (MBTSG 1995c). Fishes in the by routing water into streams through Effects include roading, stream upper Blackfoot River are still affected drains rather than through more gradual diversion and alteration, watershed by the washout of the Mike Horse subsurface flow (Booth 1991). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31663

Klamath River Population Segment negatively affecting bull trout, affect declining subpopulations already Residential development is not especially subpopulations with low subjected to other factors such as known to be factor affecting existing numbers and proximity to highway competition, degraded habitat, and bull trout subpopulations in the access, such as Threemile Creek. isolation (WDW 1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Swanberg Klamath River basin. Columbia River Population Segment and Burns 1997). Columbia River Population Segment Overharvest of bull trout in the Poaching of bull trout likely Columbia River basin, historically, In Montana, rural residential continues, and can be especially likely contributed to their decline. In detrimental to small, isolated development is rapidly increasing, the past, harvest included legal subpopulations of migratory fish particularly in drainages of the recreational angling, poaching, and (WDFW 1992; Craig and Wissmar 1993; Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Flathead State-sponsored eradication programs Pratt and Huston 1993; Long 1997). A rivers (MBTSG 1995b,c,d). The lower (Thomas 1992). Bull trout were often study in the Metolius River suggested Bitterroot River is a major non-point targeted for removal by anglers and that 2 of 22 radio-tagged adult bull trout source of nutrient pollution, primarily government agencies because bull trout were illegally harvested (Ratliff et al. from sewage effluent and land preyed on salmon and other desirable 1996). Illegal harvest of bull trout in development (U.S. Environmental species (Simpson and Wallace 1982; northwest Montana has been a recurring Protection Agency (EPA) 1993 in Bond 1992). As recently as 1990, State problem for over 50 years, especially in MBTSG 1995b). Efforts to mitigate and Federal agencies instituted drainages of the Blackfoot, Kootenai, effects of rural development in the programs to eradicate bull trout through South Fork Flathead, and Clark Fork Blackfoot River basin have been bounties and poisoning of waterways rivers (MBTSG 1995e; Swanberg 1996; encouraged by an active local group, the (Ratliff and Howell 1992; ODFW 1993; Long 1997). In response, the MFWP Blackfoot Challenge, which has been Newton and Pribyl 1994; Palmisano and instituted a program in 1994 funded by working to acquire conservation Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). For instance, the Bonneville Power Administration to easements, among other projects. during the 1940’s and 1950’s in Oregon, reduce the illegal harvest of bull trout, Residential development in the Flathead several hundred bull trout migrating disperse information to improve anglers’ Lake system is considered a limitation from Wallowa Lake to spawn in fish identification skills, and increase for restoration of bull trout because of Wallowa River were trapped in a weir understanding of the importance of the threat to water quality from and exterminated (B. Smith, WDFW, in native species (Long 1994). domestic sewage and changes to stream litt. 1997). Bull trout were recently re- Additionally, the Montana legislature morphology (MBTSG 1995d). introduced to Wallowa Lake in summer increased the penalties for bull trout Approximately 26 percent of the bull 1997 in an effort to re-establish the fish. poaching, and the Bonneville Power trout subpopulations in the Columbia In recognition of the decline of bull Administration, until recently, funded River population segment are threatened trout, State management agencies in increased enforcement (M. Racicot, by the effects of residential Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Governor of Montana, in litt. 1995). development. Oregon suspended harvest in the Approximately 21 percent of the bull B. Overutilization for commercial, Columbia River basin except in Lake trout subpopulations in the Columbia recreational, scientific, or educational Billy Chinook (Oregon) and Swan Lake River population segment are threatened purposes. Declines in bull trout have (Montana). State regulations still allow by the effects of poaching. prompted states to institute restrictive catch and release fishing for bull trout, C. Disease or predation. Although fishing regulations on all waters and the harvest of other salmonid diseases affecting salmonids are likely throughout bull trout range. Recent species is allowed in most bull trout present in both the Klamath River and observations of increased numbers of waters. However, in Montana, (MFWP Columbia River basins, they are not adult bull trout in some areas have been 1996), the revised regulations are thought to be a major factor affecting attributed to more restrictive believed to be partially responsible for bull trout. However, interspecific regulations. However, illegal harvest increasing bull trout numbers in the interactions, including predation, are and incidental harvest still continue to Swan River basin where the taking or thought to negatively affect bull trout threaten bull trout. intentional fishing for bull trout is where non-native salmonids have been prohibited (MBTSG 1996a). Mortality Klamath River Population Segment introduced (Palmisano and Kaczynski, from incidental catch and release in litt. 1997). Legal harvest of bull trout in the angling of bull trout and harvest as a Klamath River basin was eliminated in result of misidentification still Klamath River Population Segment 1992 when ODFW imposed a fishing continues under existing fishing Diseases have not been documented closure. Because recreational fishing for regulations. For example, about half or affecting bull trout in the Klamath River other trout species continues in the fewer of anglers surveyed were able to basin. However, brook trout and brown basin, incidental fishing mortality of correctly identify bull trout from other trout have been introduced in the basin, bull trout likely occurs (OCAFS 1993). salmonids in west-central Montana and either one or both species co-exist During recent ODFW angler surveys in (Kelly et al. 1996; M. Long and S.P. with bull trout in all subpopulations the Klamath River basin, all anglers Whalen, MFWP, in litt. 1997). In 1997, except Deming Creek (Buchanan et al. contacted were aware of the no harvest the day after two radio tagged bull trout 1997). Brown trout predation on bull regulation for bull trout (D. Bertram, were released into Wallowa Lake, trout is evidenced by a direct ODFW, in litt. 1995; Light et al. 1996). Oregon, one of the fish was observation in Boulder Creek (Light et Incidental bull trout mortality due to unintentionally, but illegally harvested al. 1996). Overall, bull trout co-occur angling is unknown, but is not by a young angler. The MBTSG (1995d) with brown trout and brook trout in suspected to be suppressing bull trout is concerned with the catch and release about half of the occupied habitat. subpopulations in the Klamath River mortality of bull trout as a result of Buchanan et al. (1997) indicated that basin (Light et al. 1996). However, intense fishing pressure on lake trout in bull trout occupy approximately 34.1 Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997) Flathead Lake and the Flathead River. km (20.5 mi) of streams. However, consider angling to be a factor Legal and illegal harvest can seriously allopatric (occurring in different 31664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations geographic areas or in isolation) bull subpopulations are threatened by has ceased, the current LRMPs have not trout have been estimated to occupy introduced non-native fishes, including fully taken into account the habitat only 13.4 to 15.7 km (8.3 to 9.8 mi) the effects of predation. needs of salmonids and recovery of within the basin (Buchanan et al. 1997; D. The inadequacy of existing degraded habitats has not occurred as Schroeder and Weeks, in litt. 1997). regulatory mechanisms. Although predicted. For example, most LRMPs efforts are underway to conserve bull Columbia River Population Segment were developed prior to listing the trout (e.g., Batt, in litt. 1997; Joslin, in Snake River salmon stocks, and, Health samples from 207 juvenile bull litt. 1997; Thomas, in litt. 1997), the consequently, the biological trout collected from 8 streams in the implementation and enforcement of requirements of these fish are not fully Flathead River basin in 1992 and 1993 existing Federal and State laws designed considered under the parameters of the were negative in tests for furunculus, to conserve fishery resources, maintain LRMPs. The NMFS noted that even enteric redmouth, bacterial kidney water quality, and protect aquatic though PACFISH provided some disease, and viral hemorrhagic habitat have not prevented past and improvements in many standards and septicemia (VHS) or infectious ongoing habitat degradation. This guidelines of the LRMPs, pancreatic necrosis (IPN) (Fredenberg inadequacy has led to bull trout comprehensive, landscape-scale 1993). Bull trout are susceptible to declines and isolation and is a factor in conservation strategies for salmonid whirling disease, caused by a protozoan the determination to list bull trout parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis), and population segments. Regulatory survival and recovery are still lacking recently detected in bull trout waters in mechanisms, including the National (Schmitten, NMFS, in litt, 1995). Montana (Montana Whirling Disease Forest Management Act, the Federal Espinosa et al. (1997) listed several Task Force 1996). However, bull trout Land Policy and Management Act, the reasons why the Clearwater National are less susceptible to whirling disease Public Rangelands Improvement Act, Forest Plan adopted in 1987 has failed than rainbow trout (McDowell et al. the Clean Water Act, the National to adequately protect salmonid habitats 1997). Whirling disease is currently Environmental Policy Act, the Federal in forest watersheds. Reasons included untreatable in the wild, and the parasite Power Act, State Endangered Species for this failure were— projected timber appears to be rapidly spreading into Acts and numerous State laws and harvests and levels of associated road previously uninfected waters. The regulations govern an array of land and construction too high to achieve fish consequences of whirling disease on water management activities that affect habitat quality standards; inaccurate bull trout may not be apparent for years. bull trout and their habitat. riparian habitat inventories; watershed Bull trout are most vulnerable to recovery following disturbance was predation as juveniles. Several non- National Forest Management Act slower than expected; and inaccurate native fishes, such as lake trout, brown The National Forest Management Act inventories of the timber resources. trout, brook trout and northern pike (NFMA) and the Federal Land Policy Under the NFMA and the FLPMA, (Esox lucius) are considered potential and Management Act (FLPMA) require livestock grazing occurs on over 70 predators (and competitors, see Factor E the USFS and BLM to develop and percent of federally-administered below) of many bull trout implement land and resource western rangeland, or about 108.5 subpopulations in the Columbia River management plans (LRMPs) and million ha (268 million acres (ac)) of basin (Donald and Alger 1992; Pratt and Resource Management Plans (RMPs), land in 16 western states (General Huston 1993; Rieman and McIntyre respectively) to protect fish and wildlife Accounting Office (GAO) 1988). 1993; MBTSG 1995d, 1996a; MFWP resources and produce forest and range 1997). products. However, reviews by the U.S. Ongoing livestock grazing on lands Dramatic declines in the Priest Lake, Department of Agriculture (USDA) of administered by the BLM and USFS Idaho, bull trout harvest began about 20 LRMP monitoring and evaluation continues to occur in watersheds years ago. Between 1956 and 1970, an reports for 28 national forests indicate occupied by bull trout (Henjum et al. annual average of 1,200 fish were that many watersheds do not meet 1994; McIntosh et al. 1994; USDA and harvested. In 1978, a record 2,320 were NFMA Forest Plan standards. USDI 1997). Technical solutions to harvested, declining in 1983 to 159 Compliance with LRMPs and improving riparian areas damaged by (Mauser et al. 1988). There has been no effectiveness of best management livestock grazing were available as early legal harvest of bull trout since 1984. practices on current projects is as 1988 (GAO 1988). However, the GAO Bull trout were extirpated from Priest improving, but, a majority of streams (1988) noted that correcting damage Lake through interactions with that had been affected by past practices from grazing was not readily solvable introduced lake trout (Pratt and Huston were not healing as fast as anticipated due to funding and political pressure to 1993). Mauser et al. (1988) described (USDA 1995). maintain the status quo grazing systems. bull trout in Priest Lake as ‘‘functionally Reviews of existing LRMPs Within the Interior Columbia River extinct as long as lake trout abundance implemented outside the range of the Basin, the BLM and USFS have had is high.’’ Similarly, lake trout northern spotted owl, even as amended difficulty correcting practices that cause introduced into Flathead Lake feed on by the Environmental Assessment for grazing damage to streams due to lack juvenile bull trout entering the lake the Interim Strategies for Managing of funding, conflicting requirements of from the Flathead River, and are thought Anadromous Fish-producing different laws, or budget allocations to be a factor in recent declines of the Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and (USDA and USDI 1997). However, in bull trout subpopulation (MBTSG Washington, Idaho, and Portions of some areas supporting federally listed 1995d). Introduced non-native fishes California (PACFISH) (USDA 1995), fish or designated critical habitat, the limit bull trout restoration in all the have inadequately protected salmonid BLM and the USFS have been able to major drainages in Montana (MBTSG habitat on BLM and national forest improve livestock management in 1995a-e, 1996a-f). lands (Henjum et al. 1994; R. Schmitten, riparian areas, including habitat for For bull trout in the Columbia River NMFS, in litt. 1995; Espinosa et al. shortnose sucker (Chasmistes population segment, disease is not 1997). While the severe resource brevirostris) and Lost River sucker considered a listing factor; however, damage from forest management that (Deltistes luxatus) in the Klamath River approximately 62 percent of the occurred in the 1950s through the 1970s basin, and the Lohontan cutthroat trout Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31665

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawii) of the Endangered Species Act history between the species and lack of Great Basin. complete habitat overlap. In the Klamath River basin, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Service listed the shortnose sucker and Northwest Forest Plan Management Project Lost River sucker under the Act as The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) The USFS, BLM, EPA, NMFS, and endangered on August 26, 1987 (52 FR addresses management of USFS and Service are cooperating in development 32145), and proposed critical habitat for BLM lands within the range of the of the Interior Columbia Basin the species on December 1, 1994 (50 northern spotted owl, and Ecosystem Management Project CFR 61744). Bull trout likely used implementation began in April 1994 (ICBEMP), a large-scale land portions of the proposed critical habitat (Tuchmann et al. 1996). The NWFP management plan for lands in the past, including tributaries in the includes an aquatic conservation administered by these agencies in upper Klamath River, Crooked Creek, strategy, consisting of four inter-related eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho Sevenmile Creek, and Wood River. elements. The first element is riparian and western Montana. The alternatives Although some of the earliest records of reserves, which is the system of lands described in the Draft Environmental bull trout in the basin are from Fort along streams allocated toward the Impact Statement (DEIS) do not Creek, a tributary of the Wood River conservation and restoration of aquatic specifically address bull trout (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. 1997), bull and riparian dependent species. The conservation in ‘‘depressed’’ areas trout do not presently occur within the second is key watersheds, which are watersheds with special values and outside the range of steelhead and habitat occupied by the two suckers. appropriate management standards. The chinook salmon; the preferred Therefore, conservation and recovery third element is watershed analysis, alternative depends on subbasin review actions undertaken for the listed suckers which is required to help land managers and ecosystem analysis at the watershed will not directly benefit bull trout. understand the processes that maintain scale as the basis for decision-making In the Columbia River basin, three habitats and to manage to preserve these within the Interior Columbia Basin species of salmon in the Snake River are processes. The fourth element is (USDA and USDI 1997). The ICBEMP is listed—sockeye salmon (endangered), watershed restoration projects, which in draft, and possible outcomes from spring/summer chinook salmon are funded to move watersheds toward implementing future bull trout (threatened) and fall chinook salmon recovery. For instance, in 1994 through conservation actions as part of an (threatened). Critical habitat for all three salmon was designated, including the 1996, 1675 watershed restoration unapproved management alternative are projects (or groups of projects) were not predictable. Funding and staffing to Columbia River migration corridor, and historically accessible streams in the funded under the NWFP (Tuchmann et implement those components are also al. 1996). The conservation strategy not secured. Snake River basin upstream of Hell’s Canyon Dam in Idaho, Oregon and generally addresses the maintenance of Streamlined Consultation Procedures Washington (58 FR 68543–68554). the four elements. Although the strategy does not specifically address bull trout Downstream of Hell’s Canyon and On March 8, 1995, the USFS, Service, needs, it contains objectives for riparian Dworshak Dam, the designation extends BLM, and NMFS, issued a and stream conservation and to reaches historically accessible to memorandum directing the agencies to maintenance that may facilitate salmon, below historically impassible participate in ‘‘streamlined’’ conservation of bull trout habitat (W. barriers (58 FR 68543–68554). The consultation procedures. These Cole, Service, in litt, 1997). designation extends protection to bull procedures were initiated to address Additionally, the implementation of the trout habitat in areas where they co- forest health and salvage projects (T. NWFP is dependent on interagency occur with the salmon. However, in Dwyer, Service, in litt. 1995). By May collaboration to achieve resource many areas bull trout tend to spawn and 31, 1995, these procedures were conservation and a sampling of projects rear upstream of listed salmon habitats. extended indefinitely to include all unaffected by the 1995 Salvage Rider For instance, Fall Creek, a tributary of consultation efforts (Dwyer, in litt. (see below) indicates that bull trout are the Salmon River, Idaho, has an 1995). These procedures apply to generally protected by the NWFP. impassible waterfall near its mouth, and Federal land management activities in However, the NWFP covers only a habitat for the listed salmon ends at the Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana minor portion of bull trout habitat for impassible falls (58 FR 68543–68554), and California (California lands the Columbia River population segment. managed by BLM are subject to but bull trout spawn and rear above the streamlined procedures only when falls. In this example, bull trout PACFISH and INfish forest ecosystem activities are involved). spawning and rearing habitat does not The USFS and BLM developed the The purpose of the streamlined overlap with the listed salmon; thus, Interim Strategies for Managing procedures is to improve the efficiency bull trout would not receive indirect Anadromous Fish-producing of the section 7 consultation process (C. protection under the Act. Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Dunn, Service, in litt. 1997). On August 18, 1997, five Washington, Idaho and Portions of Conservation and protection of bull evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) California, known as PACFISH. trout habitat has been inconsistent due of steelhead were listed as threatened— PACFISH is intended to be an in part to the USFS and BLM three in California, one in Washington ecosystem-based, aquatic habitat and discretionary option to review non- (Columbia River from the Yakima River riparian-area management strategy for listed, candidate species or species of to Grand Coulee Dam), and one in the Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run concern (R. Vizgirdas, Service, in litt. Snake River basin in Oregon, cutthroat trout habitat on lands 1997; R. Strach, Service, in litt. 1997; P. Washington, and Idaho (62 FR 43937). administered by the two agencies and Zenone, Service, in litt. 1997). In Idaho Although protection for bull trout under outside the area subject to and eastern Oregon, Federal land the Act would be afforded where they implementation of the NWFP (USDA management agencies have often not co-occur with steelhead, measures to and USDI 1995). PACFISH amended considered the effects of projects on bull protect steelhead may be insufficient for Regional Guides, forest plans and land trout through the streamlining process. bull trout due to differences in the life use plans by applying management 31666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations measures for all ongoing and proposed quality limited (i.e., cited on the 303(d) monitored the effectiveness in meeting or new projects that pose an list of Oregon for various water quality water quality criteria for temperature in unacceptable risk to anadromous fish standards (ODEQ 1996)) are estimated to riparian areas on forest lands and involving the management of timber, apply to six of the seven bull trout concluded that regulations for stream roads, grazing, and other land uses. The subpopulations. In the Columbia River shading were inadequate to meet criteria Service is participating with NMFS, the basin, water bodies designated as water (Sullivan et al. 1990). USFS, and the BLM in reviewing action- quality limited by Oregon, Washington, In summary, it is uncertain whether agency PACFISH screening efforts for Idaho, and Montana are estimated to the CWA can provide sufficient anadromous fish. Within the area of apply to at least 64 of the 141 bull trout protective measures for conservation of PACFISH where the habitats of salmon subpopulations. bull trout. Temperature regime is one of and bull trout overlap, the screening Relative to water temperature, Oregon the most important factors affecting bull effort is to protect both anadromous fish established a water quality criterion of trout distribution (Adams and Bjornn and bull trout from major effects. 10° C (50° F) as a weekly average based 1997, Rieman and McIntyre 1995). However, efforts to include bull trout in on daily maximum temperatures in bull Given the known temperature the PACFISH review are not always trout spawning and rearing waters (OAR requirements of bull trout (Buchanan successful (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; 340–41–685 and OAR 340–41–026); and Gregory 1997), criteria developed Strach, in litt. 1997; Zenone, in litt. however, water bodies where these by the four States may not be conducive 1997). criteria would apply have not been to either spawning, incubation, rearing, The Inland Native Fish Strategy identified. In Washington, temperature migration, or combinations of these life- (INfish) was developed by the USFS to criteria for waters vary among the history stages. provide an interim strategy for inland different classifications that are assigned State Regulations and Conservation native fish in eastern Oregon and to each waterbody, and range from 16 to Planning Efforts Washington, Idaho, western Montana 22° C (60.8 to 71.6° F) (Chapter 173–201 and portions of Nevada (USDA and WAC). Washington is reviewing these All four States within the range of the USDI 1995). It has not been determined standards with the intent of creating Klamath River and Columbia River whether INfish is an effective strategy more appropriate water quality population segments of bull trout have for removing the threats for bull trout. standards; however, whether the criteria regulations affecting bull trout and their In Idaho, the USFS does not place a specifically are for bull trout is habitat. Idaho, Montana, and local or priority on application of INfish and unknown. In Idaho, EPA disapproved county organizations have recently generally has determined that the state’s temperature criteria developed or are developing anadromous watersheds have a higher applications within the geographic conservation plans to maintain and priority than bull trout watersheds range of bull trout (EPA 1997). The EPA restore bull trout, primarily through (Vizgirdas, in litt. 1997; Strach in litt. determined that the criteria did not stream habitat protection. 1997; Zenone, in litt. 1997). provide adequate protection for bull In 1995, Idaho Governor Phil Batt trout relative to two designated uses— initiated a conservation plan to restore Clean Water Act cold water biota and salmonid spawning bull trout populations in Idaho. The Under sections 303 and 304 of the (maximum daily average of 13° C (55.5° mission of the Governor’s Plan, Clean Water Act (CWA), States or EPA F) and 9° C (48.2° F) for each respective approved in July 1996, is to ‘‘. . . set water quality standards, which use). In July 1997, EPA promulgated a maintain and/or restore complex combine designated beneficial uses and temperature criterion of 10° C (50° F) interacting groups of bull trout criteria established to protect those uses. during June through September in populations throughout their native Water bodies that are identified as designated stream areas, as a weekly range in Idaho’’ (Batt, in litt. 1997). A failing water quality standards are average based on daily maximum recent status report of implementation designated by States under section temperatures for spawning and rearing of the Plan stated that advisory groups, 303(d) as water quality limited (MDHES of bull trout (EPA 1997). To date, the which will develop water quality and 1994; EPA 1994; ODEQ 1996), and State has not adopted EPA’s bull trout conservation measures, have subject to development of management promulgated criterion, but has adopted formed only in some areas. Although plans to restore water quality and 12° C as a daily average during June- the harvest of bull trout is closed protect designated uses. These August for juvenile rearing and 9° C for throughout Idaho and State-sponsored management plans, or total maximum September and October for spawning. survey and monitoring has increased (S. daily loads (TMDLs), address both point Additionally, Idaho has established a Mealey, IDFG, in litt. 1997), few on-the- and non-point sources of pollutants geographical area where these criteria ground recovery actions for bull trout within a watershed. Best Management would apply. It is unknown whether have been implemented to date. Practices (BMPs) are used with TMDLs EPA will approve the State’s criteria and Other efforts include a 1994 to address non-point sources of withdraw the promulgated rule. In conservation agreement (CA) between pollution, such as mining, forestry, and Montana, the temperature criterion the Idaho Department of Transportation agriculture; however, regulatory applied to waters with bull trout is 19° (IDOT) and the Service to protect bull authority to enforce the BMPs varies C (66° F); temperature can be raised 0.6° trout (USDI and IDOT, in litt. 1994), and among the states. It is estimated that 10 C (1° F) by discharges, but water recent conservation activities by the percent of total length of streams within temperature may not exceed 19.5°C IDFG that were funded by Section 6 of the ICBEMP assessment area, including (67°F) (Administrative Rules of Montana the Act. The IDOT finished only one the Klamath River and Columbia River 1996). passage restoration project under the basins, are listed as water quality In accordance with Section 319 of the CA, and recently declined to renew the limited. This may underestimate the CWA, States also develop programs to CA (R. Howard, Service, pers. comm. true extent and distribution of streams address non-point sources of pollution 1997). Since 1994, IDFG has used with impaired water quality potentially such as agriculture, forestry, and Section 6 funds to begin several habitat affecting bull trout (USDA and USDI mining. The effectiveness of controlling restoration actions in northern and 1997). In the Klamath River basin, water pollution from these activities has southwestern Idaho. Aside from stream reaches designated as water been mixed. The State of Washington enacting restrictive fishing regulations, Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31667 few protective or restoration projects resilient to natural disturbance, is updated biennially. The Sensitive have been completed that substantially variation in breeding success, disease Species List is intended as a ‘‘watch reduce threats to bull trout throughout outbreaks, and other environmental list’’ of species potentially eligible for the Columbia River. factors (Light et al. 1996). Future listing as endangered or threatened, and Beginning in 1992 and 1993, several objectives likely will include constitutes an early warning system for interagency bull trout working groups establishing natural movement corridors land managers and the public (ODFW were formed in Oregon (R. Rosen, between adjacent headwater streams. 1996). There are no regulatory ODFW, in litt. 1995). These working All habitats currently occupied by protections for species listed as groups have been instrumental in bull trout in the Klamath River basin are sensitive, nor is the habitat on which gathering additional status information managed by Working Group members. they depend protected under OAR 635– and developing preliminary From 1993 through 1996, conservation 100. conservation strategies for bull trout in actions (phase 1) were implemented by The Sensitive Species List has four their respective basins. These efforts are the Working Group, including— categories—‘‘critical’’ (species for which encouraging for bull trout conservation watershed assessments; fish listing is appropriate or pending); in the future, but the outcome has not distribution, abundance, and spawning ‘‘vulnerable’’ (species for which listing yet been demonstrated. surveys; collection of stream is not imminent and can be avoided via In March 1997, Oregon also adopted temperature and sediment data to help adequate protective measures); the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration identify limiting factors; brook trout ‘‘peripheral or naturally rare’’ (occurring Initiative (OCSRI 1997) (Oregon Plan). eradication efforts in Long, Sun, and in Oregon at the edge of their range, in The Oregon Plan is designed to ‘‘. . . Threemile creeks; reduction or naturally low numbers due to limited restore salmon to a level at which they elimination of grazing along bull trout in-state distribution); and can once again be part of people’s lives habitat owned by U.S. Timberlands; ‘‘undetermined’’ status (species for . . .’’ in coastal Oregon. The Oregon road system improvements, closures, which status is unclear). Bull trout is Plan’s initial focus is on areas within and rehabilitation; and barrier listed in the ‘‘critical’’ category (ODFW the range of Oregon coastal coho management to prevent access of non- 1993). salmon, and does not overlap with native fishes (Johnson in litt. 1997; The Washington Department of Fish presently occupied bull trout habitat. Buchanan et al. 1997). Habitat and Wildlife released the final Oregon recently acknowledged support improvement projects have also been Environmental Impact Statement for the for developing future bull trout implemented in areas historically proposed Wild Salmonid Policy in conservation measures by including bull occupied by bull trout, such as the 9,700 September 1997 (WDFW 1997). trout in the Oregon Plan (J. Kitzhaber, ha (24,000 ac) Nature Conservancy Although the environmental impact Governor of Oregon, in litt, 1997), preserve at Sycan Marsh ( P. Rexroat, statement (IS) focused on salmon and although no conservation measures The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1997) steelhead, referring to bull trout and specific to bull trout have been and the Sun Pass State Forest on lower other wild salmonids in an ancillary completed to date. Sun Creek. These ongoing conservation manner, it described problems and The Upper Klamath Basin Bull Trout efforts have been complicated by recent challenges facing the recovery of Conservation Strategy (Light et al. 1996) private land ownership changes and anadromous and resident salmonids was developed by the Klamath Basin lack of an approved recovery plan that throughout Washington. The IS Bull Trout Working Group in response identifies specific conservation tasks presented five alternatives ranging from to the limited and shrinking distribution and actions. continuation of current management and number of bull trout. The Working In addition to the Klamath Basin Bull (i.e., policy generally based on Group, formed in 1993, is composed of Trout Working Group, a federally- maximum sustainable yield) to representatives from the Service, authorized, interagency and entity alternatives providing more protection ODFW, Fremont and Winema National group, the Upper Klamath Basin for wild salmonids. Each alternative Forests, Crater Lake National Park, Working Group, was established in addressed harvest, hatcheries, and PacifiCorp, USBR, Sprague River Water 1994. This group, composed of Federal, habitat relative to wild salmonids, and Users Association, Klamath Basin Water State, county, city, tribal, presented obstacles to recovery and Users Protective Association, U.S. environmental, local business, possible actions to facilitate recovery. Timberlands, and Klamath Tribes. The agricultural-ranching, and local Regardless of the alternative ultimately defined goals of this group as identified community members, works on a selected by the Washington State Fish in the Conservation Strategy are—(1) consensus-based approach to Klamath and Wildlife Commission as the Wild secure existing bull trout populations basin ecosystem issues. The group Salmonid Policy, implementation of the and (2) restore populations to some of focuses on ecosystem restoration policy will suggest guidelines for their former distribution (Light et al. projects and has funded bull trout actions taken by the WDFW and will not 1996). Phase 1 has concentrated on conservation efforts, a high group be binding on other State, tribal, and addressing threats to bull trout from priority, such as riparian fencing and private entities. Because of uncertainties non-native salmonids, including road maintenance and obliteration concerning implementation of the eradication of brook trout and brown projects. policy, the effect of the policy on bull trout above barriers where isolated Other State regulations and policies trout conservation in Washington is subpopulations of bull trout are found. affect bull trout and their habitat in unknown. Stream temperatures and sedimentation Oregon. For instance, Oregon has a In Montana, Governor Marc Racicot problems are being addressed policy ‘‘to prevent the serious depletion appointed the Bull Trout Restoration concurrent with eradication of exotic of any indigenous species’’ (ORS Team in 1994 to produce a plan that species. Phase 2 will involve expanding 496.012). As such, the Oregon maintains, protects, and increases bull the number of subpopulations by Department of Fish and Wildlife’s trout populations. The team appointed a reestablishing bull trout in high quality Wildlife Diversity Plan (OAR 635–100) scientific group that has subsequently headwater habitats, effectively provides for a Sensitive Species List. prepared eleven basin-specific status increasing the size of the Klamath River The Sensitive Species List (OAR–635– reports and two technical, peer- metapopulation and making it more 100–040) is maintained by ODFW, and reviewed papers. A third technical 31668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations paper is presently undergoing peer Natural and manmade factors affecting Introduced brook trout threaten bull review. A Montana Bull Trout Recovery the continued existence of bull trout trout through hybridization, Plan, including a recovery goal, is also include—previous introductions of non- competition, and possibly predation nearing completion. Watershed groups native species that compete or hybridize (Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992; WDW are being established in some areas to with bull trout; fragmentation and 1992; Clancy 1993; Rieman and lead local bull trout restoration efforts. isolation of bull trout subpopulations McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1996). As of October 1997, some localized from habitat changes caused by human Hybridization between brook trout and habitat restoration projects, such as activities, and subpopulation bull trout has been reported in Montana removal of fish passage barriers, extirpations due to naturally occurring (MBTSG 1995a,b, 1996a,c,e; Hansen and screening irrigation diversions, riparian events such as droughts and floods. DosSantos 1997), Oregon (Markle 1992; fencing, stream restoration projects, and Ratliff and Howell 1992), Washington habitat monitoring, had been completed Introduced Non-native Species (WDFW 1997), and Idaho (Adams 1996; or were underway (Graham and Clinch, Introductions of non-native species by T. Burton, BNF, pers. comm. 1997). in litt. 1997). Because of uncertainties the Federal government, State fish and Hybridization results in offspring that concerning implementation of the game departments, and private parties, are frequently sterile (Leary et al. 1993), restoration plan, the effect of the plan across the range of bull trout has but some hybrids show gonadal on future bull trout conservation in resulted in declines in abundance, local development (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in Montana is unknown. extirpations, and hybridization of bull litt. 1997), raising concern of potential Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and trout (Bond 1992; Howell and Buchanan introgression. Hybrids may be Montana each have adopted a Forest 1992; Leary et al. 1993; Donald and significant competitors; Dunsmoor and Practice Act (FPA) or other legislation Alger 1993; Pratt and Huston 1993; Bienz (in litt. 1997) noted that hybrids consisting of rules and regulations MBTSG 1995b,d, 1996g; Platts et al are aggressive and larger than resident addressing forest management on State, 1995; Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt. bull trout, suggesting that hybrids may Federal, and private lands. In general, 1997). Non-native species may have a competitive advantage. Brook the legislation establishes best exacerbate stresses on bull trout from trout mature faster and have a higher management practices (BMPs) to be habitat degradation, fragmentation, and reproductive rate than bull trout. This implemented on forests, such as isolation (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). difference may favor brook trout over streamside management zones (Montana Introduced species, such as rainbow bull trout when they occur together, Department of State Lands 1994), trout, may benefit large adult bull trout often leading to replacement of bull activities allowed in riparian areas, by providing supplemental forage (Faler trout with brook trout (Leary et al. 1993; restrictions on harvest adjacent to and Bair 1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. Clancy 1993; MBTSG 1995b). The threat streams, and location of road 1993). However, introductions of non- of hybridization and replacement is construction. The application of BMPs native game fish can be detrimental due likely exacerbated where larger, more is voluntary in some States. Although to increased angling and subsequent fecund migratory forms of bull trout audits show that compliance with BMPs incidental catch and illegal harvest of have been eliminated (Rieman and is high in Idaho (H. Malany, Idaho bull trout (Rode 1990; Bond 1992; WDW McIntyre 1993). The magnitude of Forest Practice Act Advisory Committee 1992; MBTSG 1995d). threats from non-native fishes is highest Member, in litt. 1997) and Montana for subpopulations supporting only (Mathieus 1996), the Service is not Non-native fish also threaten bull resident fish because resident bull trout aware of evaluations of various States’ trout in relatively secure and physically typically are small in number and BMPs relative to the protection of bull unaltered habitats, including roadless isolated where the effects of trout habitat and processes affecting areas, wilderness, and national parks. interspecific interactions are likely more water quality, such as sediment For instance, brook trout occur in intense. delivery, water temperature, recruitment tributaries of the Middle Fork Salmon Brook trout apparently adapt better to of woody debris, and bank stability. In River within the Frank Church-River of degraded habitats than bull trout Idaho, half of timber sales audited No Return Wilderness, including Elk, (Clancy 1993; Rich 1996). Brook trout resulted in contributions of sediment to Camas, Loon, and Big creeks (Thurow likely have higher survival-to- streams, largely from inadequately 1985; S. Achord, National Marine emergence than bull trout in areas with maintained roads (Zaroban et al. 1996). Fisheries Service (NMFS), in litt. 1994) elevated sediment (MBTSG 1996h), and Even with high implementation rates, and Sun Creek in Crater Lake National brook trout also tend to occur in streams Idaho’s forestry BMPs have been Park (Light et al. 1996). Glacier National with higher water temperatures (Adams ineffective at maintaining beneficial Park has self-sustaining populations of 1994; MBTSG 1996h). Because elevated uses, including cold water biota introduced non-native species, water temperatures and sediments are (McIntyre 1993). In Montana, McGreer including lake trout, brook trout, often indicative of degraded habitat, (1994) noted that the Montana rainbow trout, Yellowstone cutthroat bull trout may be subject to stresses legislation may adequately provide for trout, lake whitefish (Coregonus from both interactions with brook trout woody debris and bank stability, but it clupeaformis), and northern pike and degraded habitat (MBTSG 1996h). may be inadequate for temperature (MBTSG 1995d). Although stocking in Watson and Hillman (1997) found an control and sedimentation. The MDNRC Glacier National Park was terminated in inverse relationship between bull trout has discontinued timber harvest and 1971, only a few headwaters lakes occurrence and the presence of brook grazing in areas directly adjacent to contain exclusively native species, trout. Dunsmoor and Bienz (in litt. 1997) streams containing bull trout (P. including bull trout. The introduction noted that brook trout have a high Flowers, MDNRC, in litt. 1996). Based and expansion of lake trout into the probability of displacing bull trout in on current information, the Service is relatively pristine habitats of Kintla the Klamath River basin due to unable to conclude that State FPAs and Lake and Lake McDonald in Glacier degraded bull trout habitat. related legislation are adequate to National Park nearly extirpated the bull Introduced brown trout are protect bull trout habitat. trout subpopulation from predation and established in several areas within the E. Other natural or manmade factors competition (L. Marnell, NPS, in litt. range of bull trout and likely compete affecting their continued existence. 1995; MBTSG 1995d). with bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992; Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31669

Platts et al. 1993; Pratt and Huston Salmon, Inez, Seeley, and Alva lakes in absence of brook trout, and these are the 1993). Brown trout tend to spawn in the the Clearwater River basin, a tributary to most abundant (Ratliff and Howell 1992; same areas as bull trout, though later in the Blackfoot River, Montana (MFWP Ziller 1992). In 1992, chemical the season, and may compete for 1997). Northern pike numbers have eradication of brook trout was initiated spawning and rearing areas and increased in Salmon Lake and Lake in Sun Creek (Buktenica 1997). The superimpose redds on bull trout redds Inez, having a negative effect on bull chemical treatment apparently killed a (Pratt & Huston 1993; Light et al. 1996; trout (Berg, pers. comm. 1997). Northern number of bull trout due to the MBTSG 1996h). Additionally, brown pike in Seeley Lake and Lake Alva are difficulty of removing fish prior to trout are typically more aggressive than also expected to increase in numbers treatment (Buktenica 1997). Other native trout, and can displace brook (Berg, pers. comm. 1997). eradication programs relying on trout and other native trout species Introduced bass may negatively affect chemical treatments would likely have (Fausch and White 1981; Wang and bull trout where the species co-occur similar effects on bull trout. Ongoing White 1994). Bull trout and brown trout (MFWP 1997). In the Clark Fork River, management actions in Threemile and rear in similar areas and may compete Montana, Noxon Rapids Reservoir Long creeks focus on brook trout for food and space. Elevated water supports fisheries for both smallmouth eradication via selective electrofishing, temperatures may favor brown trout bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and snorkel-spearing, trapping, and over bull trout in competitive largemouth bass. Both are high priority chemical treatments with the objective interactions (MBTSG 1996h). Brown species in current management of of expanding bull trout range. Brook trout are thought to have been a Noxon Rapids Reservoir unless more trout have declined in Threemile Creek, secondary factor in the decline and suitable bull trout habitat is created as but there has been no measurable eventual extirpation of bull trout in the a result of dam relicensing. The fishery change in brook trout numbers in Long McCloud River, California, after dam management objective for Cabinet Gorge Creek (Dunsmoor and Bienz, in litt. construction altered bull trout habitat Reservoir, downstream of Noxon Rapids 1997). (Rode 1990). Reservoir, is to enhance bull trout while Non-native lake trout also negatively managing the existing bass fishery Columbia River Population Segment affect bull trout (Donald and Alger 1993; (MFWP 1997). Within the upper Columbia River MBTSG 1996h). A study of 34 lakes in Opossum shrimp, a crustacean native basin in Montana, brook trout are found Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia to the Canadian Shield area, was widely in approximately 65 percent of the found lake trout likely limit foraging introduced in the 1970s as stream reaches where bull trout occur (J. opportunities and reduce the supplemental forage for kokanee and Hutten, MFWP, in litt. 1993). Brook distribution and abundance of migratory other salmonids in several lakes and trout are found in all major basins in bull trout in mountain lakes (Donald reservoirs across the northwest (Nesler Montana that support bull trout except and Alger 1993). Illegal introductions of and Bergerson 1991). The introduction the South Fork of the Flathead River. lake trout and other species have of opossum shrimp in Flathead Lake Brook trout and bull trout hybridization occurred in more than 50 northwest changed the lake’s trophic dynamics, was first documented in the early 1980s Montana waters in recent years (J. and is widely believed to have been in South Fork Lolo Creek in the Vashro, MFWP, in litt. 1995). The partially responsible for the expanding Bitterroot River basin, Montana (Clancy potential for illegal introduction of lake the lake trout population, resulting in 1993; MBTSG 1996h). Bull trout have trout into the Swan River basin and increased competition and predation on largely been replaced by brook trout. Hungry Horse Reservoir on the South bull trout (T. Weaver, MFWP, in litt. Introduced brook, brown, and Fork Flathead River, both in Montana, is 1993) Thus, opossum shrimp have had rainbow trout are present in the considered a threat to bull trout an indirect, negative effect on bull trout. Bitterroot drainage in Montana (Clancy (MBTSG 1995e, 1996a), potentially Conversely, in Swan Lake, Montana, 1996). The presence of non-native fish affecting up to six subpopulations. In opossum shrimp and kokanee have may have been a factor causing the Idaho, lake trout and habitat become established and increased the fragmentation of bull trout range in the degradation were factors in the decline availability of forage for bull trout, Bitterroot drainage by restricting of bull trout from Priest Lake (Mauser et contributing to the significant increase migratory movements by bull trout al. 1988; Pratt and Huston 1993). in bull trout numbers in the Swan River (Rich 1996). Brook trout appeared to be Juvenile lake trout are also using river basin (MBTSG 1996a). Thus, the effects replacing bull trout in some streams in habitats in Montana, possibly competing of introduced species on bull trout the Bitterroot. Bull trout-brook trout with bull trout (MBTSG 1996h). State involve complex interactions that are hybrids have been documented in at plans to manage lake trout to reduce dependent on several factors. least nine tributaries (MBTSG 1995b). interactions with bull trout are Rich (1996) found a strong negative Klamath River Population Segment unknown. correlation between the presence of bull Non-native northern pike (Esox Bull trout have been displaced by trout and brook trout in tributaries of lucius), bass (Micropterus spp.), and brook trout in portions of the Klamath the Bitterroot River. opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) are also River basin (Light et al. 1996), and The MBTSG concluded that thought to negatively affect bull trout. hybrids of the two species have been introduced species, particularly in the Northern pike were illegally introduced verified in several of the streams (Ratliff lower Clark Fork River pose a high into Swan Lake in the 1970s (MFWP and Howell 1992). Either brook trout, threat to bull trout (MBTSG 1996b). 1997), and predation on juvenile bull brown trout, or both species occur with Non-native fishes have been introduced trout has been documented (S. Rumsey, bull trout in six of seven throughout the Clark Fork River system MFWP, pers comm. in MBTSG 1996a). subpopulations. Where brook trout or and brook trout are found throughout. Management of Swan Lake emphasizes brown trout co-occur with bull trout, the Bull trout-brook trout hybrids exist in protection of native salmonids, distribution of bull trout has contracted the Middle and upper Clark Fork particularly bull trout, and control of and that of introduced salmonids systems (MBTSG 1995a; Hansen and northern pike to minimize effects on expanded (e.g., Brownsworth, Leonard, DosSantos 1997). native species (MFWP 1997). Northern and Long creeks) (Buchanan et al. 1997). In Idaho, bull trout densities in Mica pike were also illegally introduced into Only four subpopulations exist in the Creek, Spokane River basin, during 1972 31670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations ranged from 0.03 to 0.23 fish/100 m2 extirpation for subpopulations is high were accessible to bull trout to maintain (0.003 to 0.023 fish/100 ft2) (Mauser et (Burkey 1989, 1995). Moreover, habitat the species (Rieman and McIntyre 1995; al. 1972 in Platts et al. 1993). Extensive fragmentation that isolates USDA and USDI 1997). Migratory bull electrofishing surveys in Mica Creek subpopulations may increase a species’ trout tend to show fidelity to spawning during 1993 did not find bull trout, but susceptibility to both demographic and streams, but they have been brook trout were numerous at one naturally occurring events (Rieman and documented to spawn in different transect (Martin 1994). Brook trout are McIntyre 1993). tributaries from one year to the next, present or accessible to most of the Metapopulation concepts of including tributaries not previously Clearwater River basin in Idaho, with conservation biology theory are known to have recent spawning (Ratliff hybridization and competition the applicable to the bull trout (Reiman and et al. 1996). Thus, migratory bull trout primary threat to bull trout (A. McIntyre 1993). A metapopulation is an have the ability to reestablish an area Espinosa, Clearwater National Forest, interacting network of local populations where extirpated previously as long as pers. comm. 1993; D. Johnson, Nez with varying frequencies of migration suitable migratory corridors exist Perce Tribe, pers. comm. 1995). For and gene flow among them (Meffe and (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). example, Meadow Creek, a tributary to Carroll 1994). Subpopulations may be Today, bull trout exhibiting migratory the North Fork Clearwater River, extirpated, but can be reestablished by life histories have declined or are absent contained numerous bull trout in 1987 individuals from other subpopulations. in many river systems (Bond, 1992; and 1988, but, currently, high numbers Metapopulations are thought to provide Schill 1992; Ziller 1992; Pratt and of brook trout occur and bull trout a mechanism for spreading risk because Huston 1993; Rieman and McIntyre numbers have been sharply reduced the simultaneous loss of all 1993; Newton and Pribyl 1994; MBTSG (Johnson, pers. comm., 1995). subpopulations is unlikely. Migratory 1995a,b; 1996b,c,e; USDA and USDI Negative effects of interactions with corridors can also allow individuals 1997). Passage barriers (e.g., dams and introduced non-native species may be access to unoccupied but suitable diversions) and other habitat alterations the most pervasive threat to bull trout habitats, foraging areas, and refuges prevent bull trout migration from throughout the Columbia River basin. Of from perturbations (Saunders et al. following historical patterns. the 141 subpopulations of bull trout in 1990). Relative to bull trout, Additionally, suitable spawning areas the Columbia River population segment, maintenance of migratory corridors is are more fragmented across the approximately 62 percent were essential to provide connectivity among landscape than historically (USDA and threatened by competition, predation, or subpopulations thought to be sources USDI 1997). With fewer and more displacement by non-native species. and sinks, and enables the compressed spawning and rearing areas Often one or more non-native species reestablishment of extirpated available, bull trout increasingly persist have been introduced into bull trout subpopulations. Where migratory bull as small, isolated resident populations habitats; interactions with bull trout are trout are not present, disjunct instead of few, large connected likely exacerbated by factors such as subpopulations cannot be replenished subpopulations (Bond, 1992; Schill habitat conditions, water temperature, when a disturbance makes local habitats 1992; Thomas 1992; Ziller 1992; Rieman and isolation. The MBTSG concluded unsuitable (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996 that non-native species pose a limitation USDA and USDI 1997). Moreover, Newton and Pribyl 1994; MBTSG to bull trout restoration (MBTSG 1995a- limited downstream movement was 1995a,b; 1996b,c,d,e; USDA and USDI e, 1996a-f). The MBTSG is reviewing observed for resident bull trout in the 1997). recommendations for removing or Bitterroot River basin (Nelson 1996) As discussed in Factor A, evidence suppressing non-native fishes to benefit suggesting low probability that suggests that landscape disturbances, bull trout, but success of such an effort extirpated bull trout would be such as floods and fires, have increased on a large scale is questionable (MBTSG reestablished by resident fish residing in frequency and magnitude of effects 1996h). nearby. Of the 141 subpopulations in within the range of bull trout (Henjum the Columbia River population segment, et al. 1994; USDA and USDI 1997). Isolation and Habitat Fragmentation approximately 79 percent are unlikely Where recolonization is prevented by Bull trout are widely distributed over to be reestablished if extirpated; and 50 passage barriers and suitable habitat, a large geographic area, and exhibit a percent are at risk of extirpation from bull trout subpopulations may be patchy distribution due, in part, to naturally occurring events. extirpated by perturbations (USDA and specific habitat requirements (Rieman Passage barriers, degraded habitat, USDI 1997). Also, isolated and McIntyre 1993). However, the absence of migratory fish, and subpopulations are typically small, and effects of human activities over the past intensified stream perturbations, such as more likely to be extirpated by local 100 years have resulted in reductions in forest fires, floods, and droughts, reduce events than larger populations (Rieman the overall distribution of bull trout. In the ability of isolated bull trout and McIntyre 1995). Small populations general, habitat fragmentation results in subpopulations to persist following may be at risk of impaired genetic reduction in available habitat and disturbances to streams (Rieman and fitness, as in Gold Creek, Washington increased isolation from conspecifics McIntyre 1993; USDA and USDI 1997). (Craig and Wissmar 1993). (Saunders et al. 1991). In studies of Bull trout evolved with habitat An example of the effects of naturally extinction in fragmented landscapes, perturbations to streams that were likely occurring events, such as fire, on bull Burkey (1989) concluded that when factors in shaping bull trout life history trout habitat is the Entiat River basin of species are isolated by fragmented (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). central Washington. ‘‘Historical and habitats, low rates of population growth Historically, areas suitable for bull trout current influences have been significant are typical in each local population (i.e., spawning were likely distributed in a and include: localized compaction from subpopulations) and their probability of disjunct pattern (Fraley and Shepard sheep grazing and trailing; fire extirpation is directly related to the 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1995; USDA exclusion; timber salvage/road building degree of isolation and fragmentation. and USDI 1997) maintained by natural from the early 1970’s to present; and Without sufficient immigration, overall perturbations. Although the amount and recreation. A portion of this (transitional growth for subpopulations may be low distribution of spawning areas vary or bull trout) zone has recently been and the overall probability of through time, sufficient spawning areas impacted by a large, moderate high Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31671 intensity fire’’ (Wenatchee National Klamath River Population Segment portion of the species’ previous range. Forest, in litt. 1996). This transitional or Bull trout are currently limited to Bull trout in the Columbia River bull trout zone in the mainstem Entiat seven geographically isolated population segment are currently River has had a 30 to 60 percent loss of subpopulations that occupy only a limited to 141 isolated subpopulations, pools since initially surveyed by the fraction of the historical habitat. The which indicates habitat fragmentation U.S. Bureau of Fisheries during 1935 species distribution and numbers have and geographic isolation. Many through 1937 (Wenatchee National declined due to habitat degradation, remaining bull trout occur as isolated Forest, in litt. 1996). Both bull trout isolation, loss of migratory corridors, subpopulations in headwater lakes or densities and recruitment are depressed poor water quality, and the introduction tributaries with migratory life histories in the mainstem Entiat in response to of non-native species. Six of seven bull lost or restricted. Few bull trout habitat degradation. trout subpopulations are small in subpopulations are considered ‘‘strong’’ Conversely, most bull trout number, and unlikely to persist over the in terms of relative abundance and recruitment in the Entiat River basin is next 100 years unless conservation and subpopulation stability. These now occurring in the transitional zone other corrective actions are taken. remaining important strongholds tend to be found in large areas of contiguous in the Mad River. Pool frequencies have Remaining Klamath River bull trout habitats in the Snake River basin of increased dramatically, 85 percent in subpopulations are threatened by the central Idaho Mountains, upper Clark one reach surveyed, 1,000 percent in the effects of past, present and future land Fork and Flathead rivers in Montana, other, since the 1935 through 1937 and water management practices. Most and the Blue Mountains in Washington surveys (Wenatchee National Forest, in subpopulations also face more than one and Oregon. The decline of bull trout is litt. 1996). A large fire occurred in the threat. due to habitat degradation and Mad River basin in 1888, and the basin Despite the bull trout’s current status, fragmentation, blockage of migratory had splash dams and log drives early in the Service is encouraged that recent corridors, poor water quality, past this century. It has taken 60 years for the conservation and recovery actions are fisheries management practices and the habitat to recover. being initiated at Federal, State and local levels to begin to reverse the long- introduction of non-native species. Most Floods or high flows have also been term declining trend for bull trout in the bull trout subpopulations are affected by altered by land management (USDA and Klamath River basin. Progress has one or more threats. USDI 1997). Roads and clear cutting already been made toward improving Recent activities to address threats forested areas tend to magnify the habitat conditions for bull trout. and reverse the long-term decline of bull effects of floods, leading to higher flows, Although the Service proposed the trout are being initiated at Federal, State erosion and bedload that scour channels Klamath River population segment as and local levels (e.g., restrictive angling (Furniss et al. 1991; McIntosh et al. endangered based on the 1994 regulations, adoption of various land 1994; USDA and USDI 1997), and administrative record, new information management rules, and development of degrade bull trout habitat (Henjum et al. indicates that interagency conservation conservation strategies and plans). 1994). Erosion from road landslides programs are being implemented and While these efforts are important to the increases bedload to high stream flows have begun to reduce threats to bull long term conservation and recovery of over bedload levels without roads trout. Included are efforts of the bull trout, threats continue and (Furniss et al. 1991). Increased bedload Klamath Basin Working Group to subpopulation improvement throughout increases the scouring effect of the high eradicate brook trout in Long, Sun and the Columbia River has yet to be water, increasing channel instability, Threemile Creeks, reduce livestock demonstrated. Because bull trout in the leading to a loss of habitat diversity, grazing along bull trout streams, and Columbia River basin are still a wide- especially pools (Henjum et al. 1994; monitor watershed conditions and bull ranging species, with some McIntosh et al. 1994). Bull trout eggs trout status. Moreover, bull trout ‘‘strongholds’’ in relatively protected and fry in the gravels during the conservation in the Klamath Basin has areas, the Columbia River population scouring likely survive at lower rates benefitted from habitat restoration segment is not in immediate danger of (Henjum et al. 1994). For instance, activities of the Upper Klamath Basin extinction. Therefore the Service’s final hundreds of landslides associated with Working Group which began in 1994. determination is to list the Columbia roads on the Clearwater National Forest Habitat improvements derived from River population segment of bull trout and Panhandle National Forests (R. these two programs have just begun to as threatened. Patten and J. Pengkover, Panhandle be realized. Thus the final Critical Habitat National Forests, in litt. 1996) resulted determination is to list the Klamath from high water in 1995, and the effects River population of bull trout as Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of flooding on isolated bull trout threatened because it is no longer in of the Act as—(i) the specific area populations is unknown. Habitat danger of extinction in the foreseeable within the geographical area occupied degradation has reduced the number future and threats have been reduced. by a species, at the time it is listed in and size of bull trout spawning areas accordance with the Act, on which are (USDA and USDI 1997). Columbia River Population Segment found those biological features (I) The Service has carefully assessed the Bull trout in the Columbia River essential to the conservation of the best scientific and commercial basin, despite their relatively species and (II) that may require special information available regarding the past, widespread distribution, have declined management considerations or present, and future threats to bull trout in both their overall range and numbers. protection and; (ii) specific areas in the Klamath River and Columbia Numerous extirpations of local outside the geographical area occupied River distinct population segments of subpopulations have been reported, by a species at the time it is listed, upon bull trout in developing this final rule. with bull trout eliminated from areas a determination that such areas are Based on this evaluation the preferred ranging in size from relatively small essential for the conservation of the action is to list the Klamath River and tributaries of currently occupied, though species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use the Columbia River population fragmented habitat, to large river of all methods and procedures needed segments of bull trout as threatened. systems comprising a substantial to bring the species to the point at 31672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations which listing under the Act is no longer considered essential for determining hydropower projects authorized under necessary. critical habitat for these population the Federal Power Act; USFS and BLM Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as segments. Therefore, the Service finds timber and grazing management amended, and implementing regulations that designation of critical habitat for activities; EPA authorized discharges (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the the Klamath River and the Columbia under the National Pollutant Discharge maximum extent prudent and River population segments is not System of the Clean Water Act; and U.S. determinable, the Secretary designate determinable at this time. Protection of Housing and Urban Development critical habitat at the time the species is bull trout habitat will be addressed projects. determined to be endangered or through the recovery process and On January 27, 1998, an interagency threatened. Service regulations (50 CFR through section 7 consultations to memorandum between the USFS, BLM 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat is determine whether Federal actions are and the Service outlined a process for not determinable if information likely to jeopardize the continued bull trout section 7 conferencing/ sufficient to perform required analysis existence of the species. consultation in recognition of the of impacts of the designation is lacking possibility of an impending listing. The or if the biological needs of the species Available Conservation Measures process considers both programmatic are not sufficiently well known to Conservation measures provided to actions (e.g., land management plans) permit identification of an area as species listed as endangered or and site-specific actions (e.g., timber critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the threatened under the Endangered sales and livestock grazing allotments) Act requires the Service to consider Species Act include recognition, and incorporates conferencing/ economic and other relevant impacts of recovery actions, requirements for consultation at the watershed level. The designating a particular area as critical Federal protection, and prohibitions process uses a matrix to determine the habitat on the basis of the best scientific against certain activities. Recognition environmental baseline and the effects data available. The Secretary may through listing encourages and results of projects on the environmental exclude any area from critical habitat if in conservation actions by Federal, baseline of bull trout. The goal of this he determines that the benefits of such State, and private agencies, groups, and strategy is to complete conferences for exclusion outweigh the conservation individuals. The Act provides for all ongoing actions and proposed benefits, unless to do such would result possible land acquisition and actions by the effective date of listing in the extinction of the species. cooperation with the states and requires through a system of batching and The Service finds that the designation that recovery actions be carried out for aggregating of projects to the watershed of critical habitat is not determinable for all listed species. The protection level. A programmatic LRMP/RMP these distinct population segments required of Federal agencies and the biological assessment would be used to based on the best available information. prohibitions against taking and harm are assess ongoing projects for up to 9 When a ‘‘not determinable’’ finding is discussed, in part, below. months post-listing that result from made, the Service must, within 2 years Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, implementation of Forest Plans/ of the publication date of the original requires Federal agencies to evaluate Resource Management Plans as proposed rule, designate critical habitat, their actions with respect to any species amended in INFISH, PACFISH and the unless the designation is found to be not that is proposed or listed as endangered Northwest Forest Plan. The Service prudent. The Service reached a ‘‘not or threatened and with respect to its would determine in a programmatic determinable’’ critical habitat finding critical habitat, if any is being biological opinion whether these issues for the proposed rule based on the 1994 designated. Regulations implementing would jeopardize the continued administrative record. In the proposed this interagency cooperation provision existence of bull trout, and would rule the Service specifically requested of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part authorize incidental take. Part of the comments on this issue. While the 402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal project description and evaluation Service received a number of comments agencies to insure that activities they process would stipulate that an ongoing advocating critical habitat designation, authorize, fund, or carry out are not project would be completed by May 10, none of these comments provided likely to jeopardize the continued 1999. For projects that are proposed information that added to the Service’s existence of a listed species or to after the initial 9 month post-listing ability to determine critical habitat. destroy or adversely modify its critical period, the watershed approach, using Additionally, no new information habitat. If a Federal action may affect a the bull trout matrix incorporating local regarding specific physical and listed species or its critical habitat, the watershed biological data, would be biological features essential for bull responsible Federal agency must enter project-specific applied in the section 7 trout in the Klamath River and into formal consultation with the process. Columbia River bull trout population Service. The Act and its implementing segments was obtained during the open The Klamath River and Columbia regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 and comment period including the five River bull trout population segments 17.31 set forth a series of general trade public hearings. The biological needs of occur on lands administered by the prohibitions and exceptions that apply bull trout in the two population USFS and BLM; various State-owned to all threatened wildlife. These segments are not sufficiently well properties in Oregon, Washington, prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for known to permit identification of areas Idaho and Montana; and private lands. any person subject to the jurisdiction of as critical habitat. Insufficient Federal agency actions that may require the United States to take (includes information is available on the number consultation as described in the harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, of individuals or spawning reaches preceding paragraph include Army wound, kill, trap, or collect; or attempt required to support viable Corps of Engineers (Corps) involvement any of these), import or export, ship in subpopulations throughout the distinct in projects such as the construction of interstate commerce in the course of population segment. In addition, the roads and bridges, and the permitting of commercial activity, or sell or offer for extent of habitat required and specific wetland filling and dredging projects sale in interstate or foreign commerce management measures needed for subject to section 404 of the Clean Water any listed species. It is also illegal to recovery of these fish have not been Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); Federal Energy possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or identified. This information is Regulatory Commission licensed ship any such wildlife that has been Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 31673 taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply With respect to both the Klamath regarding prohibitions and permits may to agents of the Service and State River and Columbia River bull trout be addressed to the U.S. Fish and conservation agencies. population segments, the following Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, authorized under section actions likely would be considered a Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, 10(a)(1) of the Act, may be issued to violation of section 9— Oregon 97232–4181 (telephone 503 carry out otherwise prohibited activities (1) Take of bull trout without a 231–6241; facsimile 503 231–6243). involving endangered and threatened permit, which includes harassing, Special Rule wildlife under certain circumstances. harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, Regulations governing permits are at 50 wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, Section 4(d) of the Act provides CFR 17.22, 17.23 and 17.32. Such or collecting, or attempting any of these authority for the Service to promulgate permits are available for scientific actions, except in accordance with special rules for threatened species that purposes, to enhance the propagation or applicable State fish and wildlife would relax the prohibition against survival of the species, and/or for conservation laws and regulations taking. The Service finds that statewide incidental take in connection with within the Columbia River bull trout angling regulations have become more otherwise lawful activities. For population segment; restrictive in an attempt to protect bull threatened species, permits are also (2) To possess, sell, deliver, carry, trout throughout Idaho, Montana, available for zoological exhibition, transport, or ship illegally taken bull Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and educational purposes, or special trout; are adequate to protect the species from purposes consistent with the purpose of (3) Unauthorized interstate and excessive taking. The Service intends to the Act. Private landowners seeking foreign commerce (commerce across continue to work with the States and permits under section 10 of the Act for State and international boundaries) and Tribes in developing management plans incidental take are a means of protecting import/export of bull trout (as discussed and agreements with the objective of bull trout habitat through the voluntary in the prohibition discussion earlier in recovery and eventual delisting of the development of habitat conservation this section); Klamath River and Columbia River (4) Introduction of non-native fish plans. Information collections distinct population segments. This species that compete or hybridize with, associated with these permits are special rule allows for take of bull trout or prey on bull trout; approved under the Paperwork within the Klamath River and Columbia (5) Destruction or alteration of bull Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., River distinct population segments trout habitat by dredging, and assigned Office of Management and when it is in accordance with applicable channelization, diversion, in-stream Budget clearance number 1018–0094. State and Native American Tribal fish vehicle operation or rock removal, or For additional information concerning and wildlife conservation laws and other activities that result in the these permits and associated regulations, as constituted in all destruction or significant degradation of requirements, see 50 CFR 17.32. respects relevant to protection of bull cover, channel stability, substrate trout. The Service believes that this It is the policy of the Service composition, temperature, and special rule will allow for more efficient published in the Federal Register on migratory corridors used by the species management of the species, thereby July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify for foraging, cover, migration, and facilitating its conservation. to the maximum extent practicable at spawning; the time a species is listed those (6) Discharges or dumping of toxic National Environmental Policy Act activities that would or would not chemicals, silt, or other pollutants into constitute a violation of section 9 of the waters supporting bull trout that result The Service has determined that an Act. The intent of this policy is to in death or injury of the species; and Environmental Assessment, as defined increase public awareness of the effect (7) Destruction or alteration of under the authority of the National of this listing on proposed and ongoing riparian or lakeshore habitat and Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need activities within the species’ range. The adjoining uplands of waters supporting not be prepared in connection with Service believes the following actions bull trout by timber harvest, grazing, regulations adopted pursuant to section would not be likely to result in a mining, hydropower development, or 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as violation of section 9, provided the other developmental activities that amended. A notice outlining the activities are carried out in accordance result in destruction or significant Service’s reasons for this determination with any existing regulations and permit degradation of cover, channel stability, was published in the Federal Register requirements— substrate composition, temperature, and on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). (1) Actions that may affect bull trout migratory corridors used by the species Required Determinations in the Klamath and Columbia River for foraging, cover, migration, and basins and are authorized, funded or spawning. This rule does not contain any new carried out by a Federal agency when Other activities not identified above collections of information other than the action is conducted in accordance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis those already approved under the with an incidental take statement issued to determine if a violation of section 9 Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. by the Service pursuant to section 7 of of the Act may be likely to result from 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of the Act; such activity. The Service does not Management and Budget clearance (2) Possession of Columbia River consider these lists to be exhaustive and number 1018–0094. For additional basin bull trout caught legally in provides them as information to the information concerning permit and accordance with authorized State public. associated requirements for threatened fishing regulations (see Special Rule Questions regarding whether specific species, see 50 CFR 17.32. section); activities may constitute a violation of References Cited (3) State, local and other activities section 9 should be directed to the that have been approved by the Service Supervisor of the Service’s Snake River A complete list of all references cited through development of Conservation Basin Office (see ADDRESSES section). herein is available upon request from Plans and special rules under section Requests for copies of the regulations the Snake River Basin Office (see 4(d) and section 6(c)(1) of the Act. concerning listed species and inquiries Addresses section). 31674 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

Author(s) List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– The primary authors of this final rule Endangered and threatened species, 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. are: John Bowerman, Klamath Basin Exports, Imports, Reporting and Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, recordkeeping requirements, 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the OR; Timothy Cummings, Columbia Transportation. following, in alphabetical order under River Fisheries Office, Vancouver, WA; Regulation Promulgation FISHES, to the List of Endangered and Stephen Duke, Snake River Basin Office, Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: Boise, ID; Michael Faler, Idaho Fisheries PART 17Ð[AMENDED] Resource Office, Ahsahka, ID; Robert § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Hallock, Upper Columbia River Basin Accordingly, the Service amends part wildlife. Office, Spokane, WA; Samuel Lohr, 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of * * * * * Snake River Basin Office, Boise, Idaho; the Code of Federal Regulations, as set Lori Nordstrom, Helena Field Office, forth below— (h) * * * Helena, MT; and Ron Rhew, Oregon 1. The authority citation for part 17 State Office, Portland, OR. continues to read as follows:

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special rules Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat

******* FISHES ******* Trout, bull ...... Salvelinus U.S.A. (Pacific NW), Klamath R. (U.S.A.- T 637 NA 17.44 (v) confluentus. Canada (NW Terri- OR) tories). Do...... do...... do ...... Columbia R. T 637 NA Do. (U.S.A.ÐID, MT, OR, WA) mainstem and its tributaries, excluding Jarbidge R., NV, and east of Continental Divide, MT.) *******

3. Amend § 17.44 by adding (2) Exceptions. No person shall take species taken in violation of this section paragraph (v) to read as follows: this species, except in accordance with or in violation of applicable State and applicable State and Native American Native American Tribal fish and game § 17.44 Special rulesÐfishes. Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations. * * * * * laws and regulations, as constituted in (5) It is unlawful for any person to (v) Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), all respects relevant to protection of bull attempt to commit, solicit another to Columbia River and Klamath River trout in effect on June 10, 1998. commit, or cause to be committed, any (3) Any violation of applicable State population segments. offense defined in paragraphs (v) (2) and Native American Tribal fish and through (4) of this section. (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in wildlife conservation laws or paragraph (v)(2) of this section, all regulations with respect to the taking of Dated: June 1, 1998. prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 and this species is also a violation of the Jamie Rappaport Clark, exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32 shall apply Endangered Species Act. to the bull trout Columbia River and (4) No person shall possess, sell, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Klamath River population segments deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or [FR Doc. 98–15319 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am] within the contiguous United States. export, any means whatsoever, any such BILLING CODE 4310±55±P