november 1, 1999 federal register final rule 1999.pdf · 2019-03-18 · 58910 federal register/vol....

fede

ral r

egiste

r

58909

MondayNovember 1, 1999

Part II

Department of theInteriorFish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife andPlants; Determination of ThreatenedStatus for Bull Trout in the CoterminousUnited States; Final RuleNotice of Intent To Prepare a ProposedSpecial Rule Pursuant to Section 4(d) ofthe Endangered Species Act for the BullTrout; Proposed Rule

VerDate 29-OCT-99 14:52 Oct 29, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\A01NO0.001 pfrm02 PsN: 01NOR2

58910 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF01

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofThreatened Status for Bull Trout in theCoterminous United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, determine threatenedstatus for all populations of bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) within thecoterminous United States, with aspecial rule, pursuant to the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, as amended (Act).This determination is based on ourfinding that the Coastal-Puget Soundand St. Mary-Belly River populationsegments are threatened, coupled withour earlier findings of threatened statusfor the Klamath River, Columbia River,and Jarbidge River population segments.These population segments are disjunctand geographically isolated from oneanother with no genetic interchangebetween them due to natural and man-made barriers. These populationsegments collectively encompass theentire range of the species in thecoterminous United States. Therefore,for the purposes of consultation andrecovery, we recognize these fivedistinct population segments as interimrecovery units. With this final rule, thebull trout will now be listed asthreatened throughout its entire range inthe coterminous United States.

The Coastal-Puget Sound bull troutpopulation segment encompasses allPacific coast drainages withinWashington, including Puget Sound.The St. Mary-Belly River bull troutpopulation segment occurs in northwestMontana. Bull trout are threatened bythe combined effects of habitatdegradation, fragmentation andalterations associated with dewatering,road construction and maintenance,mining, and grazing; the blockage ofmigratory corridors by dams or otherdiversion structures; poor water quality;incidental angler harvest; entrainment(process by which aquatic organisms arepulled through a diversion or otherdevice) into diversion channels; andintroduced non-native species. Thisfinal determination was based on thebest available scientific and commercialinformation including current data andnew information received during thecomment period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1999.ADDRESSES: The complete file for thisrule is available for inspection, byappointment, during normal businesshours at the Snake River Basin Office,1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise,Idaho 83709.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert Ruesink, Supervisor, at the aboveaddress (telephone 208/378–5243;facsimile 208/378–5262) to make anappointment to inspect the complete filefor this rule or for informationpertaining to the Columbia Riverpopulation segment; Gerry Jackson,Manager, Western Washington Office(telephone 360/753–9440; facsimile360/753–9008) for informationpertaining to the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment; Kemper McMaster,Field Supervisor, Montana Field Office(telephone 406/449–5225; facsimile406/449–5339) for informationpertaining to the St. Mary-Belly Riverpopulation segment; Steven Lewis,Field Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fishand Wildlife Office (telephone 541/885–8481; facsimile 541/885–7837) forinformation pertaining to the KlamathRiver population segment; Robert D.Williams, Field Supervisor, NevadaState Office (telephone 775/861–6300;facsimile 775/861–6301) for informationpertaining to the Jarbidge Riverpopulation segment.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundBull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),

members of the family Salmonidae, arechar native to the Pacific northwest andwestern Canada. They historicallyoccurred in major river drainages in thePacific northwest from about 41° N to60° N latitude, from the southern limitsin the McCloud River in northernCalifornia and the Jarbidge River inNevada, north to the headwaters of theYukon River in Northwest Territories,Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). Tothe west, bull trout range includes PugetSound, various coastal rivers ofWashington, British Columbia, Canada,and southeast Alaska (Bond 1992; Learyand Allendorf 1997). Bull trout arerelatively dispersed throughouttributaries of the Columbia River Basin,including its headwaters in Montanaand Canada. Bull trout also occur in theKlamath River Basin of south-centralOregon. East of the Continental Divide,bull trout are found in the headwatersof the Saskatchewan River in Albertaand the MacKenzie River system inAlberta and British Columbia (Cavender1978; Brewin and Brewin 1997).

Bull trout were first described asSalmo spectabilis by Girard in 1856

from a specimen collected on the lowerColumbia River, and subsequentlydescribed under a number of namessuch as Salmo confluentus andSalvelinus malma (Cavender 1978). Bulltrout and Dolly Varden (Salvelinusmalma) were previously considered asingle species (Cavender 1978; Bond1992). Cavender (1978) presentedmorphometric (measurement), meristic(counts), osteological (bone structure),and distributional evidence todocument specific distinctions betweenDolly Varden and bull trout.Subsequently, bull trout and DollyVarden were formally recognized asseparate species by the AmericanFisheries Society in 1980 (Robins et al.1980). Although bull trout and DollyVarden co-occur in several northwesternWashington River drainages, there islittle evidence of introgression and thetwo species appear to be maintainingdistinct genomes (Leary and Allendorf1997).

Bull trout exhibit both resident andmigratory life-history strategies throughmuch of the current range (Rieman andMcIntyre 1993). Resident bull troutcomplete their life cycles in thetributary streams in which they spawnand rear. Migratory bull trout spawn intributary streams, and juvenile fish rearfrom 1 to 4 years before migrating toeither a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial),or in certain coastal areas, saltwater(anadromous), to mature (Fraley andShepard 1989; Goetz 1989). Anadromyis the least studied life-history type inbull trout, and some biologists believethe existence of true anadromy in bulltrout is still uncertain (McPhail andBaxter 1996). However, historicalaccounts, collection records, and recentevidence suggests an anadromous life-history form for bull trout (Suckley andCooper 1860; Cavender 1978; McPhailand Baxter 1996; WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) et al. 1997—formerly theWashington Department of Wildlife(WDW)). Resident and migratory formsmay be found together, and bull troutmay produce offspring exhibiting eitherresident or migratory behavior (Riemanand McIntyre 1993).

Compared to other salmonids, bulltrout have more specific habitatrequirements (Rieman and McIntyre1993) that appear to influence theirdistribution and abundance. Criticalparameters include water temperature,cover, channel form and stability, valleyform, spawning and rearing substrates,and migratory corridors (Oliver 1979;Pratt 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howelland Buchanan 1992; Rieman and


58911Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

McIntyre 1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watsonand Hillman 1997). Watson and Hillman(1997) concluded that watersheds musthave specific physical characteristics toprovide the necessary habitatrequirements for bull trout spawningand rearing, and that the characteristicsare not necessarily ubiquitousthroughout watersheds in which bulltrout occur. Because bull trout exhibit apatchy distribution, even in undisturbedhabitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993),fish would not likely occupy allavailable habitats simultaneously(Rieman et al. 1997).

Bull trout are typically associatedwith the colder streams in a riversystem, although fish can occurthroughout larger river systems (Fraleyand Shepard 1989; Rieman andMcIntyre 1993, 1995; Buchanan andGregory 1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Forexample, water temperature above 15° C(59° F) is believed to negativelyinfluence bull trout distribution, whichpartially explains the generally patchydistribution within a watershed (Fraleyand Shepard 1989; Rieman andMcIntyre 1995). Spawning areas areoften associated with cold-watersprings, groundwater infiltration, andthe coldest streams in a given watershed(Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993;Rieman et al. 1997).

All life history stages of bull trout areassociated with complex forms of cover,including large woody debris, undercutbanks, boulders, and pools (Oliver 1979;Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989;Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989; Sedell andEverest 1991; Pratt 1992; Thomas 1992;Rich 1996; Sexauer and James 1997;Watson and Hillman 1997). Jakober(1995) observed bull trout overwinteringin deep beaver ponds or poolscontaining large woody debris in theBitterroot River drainage, Montana, andsuggested that suitable winter habitatmay be more restrictive than summerhabitat. Maintaining bull troutpopulations requires stream channeland flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre1993). Juvenile and adult bull troutfrequently inhabit side channels, streammargins, and pools with suitable cover(Sexauer and James 1997). These areasare sensitive to activities that directly orindirectly affect stream channel stabilityand alter natural flow patterns. Forexample, altered stream flow in the fallmay disrupt bull trout during thespawning period, and channelinstability may decrease survival of eggsand young juveniles in the gravel duringwinter through spring (Fraley andShepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt andHuston 1993).

Preferred spawning habitat generallyconsists of low gradient stream reaches

often found in high gradient streamsthat have loose, clean gravel (Fraley andShepard 1989) and water temperaturesof 5 to 9° C (41 to 48° F) in late summerto early fall (Goetz 1989). Pratt (1992)reported that increases in fine sedimentsreduce egg survival and emergence.High juvenile densities were observedin Swan River, Montana, and tributariescharacterized by diverse cobblesubstrate and a low percent of finesediments (Shepard et al. 1984).

The size and age of maturity for bulltrout is variable depending upon life-history strategy. Growth of resident fishis generally slower than migratory fish;resident fish tend to be smaller atmaturity and less fecund (productive)(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989).Resident adults range from 150 to 300millimeters (mm) (6 to 12 inches (in))total length and migratory adultscommonly reach 600 mm (24 in) ormore (Pratt 1985; Goetz 1989). Thelargest verified bull trout is a 14.6kilogram (kg) (32 pound (lb)) specimencaught in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, in1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982).

Bull trout normally reach sexualmaturity in 4 to 7 years and can live 12or more years. Biologists report repeatand alternate year spawning, althoughrepeat spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well known(Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley andShepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman andMcIntyre 1996). Bull trout typicallyspawn from August to November duringperiods of decreasing watertemperatures. However, migratory bulltrout may begin spawning migrations asearly as April, and move upstream as faras 250 kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi))to spawning grounds in some areas oftheir range (Fraley and Shepard 1989;Swanberg 1997). In the Blackfoot River,Montana, bull trout began spawningmigrations in response to increasingtemperatures (Swanberg 1997).Temperatures during spawninggenerally range from 4 to 10° C (39 to51° F), with redds (spawning beds) oftenconstructed in stream reaches fed bysprings or near other sources of coldgroundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992;Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Dependingon water temperature, egg incubation isnormally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992),and juveniles remain in the substrateafter hatching. Time from egg depositionto emergence may surpass 200 days. Frynormally emerge from early Aprilthrough May depending upon watertemperatures and increasing streamflows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and Howell1992).

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders,with food habits primarily a function ofsize and life-history strategy. Resident

and juvenile bull trout prey onterrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton, amphipods, mysids,crayfish, and small fish (Wyman 1975;Rieman and Lukens 1979 in Rieman andMcIntyre 1993; Boag 1987; Goetz 1989;Donald and Alger 1993). Adultmigratory bull trout are primarilypiscivorous, known to feed on varioustrout and salmon species(Onchorynchus spp.), whitefish(Prosopium spp.), yellow perch (Percaflavescens) and sculpin (Cottus spp.)(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Donald andAlger 1993).

In the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly River population segments,bull trout co-evolved with, and in someareas, co-occur with native cutthroattrout (Oncorhynchus clarki subspecies(ssp.)), migratory rainbow trout (O.mykiss ssp.), chinook salmon (O.tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch),sockeye salmon (O. nerka), mountainwhitefish (Prosopium williamsoni),pygmy whitefish (P. coulteri), andvarious sculpin, sucker (Catastomidae)and minnow (Cyprinidae) species(Rieman and McIntyre 1993; R2Resource Consultants, Inc. 1993). Bulltrout habitat within the coterminousUnited States overlaps with the range ofseveral fishes listed as threatened orendangered, and proposed or petitionedfor listing under the Act, includingendangered Snake River sockeye salmon(November 20, 1991; 56 FR 58619);threatened Snake River spring and fallchinook salmon (April 22, 1992; 57 FR14653); endangered Kootenai Riverwhite sturgeon (Acipensertransmontanus) (September 6, 1994; 59FR 45989); threatened and endangeredsteelhead (August 18, 1997; 62 FR43937); threatened Puget Sound chinooksalmon (March 9, 1998; 63 FR 11481);threatened Hood Canal summer-runchum salmon and Columbia River chumsalmon (March 25, 1999; 64 FR 14507);proposed threatened status forsouthwestern Washington/ColumbiaRiver coastal cutthroat trout (April 5,1999; 64 FR 16397); and westslopecutthroat trout in northern Idaho,eastern Washington, and northwestMontana (O. c. lewisi) for which a statusreview is currently underway (June 10,1998; 63 FR 31691).

Widespread introductions of non-native fishes, including brook trout(Salmo fontinalis), lake trout (S.namaycush) (west of the ContinentalDivide), and brown trout (Salmo trutta)and hatchery rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss), have alsooccurred across the range of bull trout.These non-native fishes are oftenassociated with local bull trout declinesand extirpations (Bond 1992; Ziller



1992; Donald and Alger 1993; Leary etal. 1993; Montana Bull Trout ScientificGroup (MBTSG) 1996a,h). East of theContinental Divide, in the St. Mary-Belly River drainage, bull trout co-evolved with lake trout and westslopecutthroat trout (Fredenberg 1996). Inthis portion of their range, bull trout andlake trout have apparently partitionedhabitat with lake trout dominating lentic(i.e., lake) systems, relegating bull troutto riverine systems and the fluvial life-history form (Donald and Alger 1993).

Bull trout habitat in the coterminousUnited States is found in a mosaic ofland ownership, including Federal,State, Tribal, and private lands. For theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment, over half of the bull trouthabitat occurs on non-Federal lands. Forthe St. Mary-Belly River populationsegment, about two-thirds of the habitatoccurs on Federal land (Glacier NationalPark) and about a third on Tribal landsof the Blackfeet Indian Nation.

Migratory corridors link seasonalhabitats for all bull trout life-historyforms. The ability to migrate isimportant to the persistence of local bulltrout subpopulations (Rieman andMcIntyre 1993; Mike Gilpin, Universityof California, in litt. 1997; Rieman andClayton 1997; Rieman et al. 1997).Migrations facilitate gene flow amonglocal subpopulations if individuals fromdifferent subpopulations interbreedwhen some return to non-natal streams.Migratory fish may also reestablishextirpated local subpopulations.

Metapopulation concepts ofconservation biology theory may beapplicable to the distribution andcharacteristics of bull trout (Rieman andMcIntyre 1993; Kanda 1998). Ametapopulation is an interactingnetwork of local subpopulations withvarying frequencies of migration andgene flow among them (Meffe andCarroll 1994). Metapopulations providea mechanism for reducing risk becausethe simultaneous loss of allsubpopulations is unlikely. Althoughlocal subpopulations may becomeextinct, they can be reestablished byindividuals from other localsubpopulations. However, because bulltrout exhibit strong homing fidelitywhen spawning and their rate ofstraying appears to be low, natural re-establishment of extinct localsubpopulations may take a very longtime. Habitat alteration, primarilythrough construction of impoundments,dams, and water diversions, hasfragmented habitats, eliminatedmigratory corridors, and isolated bulltrout, often in the headwaters oftributaries (Rieman et al. 1997).

Distinct Population Segments

Using the best available scientific andcommercial information, we identifiedfive distinct population segments (DPSs)of bull trout in the coterminous UnitedStates—(1) Klamath River, (2) ColumbiaRiver, (3) Coastal-Puget Sound, (4)Jarbidge River, and (5) St. Mary-BellyRiver. The final listing determination forthe Klamath River and Columbia Riverbull trout DPSs on June 10, 1998 (63 FR31647), includes a detailed descriptionof the rationale behind the DPSdelineation for those two populationsegments. The Jarbidge River DPS finallisting determination was made on April8, 1999 (64 FR 17110). However, theDPS policy, published on February 7,1996 (61 FR 4722), is intended for caseswhere only a segment of a species’ rangeneeds the protections of the Act, ratherthan the entire range of a species.Although the bull trout DPSs aredisjunct and geographically isolatedfrom one another with no geneticinterchange between them due tonatural and man-made barriers,collectively, they include the entiredistribution of the bull trout in thecoterminous United States. Inaccordance with the DPS policy, ourauthority to list DPSs is to be exercisedsparingly. Thus a coterminous listing isappropriate in this case. In recognitionof the scientific basis for theidentification of these bull troutpopulation segments as DPSs, and forthe purposes of consultation andrecovery planning, we will continue torefer to these populations as DPSs.These DPSs will serve as interimrecovery units in the absence of anapproved recovery plan.

Coastal-Puget Sound PopulationSegment

The Coastal-Puget Sound bull troutDPS encompasses all Pacific Coastdrainages within the coterminousUnited States north of the ColumbiaRiver in Washington, including thoseflowing into Puget Sound. Thispopulation segment is discrete becauseit is geographically segregated fromother subpopulations by the PacificOcean and the crest of the CascadeMountain Range. The populationsegment is significant to the species asa whole because it is thought to containthe only anadromous forms of bull troutin the coterminous United States, thus,occurring in a unique ecological setting.In addition, the loss of this populationsegment would significantly reduce theoverall range of the taxon.

St. Mary-Belly River PopulationSegment

The St. Mary-Belly River DPS islocated in northwest Montana east ofthe Continental Divide. Both the St.Mary and Belly rivers are tributaries ofthe Saskatchewan River Basin inAlberta, Canada. The populationsegment is discrete because it issegregated from other bull trout by theContinental Divide and is the only bulltrout population found east of theContinental Divide in the coterminousUnited States. The population segmentis significant because its loss wouldresult in a significant reduction in therange of the taxon within thecoterminous United States. Bull trout inthis population segment migrate acrossthe international border with Canada(Clayton 1998).

Status and Distribution

To facilitate evaluation of current bulltrout distribution and abundance for theCoastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-BellyRiver population segments, we analyzeddata on a subpopulation basis withineach population segment becausefragmentation and barriers have isolatedbull trout. A subpopulation isconsidered a reproductively isolatedbull trout group that spawns within aparticular area(s) of a river system. Inareas where two groups of bull trout areseparated by a barrier (e.g., animpassable dam or waterfall, or reachesof unsuitable habitat) that may allowonly downstream access (i.e., one-waypassage), both groups were consideredsubpopulations. In addition,subpopulations were considered at riskof extirpation from natural events if theywere: (1) Unlikely to be reestablished byindividuals from another subpopulation(i.e., functionally or geographicallyisolated from other subpopulations); (2)limited to a single spawning area (i.e.,spatially restricted); and (3)characterized by low individual orspawner numbers; or (4) consistedprimarily of a single life-history form.For example, a subpopulation ofresident fish isolated upstream of animpassable waterfall would beconsidered at risk of extirpation fromnatural events if it had low numbers offish that spawn in a relatively restrictedarea. In such cases, a natural event suchas a fire or flood could eliminate thesubpopulation, and, subsequently,reestablishment of the subpopulationfrom fish downstream would beprevented by the impassable waterfall.However, a subpopulation residingdownstream of the waterfall would notbe considered at risk of extirpationbecause of potential reestablishment by



fish from upstream. Because residentbull trout may exhibit limiteddownstream movement (Nelson 1996),our estimate of subpopulations at risk ofnatural extirpation may beunderestimated. The status ofsubpopulations was based on modifiedcriteria of Rieman et al. (1997),including the abundance, trends inabundance, and the presence of life-history forms of bull trout.

We considered a bull troutsubpopulation ‘‘strong’’ if 5,000individuals or 500 spawners likelyoccur in the subpopulation, abundanceappears stable or increasing, and life-history forms historically present werelikely to persist. A subpopulation wasconsidered ‘‘depressed’’ if less than5,000 individuals or 500 spawnerslikely occur in the subpopulation,abundance appears to be declining, or alife-history form historically present hasbeen lost (Rieman et al.1997). If therewas insufficient abundance, trend, andlife-history information to classify thestatus of a subpopulation as either‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘depressed,’’ the status wasconsidered ‘‘unknown.’’ It should benoted that the assignment of‘‘unknown’’ status implies only adeficiency of available data to assign asubpopulation as ‘‘strong’’ or‘‘depressed,’’ not a lack of informationregarding the threats. Section 4 of theAct requires us to make a determinationsolely on the best scientific andcommercial data available.


The Coastal-Puget Sound bull troutpopulation segment encompasses allPacific coast drainages withinWashington, including Puget Sound. Nobull trout exist in coastal drainagessouth of the Columbia River. Within thisarea, bull trout often occur with (i.e., aresympatric) Dolly Varden. Because thetwo species are virtually impossible tovisually differentiate, the WDFWcurrently manages bull trout and DollyVarden together as ‘‘native char.’’Previously, we delineated a total of 35subpopulations of ‘‘native char’’ (bulltrout, Dolly Varden, or both species)within the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment published on June10, 1998 (63 FR 31693). Upon furtherreview, we revised the total number ofsubpopulations to 34. In order to befully consistent with the definedsubpopulation criteria, we concludedthat the Puyallup River Basin only hastwo subpopulations as opposed to three,which are the upper Puyallup River andthe lower Puyallup (includes CarbonRiver and White River).

Bull trout and Dolly Varden can bedifferentiated by both genetic andmorphological-meristic (measurementsand counts) analyses, of whichbiologists have conducted one or bothanalyses on 15 of the 34 subpopulations.To date, we have documented bull troutin 12 of 15 subpopulations investigated(five with only bull trout, three withonly Dolly Varden, and seven with bothspecies), and it is likely that bull troutoccur in the majority of the remaining19 subpopulations (Service 1998a).Although we only documented three ofthe tested ‘‘native char’’ subpopulationsas containing Dolly Varden at this time,we are not yet confident in excludingthese subpopulations from the listing.We believe it would be premature toconclude that bull trout do not exist inthese subpopulations given the limitedsample sizes used in the analyses, thelocation of the subpopulations, and theevidence that bull trout and DollyVarden can frequently co-exist together.In order to identify trends that may bespecific to certain geographic areas, the34 ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations weregrouped into five analysis areas—Coastal, Strait of Juan de Fuca, HoodCanal, Puget Sound, andTransboundary.

Coastal Analysis AreaTen ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations

occur in five river basins in the Coastalanalysis area (number ofsubpopulations)—Chehalis River-GraysHarbor (1), Coastal Plains-QuinaultRiver (5), Queets River (1), Hoh River-Goodman Creek (2), and QuillayuteRiver (1). Recent efforts to determinespecies composition in threesubpopulations documented bull troutin at least two, the upper Quinault Riverand Queets River (Leary and Allendorf1997; WDFW 1997a). Biologistsidentified only Dolly Varden in theupper Sol Duc River to date (Cavender1978, 1984; WDFW 1997a).

Subpopulations of ‘‘native char’’ inthe southwestern portion of the coastalarea appear to be in low abundancebased on anecdotal information(Mongillo 1993). Because this is thesouthern extent of coastal bull trout andDolly Varden, abundance may benaturally low in systems like theChehalis, Moclips, and Copalis rivers(WDFW 1997a). In recent years, therehave been even fewer reports ofincidental catches of ‘‘native char’’ inthe Chehalis River Basin. In 1997, asingle juvenile was captured in adownstream migrant trap on themainstem of the Chehalis River (WDFW1998a). Although little historical andcurrent information is knownconcerning bull trout in these river

basins, habitat degradation in the pasthas adversely affected other salmonids(Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Hiss andKnudsen 1993; WDFW 1997a). Habitatdegradation in these basins is assumedto have similarly affected bull trout.Although ‘‘native char’’ are believed tobe relatively more abundant in theQuinault River, extensive portions ofthe Basin have been degraded by pastforest management (Phinney andBucknell 1975; WDFW 1997a).

Most ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations inthe northwestern coastal area occurpartially within Olympic National Park,which contains relatively undisturbedhabitats. However, outside OlympicNational Park, ‘‘native char’’ habitat hasbeen severely degraded by past forestpractices in the Queets River and HohRiver basins (Phinney and Bucknell1975; WDFW 1997a). Non-native brooktrout have been stocked in many of thehigh lakes and streams in the OlympicNational Park. Brook trout are present inthe upper Sol Duc subpopulation andthreaten this subpopulation fromcompetition and hybridization (Service1998a). Data collected while seining foroutmigrating salmon smolts on theQueets River indicate a decline in‘‘native char’’ catch rate from 3.3 fish/day in 1977 to 1 fish/day by 1984(WDFW 1997a). From 1985 to the timeseining was discontinued in 1991, catchrate remained relatively stable atapproximately 1.5 fish/day. The WDFWbelieves that the Hoh River may havethe largest subpopulation of ‘‘nativechar’’ on the Washington coast,although their numbers have greatlydeclined since 1982 (WDFW in litt.1992; WDFW 1997a). Reasons for thedecline are unknown, but overfishing isbelieved to be a contributing factor(WDFW 1997a; WDFW, in litt. 1997).Forty-one and 31 adult ‘‘native char’’were observed during snorkel surveys ofa 17.6-km (11-mi) section of the SouthFork Hoh River in 1994 and 1995,respectively (WDFW 1997a). Weconsider the Hoh River subpopulation‘‘depressed.’’ The status of theremaining nine ‘‘native char’’subpopulations in the coastal analysisarea is ‘‘unknown’’ because insufficientabundance, trend, and life-historyinformation is available (Service 1998a).Although the status of thesesubpopulations is unknown, we believethat anecdotal information, such asdescribed for the Chehalis River-GraysHarbor and Queets Riversubpopulations, indicate declines inabundance in other subpopulationswithin the coastal analysis area.



Strait of Juan de Fuca Analysis Area

Five ‘‘native char’’ subpopulationsoccur in three river basins in the Straitof Juan de Fuca analysis area (numberof subpopulations)—Elwha River (2),Angeles Basin (1), and Dungeness River(2). Recent efforts to determine speciescomposition in three subpopulationshave documented bull trout in at leasttwo, the upper Elwha River and lowerDungeness River-Gray Wolf River (Learyand Allendorf 1997; WDFW 1997a).Only Dolly Varden have been identifiedin the upper Dungeness Riversubpopulation to date (WDFW 1997a).

The two subpopulations in theDungeness River Basin occur partiallywithin Olympic National Park andBuckhorn Wilderness Area, and likelybenefit from the relatively undisturbedhabitats located there. However, non-native brook trout occur in somestreams in the park. Large portions ofthe Dungeness River Basin lie outside ofOlympic National Park, and have beenseverely degraded by past forest andagricultural practices (Williams et al.1975; WDFW 1997a). Within OlympicNational Park, the lower and upperElwha River subpopulations are isolatedby dams. Biologists have observed few‘‘native char’’ in the lower Elwhasubpopulation in recent years. Since1983, one or two individuals have beenseen each year in a chinook salmonrearing channel located in the lowerElwha River (WDFW 1997a). A creelcensus, conducted in 1981 and 1982 onthe Elwha River reservoirs of the upperElwha River subpopulation, reportedthat ‘‘native char’’ were found in lownumbers (WDFW 1997a). Although‘‘native char’’ are believed to bewidespread in some basins within theanalysis area, such as the Dungenessand Gray Wolf rivers, fish abundance isthought to be ‘‘greatly reduced innumbers’’ (WDW, in litt. 1992; WDFW1997a). Electrofishing surveysconducted in four sections of the upperDungeness River subpopulation during1996 recorded an overall ‘‘native char’’density of 0.78 fish/meter (2.56 fish/foot) for the four sections (WDFW1997a). These preliminary surveysindicate that the upper Dungeness Riversubpopulation may be ‘‘strong.’’ Weconsider the lower Elwha Riversubpopulation ‘‘depressed’’ because lessthan 500 spawners likely occur in thesubpopulation, and the lowerDungeness River-Gray Wolf River‘‘depressed’’ because abundance hasdeclined. The remaining three ‘‘nativechar’’ subpopulations in the Strait ofJuan de Fuca coastal analysis area have‘‘unknown’’ status because insufficient

abundance, trend, and life-historyinformation is available (Service 1998a).

Hood Canal Analysis AreaThree ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations

occur in the Skokomish River Basin inthe Hood Canal analysis area. Surveysby Brown (1992) and Brenkman (1996 inWDFW 1997) documented bull trout inCushman Reservoir, and Leary andAllendorf (1997) and WDFW (1997a)documented bull trout in the SouthFork-lower North Fork SkokomishRiver. Due to the construction ofCushman Dam on the North ForkSkokomish River, bull trout in CushmanReservoir are isolated and restricted toan adfluvial life-history form. Spawnersurveys, which began in 1973, indicatea decline in adult bull trout through the1970s, subsequent increases from 4adults in 1985 to 412 adults in 1993,and relatively stable numbers of 250 to300 spawning adults in recent years(WDFW 1997a). The increase in adultbull trout from 1985 to 1993 is likelyrelated to harvest closure on CushmanReservoir and upper North ForkSkokomish River in 1986 (Brown 1992).Recent surveys indicate low numbers ofbull trout in tributaries of the SouthFork Skokomish River such as Church,Pine, Cedar, LeBar, Brown, Rock, Flat,and Vance creeks, as well as in themainstem (Larry Ogg, Olympia NationalForest (ONF), in litt. 1997). Past forestand agricultural practices andhydropower development have severelydegraded habitat in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River(Williams et al. 1975; Hood CanalCoordinating Council (HCCC) 1995;WDFW 1997a). The upper North ForkSkokomish River subpopulation occurswithin Olympic National Park andhabitat is relatively undisturbed. Weconsider the South Fork-lower NorthFork Skokomish River subpopulation‘‘depressed,’’ because fewer than 500spawners and fewer than 5,000individuals likely occur in thesubpopulation. Although the number ofspawning adult bull trout appears tohave been relatively stable in theCushman Reservoir subpopulation since1990, under our analysis, thispopulation is consider ‘‘depressed’’based on the criteria used to determinesubpopulation status (i.e., less than 500spawning adults). The status of theupper North Fork Skokomishsubpopulation is considered‘‘unknown’’ because insufficientabundance, trend, and life-historyinformation is available (Service 1998a).

Puget Sound Analysis AreaFifteen ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations

occur in eight river basins in the Puget

Sound analysis area (number ofsubpopulations)—Nisqually River (1),Puyallup River (2), Green River (1), LakeWashington Basin (2), Snohomish River-Skykomish River (1), StillaguamishRiver (1), Skagit River (4), and NooksackRiver (3). Recent surveys of seven‘‘native char’’ subpopulations havedocumented bull trout in at least six—lower Puyallup (Carbon River), GreenRiver, Chester Morse Reservoir,Snohomish River-Skykomish River,lower Skagit River, and upper MiddleFork Nooksack River (R2 ResourceConsultants, Inc. 1993; Samora andGirdner 1993; Kraemer 1994; MichaelBarclay, Cascades EnvironmentalServices, Inc., pers. comm. 1997; Learyand Allendorf 1997; Eric Warner,Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, pers. comm.1997). Leary and Allendorf (1997)identified only Dolly Varden in theCanyon Creek (tributary to the NooksackRiver) subpopulation.

The current abundance of ‘‘nativechar’’ in southern Puget Sound is likelylower than occurred historically anddeclining (Tom Cropp, WDW, in litt.1993; Fred Goetz, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (COE), pers. comm. 1994a,b).Historical accounts from southern PugetSound indicate that anadromous ‘‘nativechar’’ entered rivers there in ‘‘vastnumbers’’ during the fall and wereharvested until Christmas (Suckley andCooper 1860). ‘‘Native char’’ are nowrarely collected in the southerndrainages of the area (T. Cropp, in litt.1993; F. Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b).There is only one recent record of a‘‘native char’’ being collected in theNisqually River. A juvenile char wascollected during a stream survey forsalmon in the mid-1980s (GeorgeWalter, Nisqually Indian Tribe, pers.comm. 1997; WDFW 1997a). In thePuyallup River (lower Puyallupsubpopulation), ‘‘native char’’ areoccasionally caught by steelhead anglers(WDW, in litt. 1992; WDFW 1997a). Inthe White River (lower Puyallupsubpopulation), counts of upstreammigrating ‘‘native char’’ at the Buckleydiversion dam have averaged 23 adultssince 1987. Although trapping effort hasvaried during the past 11 years, annualcounts have generally been poor tomoderate, ranging from a low of 8 to ahigh of 46 adult ‘‘native char’’ (WDFW1998a). In the Green River, ‘‘nativechar’’ are rarely observed (T. Cropp, inlitt. 1993; F. Goetz, pers. comm. 1994a,b;E. Warner, pers. comm. 1997). Aquatichabitat in the Nisqually, Puyallup, andGreen rivers has been variouslydegraded by logging, agriculture, roadconstruction, and urban development.In the Chester Morse Reservoir



subpopulation, biologists observedfewer than 10 redds as recently as 1995and 1996; and fry abundance was lowin spring 1996 and 1997 (Dwayne Paige,Seattle Water Department, in litt. 1997).Logging and extensive road constructionhave occurred within the Basin (FosterWheeler Environmental 1995; WDFW1997a), and likely affected bull trout inChester Morse Reservoir. Only two‘‘native char’’ have been observedduring the past 10 years in the IssaquahCreek drainage and none have beenobserved in the Sammamish Riversystem, which are occupied by theSammamish River-Issaquah Creeksubpopulation. It is questionablewhether a viable subpopulationremains. Habitat in the SammamishRiver and Issaquah Creek drainages hasbeen negatively affected byurbanization, road building andassociated poor water quality (Williamset al. 1975; Washington Department ofEcology (WDOE) 1997). We consider theNisqually River, Green River, ChesterMorse Reservoir, Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, and lower Puyallupsubpopulations ‘‘depressed’’ based onfewer than 500 spawning adults and adecline in general abundance.

Drainages in the northern PugetSound area appear to support largersubpopulations of ‘‘native char’’ thanthe southern portion (F. Goetz, pers.comm. 1994a, b; Steve Fransen, Service,pers. comm. 1997). The WDFWconducts redd counts in two indexreaches of the northern Puget Sound; areach in the upper South Fork SaukRiver that is included in the lowerSkagit River subpopulation, and a reachin the upper North Fork SkykomishRiver that is included in the SnohomishRiver-Skykomish River subpopulation.These areas are said to have healthyhabitats supporting stable numbers of‘‘native char’’ (Kraemer 1994). Biologistshave conducted redd surveys since 1988in both index reaches. In the upperSouth Fork Sauk River, WDFW (1997a)observed a substantial increase in reddsin 1991, a year after a minimum508-mm (20-in) harvest restriction wasimplemented; and redd numbers haveremained relatively stable at or above34. The State implemented harvestrestrictions in the Skagit River and itstributaries in 1990. ‘‘Native char’’ in thelower Skagit River subpopulation haveaccess to at least 38 documented orsuspected spawning tributaries (WDFWet al. 1997) with the number of adultsestimated to be 8,000 to 10,000 fish(Curt Kraemer, WDFW, pers. comm.1998). The number of redds in the upperNorth Fork Skykomish River indexreach have averaged 78 redds (range 21

to 159) during 1988 through 1996, with75 or fewer redds observed between1993 and 1996 (WDFW 1997a). A totalof 170 redds were counted in 1997(WDFW 1998a). Redd counts in theNorth Fork Skykomish River indexreach have been more variable betweenyears than the South Fork Sauk Riverindex reach. The upper Skagit River isfragmented into three reservoirs fromthe construction of Gorge, Diablo, andRoss dams (WDFW 1997a). The primaryspawning area for the Gorge Reservoirsubpopulation is said to be the lowerSteattle Creek and a portion of theSkagit River below Diablo Dam (WDFW1997a). The primary spawning areas forthe Diablo Reservoir subpopulation isthought be in the Thunder Arm area,including Fisher Creek (WDFW 1997a),although WDFW et al. (1997) did notlocate any ‘‘native char’’ adults orjuveniles upstream of the mouth ofThunder Creek during snorkel andelectrofishing surveys. Within RossReservoir, it is reported that spawningoccurs in lower reach areas of at leastsix tributaries, in addition to a portionof the upper Skagit River in Canada(WDFW 1997a). Biologists havedocumented ‘‘native char’’ spawning inat least seven creeks in theStillaguamish River subpopulation andin five creeks and several mainstemareas of the Lower Nooksack Riversubpopulation. Biologists have alsoobserved ‘‘native char’’ in at least fourcreeks in the upper Middle ForkNooksack River subpopulation. Neitheradult count data nor redd count data isavailable for these six subpopulations(WDFW 1997a). Within the Puget Soundanalysis area, we consider the lowerSkagit River subpopulation ‘‘strong,’’based on a large number of spawningadults and high overall abundance. Weconsider five subpopulations within thePuget Sound analysis area ‘‘depressed’’and the status of the remaining nine‘‘native char’’ subpopulations in thePuget Sound analysis area ‘‘unknown’’because insufficient abundance, trend,and life-history information is available(Service 1998a).

Transboundary Analysis AreaOne ‘‘native char’’ subpopulation

occurs in the Chilliwack River Basin inthe Transboundary analysis area. TheChilliwack River is a transboundarysystem flowing into British Columbia,Canada. We have not determined thespecies composition of thissubpopulation. In Washington, portionsof the Chilliwack River are within theNorth Cascades National Park and atributary, Selesia Creek, are within theMount Baker Wilderness where thehabitat is relatively undisturbed (WDFW

1997a). Little information is availablefor ‘‘native char’’ in the ChilliwackRiver-Selesia Creek subpopulation(Service 1998a). The current status ofthe ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations in theTransboundary analysis area is‘‘unknown’’ because insufficientabundance, trend, and life-historyinformation is available (Service 1998a).


Much of the historical informationregarding bull trout in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS is anecdotal andabundance information is limited. Bulltrout probably entered the system viapostglacial dispersal routes from theColumbia River through either theKootenai River or Flathead Riversystems (Fredenberg 1996). The St.Mary River system historicallycontained native bull trout, lake trout,and westslope cutthroat trout. Althoughabundance of these fishes is unknown,the presence of lake trout suggests thatmigratory bull trout were restrictedprimarily to streams and rivers and notcommon in lakes (Donald and Alger1993). Within the St. Mary River system,historic accounts of bull trout date tothe 1930s (Fredenberg 1996). In theBelly River, historic distribution of bulltrout in the Basin is limited butmigratory bull trout from Canada likelyspawned in the North Fork andmainstem Belly rivers.

Both migratory (fluvial) and residentlife-history forms are present(Fredenberg 1996), although bull troutwithin the St. Mary-Belly River DPS areisolated and fragmented by irrigationdams and diversions (Fredenberg 1996;Clayton 1998; Robin Wagner, Service,pers. comm. 1998). Bull trout thatmigrate across the international borderare dependent upon the relativelyundisturbed water quality and spawninghabitat located in the upper St. Maryand Belly rivers and their tributarieswithin the coterminous United States(Fredenberg 1996).

Based on natural and artificial barriersto fish passage within the St. Mary-BellyRiver DPS, we identified four bull troutsubpopulations—(1) Upper St. MaryRiver (from the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation (USBR) diversion structureon lower St. Mary Lake upstream to St.Mary Falls, including Swiftcurrent andBoulder creeks below Lake Sherburne,and Red Eagle and Divide creeks); (2)Swiftcurrent Creek (includingtributaries and Lake Sherburne andCracker Lake); (3) lower St. Mary River(St. Mary River downstream of theUSBR diversion structure includingKennedy, Otatso, and Lee creeks); and(4) Belly River (mainstem and North



Fork Belly River) (Service 1998b). Basedon 1997 and 1998 trapping of post-spawning adults, fewer than 100 fishexisted in the Boulder Creek andKennedy Creek spawning populations(Lynn Kaeding, Service, in litt. 1998).These two streams include the strongestknown spawning runs in the upper St.Mary River and lower St. Mary Riversubpopulations, respectively, andevaluation of these streams iscontinuing. Based on studies conductedin 1996 and 1997, the Belly Riverdrainage is thought to contain fewerthan 100 adult bull trout (Clayton 1998).The status of the upper St. Mary River,lower St. Mary River, and North ForkBelly River bull trout subpopulations is‘‘depressed’’ because fewer than 500spawning adults or 5,000 total bull troutoccur in the subpopulations. The statusof the Swiftcurrent Creek subpopulationis ‘‘unknown’’ because insufficientabundance, trend, and life-historyinformation is available (Service 1998b).

In summary, we considered theinformation received during the publiccomment period on the abundance,trends in abundance, and distribution ofbull trout in the Coastal-Puget Soundand St. Mary-Belly River populationsegments. The Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment includes the onlyanadromous bull trout found in thecoterminous United States. Thepopulation segment is composed of 34‘‘native char’’ subpopulations of whichbull trout have been documented in 12of 15 subpopulations examined. Theremaining 19 subpopulations consist of‘‘native char’’ that may include bulltrout, Dolly Varden, or both species. Atthis time, the only ‘‘native char’’documented in three of thesubpopulations is Dolly Varden. Of the34 subpopulations, we believe one is‘‘strong,’’ 10 are ‘‘depressed,’’ andinsufficient abundance, trends inabundance, and life-history informationexists to assign either category to theremaining 23 subpopulations.

The St. Mary-Belly River populationsegment of bull trout is composed offour subpopulations and represents theonly area of bull trout range east of theContinental Divide within thecoterminous United States. Migratoryfish occur in three of the subpopulationsand the life-history form in the fourthsubpopulation is unknown. Bull troutsubpopulations in the St. Mary RiverBasin are isolated by impassablediversion structures. Three of the foursubpopulations are ‘‘depressed’’ due tolow abundance of fish, and the status ofone subpopulation is ‘‘unknown’’because insufficient abundance, trendsin abundance, and life-historyinformation exists to categorize the

subpopulations as ‘‘strong’’ or‘‘depressed.’’

Previous Federal ActionOn October 30, 1992, we received a

petition to list the bull trout as anendangered species throughout its rangefrom the following conservationorganizations in Montana: Alliance forthe Wild Rockies, Inc., Friends of theWild Swan, and Swan View Coalition(petitioners). The petitioners alsorequested an emergency listing andconcurrent critical habitat designationfor bull trout populations in selectaquatic ecosystems where the biologicalinformation indicated that the specieswas in imminent danger of extinction.In our 90-day finding, published on May17, 1993 (58 FR 28849), we determinedthat the petitioners had providedsubstantial information indicating thatlisting of the species may be warranted.We initiated a rangewide status reviewof the species concurrent withpublication of the 90-day finding.

In our June 10, 1994, 12-monthfinding (59 FR 30254), we concludedthat listing the bull trout throughout itsrange was not warranted due tounavailable or insufficient dataregarding threats to, and status andpopulation trends of, the species withinCanada and Alaska. However, wedetermined that sufficient informationon the biological vulnerability andthreats to the species was available tosupport a warranted 12-month findingto list bull trout within the coterminousUnited States, but this action wasprecluded due to higher prioritylistings.

On November 1, 1994, Friends of theWild Swan, Inc. and Alliance for theWild Rockies, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed suitin the U.S. District Court of Oregon(Court) arguing that the warranted butprecluded finding was arbitrary andcapricious. After we recycled thepetition and issued a new warranted butprecluded 12-month finding for thecoterminous population of bull trout onJune 12, 1995 (60 FR 30825), the Courtissued an order declaring the plaintiffs’challenge to the original finding moot.The plaintiffs declined to amend theircomplaint and appealed to the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals, which foundthat the plaintiffs’ challenge fell ‘‘withinthe exception to the mootness doctrinefor claims that are capable of repetitionyet evading review.’’ On April 2, 1996,the Circuit Court remanded the caseback to the District Court. On November13, 1996, the Court issued an order andopinion remanding the original findingto us for further consideration. Includedin the instructions from the Court wererequirements that we limit our review to

the 1994 administrative record, andincorporate any emergency listings orhigh magnitude threat determinationsinto current listing priorities. Wedelivered the reconsidered 12-monthfinding based on the 1994Administrative Record to the Court onMarch 13, 1997. We concluded in thefinding that two populations of bulltrout warranted listing (Klamath Riverand Columbia River populationsegments).

On March 24, 1997, the plaintiffs fileda motion for mandatory injunction tocompel us to issue a proposed rule tolist the Klamath River and ColumbiaRiver bull trout populations within 30days based solely on the 1994Administrative Record. On April 4,1997, we requested 60 days to prepareand review the proposed rule. In astipulation between us and plaintiffsfiled with the Court on April 11, 1997,we agreed to issue a proposed rulewithin 60 days to list the Klamath Riverpopulation of bull trout as endangeredand the Columbia River population ofbull trout as threatened based solely onthe 1994 record.

We proposed the Klamath Riverpopulation of bull trout as endangeredand Columbia River population of bulltrout as threatened on June 13, 1997 (62FR 32268). The proposal included a 60-day comment period and gave notice offive public hearings in Portland,Oregon; Spokane, Washington;Missoula, Montana; Klamath Falls,Oregon; and Boise, Idaho. The commentperiod on the proposal, which originallyclosed on August 12, 1997, wasextended to October 17, 1997 (62 FR42092), to provide the public with moretime to compile information and submitcomments.

On December 4, 1997, the Courtordered us to reconsider several aspectsof the 1997 reconsidered finding. OnFebruary 2, 1998, the Court gave usuntil June 12, 1998, to respond. Thefinal listing determination for theKlamath River and Columbia Riverpopulation segments of bull trout andthe concurrent proposed listing rule forthe Coastal-Puget Sound, St. Mary-BellyRiver, and Jarbidge River DPSsconstituted our response.

We published a final rule listing theKlamath River and Columbia Riverpopulation segments of bull trout asthreatened on June 10, 1998 (63 FR31647). On the same date, we alsopublished a proposed rule to list theCoastal-Puget Sound, Jarbidge River,and St. Mary-Belly River populationsegments of bull trout as threatened (63FR 31693). On August 11, 1998 (63 FR42757), we issued an emergency rulelisting the Jarbidge River population



segment of bull trout as endangered dueto river channel alteration associatedwith unauthorized road construction onthe West Fork of the Jarbidge River,which we found to imminently threatenthe survival of the distinct populationsegment. On April 8, 1999 (64 FR17110), we published the final rule tolist the Jarbidge River populationsegment as threatened in the FederalRegister.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

In the June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31693),proposed rule, we requested interestedparties to submit comments orinformation that might contribute to thefinal listing determination for bull trout.The proposed rule included the Coastal-Puget Sound, St. Mary-Belly River, andJarbidge River bull trout DPSs. We sentannouncements of the proposed ruleand notice of public hearings to at least800 individuals, including Federal,State, county and city elected officials,State and Federal agencies, interestedprivate citizens, and local areanewspapers and radio stations. We alsopublished announcements of theproposed rule in 10 newspapers, whichincluded the Idaho Statesman, Boise,Idaho; the Times-News, Twin Falls,Idaho; the Glacier Reporter, Browning,Montana; the Daily Inter Lake; Kalispell,Montana; the Great Falls Tribune, GreatFalls, Montana; the Elko Daily FreePress, Elko, Nevada; the BellinghamHerald, Bellingham, Washington; theOlympian, Olympia, Washington; theSpokesman-Review, Spokane,Washington, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington. Weheld public hearings on July 7, 1998, inLacey, Washington; July 9, 1998, inMount Vernon, Washington; July 14,1998, in East Glacier, Montana; and July21, 1998, in Jackpot, Nevada. Thecomment period on the proposed ruleclosed on October 8, 1998.

We received 12 oral and 40 writtencomments on the proposed rule. Theseincluded comments from two Federalagencies, one Native American Tribe,three State agencies, one county inNevada, three cities in Washington, andtwo private companies. In addition, wesolicited formal scientific peer review ofthe proposal in accordance with ourJuly 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), InteragencyCooperative Policy on Peer Review. Werequested six individuals, who possessexpertise in bull trout biology andsalmonid ecology, and whoseaffiliations include academia andFederal, State, and provincial agencies,to review the proposed rule by the closeof the comment period. One individualresponded to our request and we have

addressed their comments in thissection of the rule.

We considered all comments for theproposed rule for the Coastal-PugetSound, St. Mary-Belly River, andJarbidge River population segments,including oral testimony presented atthe public hearings and the commentsfrom the peer reviewer who respondedto our request to review the proposedrule. The majority of commentssupported the listing proposal and ninecomments were in opposition.Opposition was based on severalconcerns, including possible negativeeconomic effects from listing bull trout;potential restrictions on activities; lackof solutions to the bull trout decline thatwould result from listing; andinterpretation of data concerning thestatus of bull trout and their threats inthe three population segments. The U.S.Forest Service (USFS) (B. Siminoe,USFS, in litt. 1998); National ParkService (NPS) (David Morris, NPS, inlitt. 1998), Idaho Department of Fish andGame (IDFG) (F. Partridge, IDFG, in litt.1998; Partridge and Warren 1998),Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) (T.Crawforth, NDOW, in litt. 1998; R.Haskins, NDOW, in litt. 1998), (BruceCrawford, WDFW, in litt. 1998; WDFW1998a), and Alberta EnvironmentalProtection (AEP) (Duane Radford, AEP,in litt. 1998) provided us withinformation on respective agency effortsto assess, evaluate, monitor, andconserve bull trout in habitats affectedby each agency’s management for thethree DPSs. Comments specific to theJarbidge River population segment wereaddressed in the final ruledetermination for that DPS (April 8,1999; 64 FR 17110). Comments specificto the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly River population segmentsare addressed in this rule. Becausemultiple respondents offered similarcomments, we grouped comments of asimilar nature or point. These commentsand our responses are presented below.

Issue 1: Several respondents opposedthe Federal listing, while otherssupported it. Some respondentsrequested that we delay or precludeFederal listing until additional data onthe Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment are collected and considered,and one respondent based this on thebelief that some subpopulations withinthe north Puget Sound region and theOlympic Peninsula appear to be stableor increasing, and other subpopulationsoccur in excellent or pristine habitat. Arespondent asked if complete status andtrend information is not available,whether changes in habitat or threats aresufficient to list a species, even if thereis no indication that a population is in

trouble. Another respondent noted wedid not evaluate listing criteria withobjective and quantitative methods,making it difficult to interpret newinformation in a consistent manner. Therespondent also said that, althoughquantitative data are lacking for manylocal populations of bull trout, sufficientinformation exists to design aninventory program to describe theircurrent distribution, relative abundance,and population structure.

Our Response: A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to the fivefactors identified in section 4(a)(1) ofthe Act and addressed in the ‘‘Summaryof Factors Affecting the Species’’section. The Act requires us to baselisting determinations on the bestavailable commercial and scientificinformation. Data are often not availableto make statistically rigorous inferencesabout a species’ status (e.g., abundance,trends in abundance, and distribution).Overall, we found that sufficientevidence exists in each of thepopulation segments that demonstratethey are threatened by a variety of pastand ongoing threats, and are likely tobecome endangered in the foreseeablefuture.

In making this final determination, wetook into account the overall status ofbull trout in the coterminous UnitedStates. We acknowledge that three northPuget Sound subpopulations of bulltrout (lower Skagit River, StillaguamishRiver, and Snohomish River-SkykomishRiver supopulations) appear to be inbetter condition than subpopulations inother areas of the Coastal-Puget soundpopulation segment. We determinedthat the lower Skagit subpopulation was‘‘strong.’’ The WDFW has identified‘‘native char’’ spawning areas in anumber of tributaries in theStillaguamish River subpopulation, andreported them as stable or expandingbased on limited spawner surveys ofBoulder Creek and the upperStillaguamish River (WDFW 1997a).However, Mongillo (1993) and WDFW(1997a) identified other areas of theStillaguamish subpopulation,specifically Deer Creek and CanyonCreek, as declining. Although the 1997redd count for the Snohomish-Skykomish River subpopulation was thehighest since an index reach wasestablished in 1988 (WDFW 1998a),redd counts have been highly variableover this time period, possiblyindicating an unstable population.There is scant evidence thatsubpopulations within the NooksackRiver are increasing or stable, althoughmuch of the habitat within theNooksack River drainage has been



severely degraded (WDFW 1998a). TheCushman Reservoir subpopulation, onthe Olympic Peninsula, appears to havean adult spawner return that hasstabilized around 300 fish for the past7 years (WDFW 1998a). The availablespawning habitat for this subpopulationlies primarily within Olympic NationalPark and WDFW considers it to be inexcellent condition (WDFW 1998a). Incontrast, bull trout in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish Riveroccur in low numbers with no knownspawning sites. Habitat in the southFork and lower North fork SkokomishRiver is severely degraded (WDFW1998a).

Conversely, we have ampleinformation regarding threats to theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegments. Many of the threats aresimilar to those described for thethreatened Klamath River and ColumbiaRiver bull trout population segments(June 10, 1998; 63 FR 31647). Weacknowledge that available informationis insufficient to designate many of thesubpopulations within the Coastal-PugetSound population segment as ‘‘strong’’or ‘‘depressed.’’ However, because bulltrout display a high degree of sensitivityto environmental disturbance and arereferred to as an indicator species, webelieve that bull trout are significantlyimpacted by past and current habitatdegradation within the Coastal-PugetSound population segment, similar toother listed and sensitive species (i.e.,salmon). Habitat loss and degradation isacknowledged as a significant factorlimiting salmon and trout populationswithin Washington (WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries (WDF) et al.1993; Weitkamp et al. 1995; Busby et al.1996; Spence et al. 1996; WDFW 1997a,b). Although a number ofsubpopulations have documentedspawning and rearing habitat inprotected areas of watersheds, thespawning and rearing habitats of manyother subpopulations are not identified.In addition, habitats used by other life-history stages for migration,overwintering, sub-adult rearing, aredegraded, and all life-history stages arerequired for a species to persist. See the‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies’’ section for a more completediscussion of threats affecting bull trout.

Because the location of spawningareas for many bull troutsubpopulations are not well known forthe Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment, we have been funding effortsto determine the distribution ofspawning areas in various Coastal-PugetSound subpopulations. Althoughestimates of bull trout abundance basedon redd counts will provide information

on which to evaluate the status of‘‘native char’’ subpopulations, themethod should be used with caution.For example, in analyzing counts of bulltrout redds in Idaho and Montana,Rieman and Myers (1997) found thatvariability of counts in individualstreams reduces the ability to detecttrends, especially with data sets forrelatively short periods. They cautionthat detection of trends will oftenrequire more than 10 years of sampling,even where declines could be large, andfor many bull trout spawning reaches,declining trends may not be statisticallyevident until numbers drop to criticallylow levels. Given the lack or limitationsof statistically rigorous data for bulltrout in the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment, our review of thestatus of ‘‘native char’’ subpopulationsis based on the generally low number ofindividuals observed in severalsubpopulations throughout thepopulation segment, and the apparentdeclines reported in others.

Issue 2: A respondent noted that theproposed rule considered that loss ofthe St. Mary-Belly River populationsegment would constitute a significantreduction in the range of the taxon.They asked what portion of the range issignificant, and would the statement betrue for the St. Mary-Belly Riverpopulation segment if fish in Canadawere considered. They also inquiredwhether bull trout in the populationsegment are distinct from fish east of theContinental Divide in Canada. Becausea large portion of the St. Mary-BellyRiver population segment occurs on theBlackfeet Reservation, anotherrespondent requested that we establishgovernment-to-government relationswith the Blackfeet Tribe, expressingconcern that Tribal comments andinteractions with us were consideredsimilarly to those from the generalpublic and not on a government-to-government basis.

Our Response: We considered bothbiological (available data) andadministrative (international boundary)issues in determining distinctpopulation segments. Policy used toguide determination of distinctpopulation segments is described in thejoint National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) and Service policy forrecognizing distinct vertebratepopulation segments under the Act(February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722).Although we are not including bulltrout in Canada in the St. Mary-BellyRiver population segment, fish arebelieved to migrate across theinternational boundary. Determinationof a significant reduction in range wasbased only on bull trout occurring

within the coterminous United States, ofwhich loss of the population segmentwould result in elimination of all bulltrout east of the Continental Divide.Mogen (1998) noted genetic work thatindicated bull trout from the upper St.Mary River drainage in Glacier NationalPark and the Belly River in Alberta forma genetically similar group, and bulltrout collected from other areas insouthern Alberta form another (Thomaset al. 1997, cited in Mogen 1998).Genetic analysis of tissue samplescollected in the St. Mary River drainageduring 1997 is not complete (Mogen1998).

Regarding governmental relations, aJune 1997 Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trust responsibilities and the Act,clarifies responsibilities of agenciesrelative to Tribal lands, rights, and trustresources in implementing the Act. Acooperative agreement among us, theBlackfeet Tribe, and Bureau ofReclamation establishes a partnershipfocused on the conservation andrestoration of native salmonids andhabitat in the St. Mary River drainage.Mogen (1998) presents results of a studyto investigate bull trout spawning areasand fish abundance conducted pursuantto the cooperative agreement. We havemet with representatives of theBlackfeet Tribe to address concernsabout bull trout and government-to-government relations.

Issue 3: One respondent noted thatcriteria we used to determine the statusof subpopulations were adopted fromRieman et al. (1997), who originallydeveloped them to apply to 6th fieldwatersheds in the Interior ColumbiaBasin Ecosystem Management Project(ICBEMP). Because fish in 6th fieldwatersheds are roughly equivalent tolocal populations (see Rieman andMcIntyre 1995), using the criteria maybe inconsistent with subpopulations asdefined in the proposed rule. Also,several respondents were concernedabout applying the criteria to theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment for evaluating whether asubpopulation is ‘‘strong’’ or‘‘depressed.’’ One respondent askedwhether our definition of subpopulationdesignation required absolutereproductive isolation or only somelevel of structuring that means reducedgene flow and some local adaptation,and whether subpopulations cancompose a larger metapopulation or if ametapopulation is equivalent to asubpopulation. Another respondentcontended that some dams were notisolating mechanisms forsubpopulations (Middle Fork Nooksack,Skagit, and Nisqually rivers) because



they believe the dams were constructedat natural barriers.

Our Response: In adopting thecriteria, we considered a bull troutsubpopulation ‘‘strong’’ if 5,000individuals or 500 spawners likelyoccur in the subpopulation, abundanceappears stable or increasing, and life-history forms historically present werelikely to persist; and ‘‘depressed’’ if lessthan 5,000 individuals or 500 spawnerslikely occur in the subpopulation,abundance appears to be declining, or alife-history form historically present hasbeen lost (see Rieman et al. 1997). Ifthere was insufficient abundance, trend,and life-history information to classifythe status of a subpopulation as either‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘depressed,’’ we consideredstatus as ‘‘unknown.’’

We used these criteria because theyrepresent the best available informationand were used in evaluating bull troutin the Klamath River and ColumbiaRiver population segments. Weacknowledge the criteria were originallydeveloped for application to salmonidsin the Columbia River Basin, but theirunderlying premises are based onconcepts of conservation biology.Whether a subpopulation is ‘‘strong’’ or‘‘depressed’’ relative to its potential mayvary among population segments.However, we were unable to refine thesecriteria, either higher or lower, based onthe available data. Designating asubpopulation as ‘‘strong’’ or‘‘depressed’’ is only one of severalfactors that we considered in evaluatingthe overall status of a bull troutsubpopulation in a given populationsegment.

Regarding the use of 6th fieldwatersheds, we acknowledge thedifferent spatial scales used in applyingcriteria developed by Rieman et al.(1997) for ICBEMP in our evaluation ofbull trout subpopulations.Subpopulations identified in thepopulation segments for bull trout in thecoterminous United States (see June 10,1998; 63 FR 31647) ranged in size froma portion of a single watershed unitused by ICBEMP to several watersheds.For example, the best availableinformation concerning bull trout and‘‘native char’’ in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment was basedon a spatial scale consisting of up toseveral ICBEMP watershed units.Although the spatial scale of mostsubpopulations identified in theproposed rule occupy multiple ICBEMPwatershed units, we believe that thecriteria offered useful information inevaluating the status of bull trout.

We selected subpopulations as aconvenient unit on which to analyzebull trout within population segments,

and defined subpopulation as ‘‘areproductively isolated group of bulltrout that spawns within a particulararea of a river system.’’ We identifiedsubpopulations based on documented orlikely barriers to fish movement (e.g.,impassable barriers to movement andunsuitable habitat). To be considered asingle subpopulation, two-way passageat a barrier is required, otherwise bulltrout upstream and downstream of abarrier are each considered asubpopulation. Because it is likely thatfish above a barrier could passdownstream and mate with fishdownstream, absolute reproductiveisolation was not required to beconsidered a subpopulation.

We viewed metapopulation concepts(see Rieman and McIntyre 1993) asuseful tools in evaluating bull trout, but,in querying biologists both within theService and elsewhere, we foundconsiderable variability in the definitionof a metapopulation and the types ofdata suggestive of a metapopulation.Some biologists may consider asubpopulation, as defined by us, as ametapopulation if it has multiplespawning areas. Likewise,subpopulations without reciprocalinteractions (i.e., individuals fromupstream of a barrier may mingle withindividuals downstream, but not viceversa) may be considered components ofa metapopulation consisting of morethan one subpopulation. Because littlegenetic and detailed movementinformation exists throughout bull troutrange in the population segmentsaddressed in the proposed rule, webelieve that barriers to movement is anappropriate consideration foridentifying subpopulations.

Relative to dams, the WDFW (1998a)believes that bull trout were able tocommingle on both the Middle ForkNooksack River and the Skagit Riverprior to construction of the dams. Theremay have been a natural barrier betweenLa Grande and Alder dams on theNisqually River. Because the existenceof ‘‘native char’’ above Alder Dam is notestablished, we chose not to identifythis area as a separate subpopulation.Regardless, the DPS discretenesscriterion can be satisfied by natural orman-made barriers.

Issue 4: Several respondents believedthe Federal listing was not necessarydue to current and recently improvedregulations related to forest landmanagement.

Our Response: We believe thatimplementation of the Northwest ForestPlan (NFP) and Washington Departmentof Natural Resources (WDNR) HabitatConservation Plan (HCP) should limitfurther degradation to aquatic habitats

from future forest management practicesfor the Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment. Only about 32 percent of theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment is covered by either one ofthese two plans. An additional 15percent of the population segmentresides on National Park lands. Bulltrout in this population segment willcontinue to be negatively affected byseverely degraded habitats in manysubbasins where ‘‘native char’’ occur(e.g., increased stream temperatures andsedimentation, altered stream flows, andlack of instream cover). These effects areexpected to continue because manyriver basins affected by past, poor forestpractices that contain ‘‘native char’’ willtake decades to fully recover.

Approximately 45 percent of theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment occurs on lands under privateownership. Timber harvest activities onlands in forest production are subject toWashington State Forest Practice Rules(WFPR). Although State rules andregulations governing forested landmanagement activities on private landsare improving, we believe they are notadequate to conserve and recover bulltrout or remedy the effects of pastdamage to bull trout habitats (U.S.Department of Interior (USDI) et al.1996a). The WFPR are currently beingrenegotiated, and it is anticipated thatthere will be some improvements overpast rules. Because the State has notissued new rules, we are unable toevaluate their adequacy to conserve andrecover bull trout on private landswithin the Coastal-Puget Sound area. Ifimproved sufficiently, these rules couldform the basis for a delisting, 4(d) rule,or HCP.

Issue 5: The U.S. Forest Serviceproposed that we issue a special rulepursuant to section 4(d) of the Act thatwould relax the prohibition againstincidental take associated with Federalactions consistent with the NFP.Another respondent requested that wedevelop a special rule that wassufficiently protective to address anythreat to bull trout from a specificdevelopment project.

Our Response: Under section 4(d) ofthe Act, we have the authority to issueregulations as deemed necessary andadvisable to provide for theconservation of a species listed asthreatened. We recognize that on-goingand future land-use activities will occuron non-Federal lands and that theseactivities may result in take of bulltrout. Elsewhere in today’s FederalRegister we have published a Notice ofIntent to prepare another special rulepursuant to section 4(d) of the Act forbull trout within the coterminous



United States (see ‘‘Special Rule’’section). The special rule would addresstwo categories of non-Federal activitiesaffecting bull trout: (1) Habitatrestoration; and (2) regulations thatgovern land and water managementactivities. Special regulationsaddressing both categories wouldprovide for the conservation of bulltrout. We have already issued twospecial rules, one for Jarbidge Riverpopulation segment on April 8, 1999,and the other for the Klamath andColumbia River population segments onJune 10, 1998. In general, these specialrules exempt from the take prohibitionfishing and activities that are conductedin accordance with State, Tribal, andNPS laws and regulations governing fishand wildlife conservation. The specialrule for the Coastal Puget-Sound and St.Mary-Belly population segments,described in the ‘‘Special Rule’’ section,will also exempt from the takeprohibition fishing and activitiesconducted in accordance with State,Tribal, and NPS laws and regulations.

A proposal to relax the prohibitionagainst incidental taking of bull troutassociated with Federal actionsconsistent with the NFP AquaticConservation Strategy (ACS) is anoption we may address in the future.There are a number of issues regardingthe interpretation of ACS objectives andACS components that are beingdiscussed at an interagency level, butcurrently remain unresolved. It wouldnot be prudent for us to consider a 4(d)rule until these discussions areconcluded and the issues aresatisfactorily resolved. The NFP appliesto Federal lands in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment. Althoughwe have not finalized a programmaticbiological opinion, we have re-initiatedprogrammatic consultations with threeNational Forests, includingconferencing on bull trout with theUSFS regional office for those threeNational Forests. Thus, we will addressFederal actions consistent with the NFPeither through section 7 of the Act orthrough a 4(d) rule.

Issue 6: One respondent felt it wasinappropriate to include in the final rulethose streams or stream segments whereonly ‘‘native char’’ or both bull troutand Dolly Varden are documented todate. One respondent suggested thelisting of bull trout will be a (de facto)listing of Dolly Varden, due to theirsimilarities in appearance and life-history characteristics.

Our Response: It is true that speciescomposition is not yet known in manystreams in Washington containing‘‘native char.’’ However, bull trout aredocumented in most streams that

biologists have investigated (12 of 15subpopulations). We are funding WDFWto collect and analyze bull trout tissuesamples in an effort to determine thegenetic identity of ‘‘native char’’ in the19 subpopulations that biologists havenot evaluated. Information from thesestudies may eventually be used toexclude stream systems with only DollyVarden from the listing, if we aresatisfied that bull trout are not presentin the system. Based on the availableevidence, we believe there is a highlikelihood that bull trout occur in themajority of the remaining 19subpopulations. For subpopulations thatcontain both bull trout and DollyVarden it is completely appropriate toinclude those subpopulations in thelisting.

Bull trout and Dolly Varden arevirtually indistinguishable based uponphysical appearance (Service 1998a)and share similar life-history strategiesand habitat requirements. Because ofthese similarities, the WDFW managethe two species as one (WDFW 1998a),and we can evaluate the threats tosubpopulations currently known only as‘‘native char.’’ Although the listingcurrently does not include Dolly Vardenunder the similarity of appearance rule,the coexistence of Dolly Varden andbull trout within a certainsubpopulation would not bejustification to preclude listing of bulltrout in that particular subpopulation.Finally, there is no evidencedemonstrating strong Dolly Vardensubpopulations coexisting withdepressed bull trout subpopulations.

Issue 7: One respondent said wefailed to identify and properly addressother threats to bull trout, primarily thereduction in the bull trout forage base asa result of the commercial andrecreational harvest of returning salmonand steelhead.

Our Response: Ratliff and Howell(1992) suggest that due to its highlypiscivorous nature, bull trout may havebeen adversely affected by declines inprey species. They present the exampleof declining bull trout populationsoccurring above Hells Canyon Dam,where there is no longer anadromoussalmon and steelhead production. Weacknowledge that the depressed statusor declining abundance of anadromousfish stocks in some river basins mayhave negatively affected bull troutthrough a decreased prey base.However, we are unable to determinefrom the available information whetherthis is a threat or just a suppressingfactor to bull trout since they areopportunistic feeders and forage on awide variety of prey. In addition, we areunable to determine whether current

escapement goals set for anadromoussalmon and steelhead are at levels thatmay limit bull trout. A threat wouldclearly exist where anadromous fishstocks are no longer accessible to a bulltrout subpopulation, and it isdetermined that an alternative foragebase does not exist.

Issue 8: One respondent questionedthe rationale of our exclusion of bulltrout in Canada in delineating distinctpopulation segments. The respondentstated that bull trout in Canada wereexcluded because fish there are outsidethe jurisdiction of the Act or that listingwould not have much effect on theCanadian government, as opposed to theexplanation in the proposed rule thatdata for bull trout in Canada are limitedand suggested we should clarify theissue.

Our Response: We acknowledge thatadditional information concerning thestatus and threats to bull trout inCanada has been compiled in recentyears. Some of the available dataindicate a decline of bull trout in severalareas in Canada. Although we recognizethat more data on bull trout in Canadacurrently exist than we originallyconsidered, this new information didnot lead us to conclude that listing thebull trout in Canada is necessary at thistime. We believe that addressing bulltrout only in the coterminous UnitedStates relative to the Act is appropriate.We acknowledge that for threatened orendangered species that crossinternational boundaries, recovery ismore complex. For areas where bulltrout subpopulations cross internationalboundaries, we intend to work with allappropriate jurisdictional entities,Tribal, provincial and Federal Canadianagencies and all entities in the UnitedStates, in developing and implementinga recovery plan for bull trout.

Issue 9: One respondent noted thatcritical habitat is presently notdeterminable. They noted thatconsistent patterns in juvenile fishdistribution, primarily with respect tostream elevation and water temperature,is useful in predicting patches ofspawning and rearing habitats, whichare probably sensitive to land use andimportant for the overall productivity oflocal populations. Another respondentasked us to consider including ascritical habitat, streams that contributeto the water quality of Puget Sound, butare not part of the current knowndistribution of bull trout. Severalrespondents encouraged us to considerseveral issues, such as designating allhistoric and existing bull trout habitat ascritical, protecting roadless and riparianareas, establishing standards for watertemperature, sediment delivery, and



other habitat parameters and othermanagement activities.

Our Response: The definition ofcritical habitat as stated in section 3 ofthe Act holds that critical habitat mayinclude specific areas outside of thegeographical area occupied by thespecies at the time it is listed, upondetermination that such areas areessential for the conservation of thespecies. At this time, we find thatcritical habitat is not determinable forthe Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly River population segments. Weappreciate the comments and believethat patterns in fish distribution willlikely be useful in determining futurecritical habitat designations. This andother habitat considerations will beimportant issues to be consideredduring development of the recoveryplan.

Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies

After a thorough review andconsideration of all informationavailable, we determine the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly Riverpopulation segments of bull trout to bethreatened species. We followedprocedures found at section 4(a)(1) ofthe Act and regulations (50 CFR part424) implementing the listingprovisions of the Act. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1). These factors and theirapplication to the Coastal-Puget Soundand St. Mary-Belly River populationsegments of bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) are as follows:

A. The Present or ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Land and water managementactivities that degrade bull trout habitatand continue to threaten all of the bulltrout population segments in thecoterminous United States includedams, forest management practices,livestock grazing, agriculture andagricultural diversions, roads, andmining (Beschta et al. 1987; Chamberlinet al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Meehan1991; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Sedell andEverest 1991; Craig and Wissmar 1993;Frissell 1993; Henjum et al. 1994;McIntosh et al. 1994; Wissmar et al.1994; USDA and USDI 1995, 1996,1997; Light et al. 1996; MBTSG 1995a–e, 1996a–h).


Barriers, timber harvesting,agricultural practices, and urban

development are thought to be majorfactors affecting ‘‘native char’’ in theCoastal-Puget Sound DPS (Service1998a). Bull trout are often migratory(Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992;Rieman and McIntyre 1993; OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW) 1995; McPhail and Baxter1996), and migratory ‘‘native char’’exhibit anadromous, adfluvial, andfluvial strategies in the Coastal-PugetSound DPS. Factors affecting ‘‘nativechar’’ may preclude or inhibit migratorybehavior or contribute to degradation ofaquatic habitats used by ‘‘native char’’(Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence etal. 1996; WDFW 1997a).

Past forest management activitieshave contributed to degraded watershedconditions, including increasedsedimentation of bull trout habitat (Saloand Cundy 1987; Meehan 1991; Bissonet al. 1992; USDA et al. 1993; Henjumet al. 1994; Spence et al. 1996). Pastactivities continue to negatively affect‘‘native char’’ in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment. Timberharvest and road building in riparianareas reduce stream shading and cover,channel stability, large woody debrisrecruitment, and increase sedimentationand peak stream flows (Chamberlin etal. 1991). These can alternatively lead toincreased stream temperatures and bankerosion, and decreased long-term streamproductivity. Over 35 percent of naturalforested areas in Puget Sound have beeneliminated (WDFW 1997b).

Strict cold water temperaturerequirements make bull troutparticularly vulnerable to activities thatwarm spawning and rearing waters(Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman andMcIntyre 1993). Increased temperaturereduces habitat suitability, which canexacerbate fragmentation within andbetween subpopulations (Rieman andMcIntyre 1993). Of the 34 ‘‘native char’’subpopulations in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment, 11 are likelyaffected by elevated streamtemperatures resulting from past forestpractices (lower Nooksack River,Stillaguamish River, Snohomish River-Skykomish River, Green River, lowerPuyallup, Nisqually River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish, River,Goodman Creek, Copalis River, MoclipsRiver, and Chehalis River-Grays Harbor)(Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Williamset al. 1975; Hiss and Knudsen 1993;WDFW 1997a; WDOE 1997). Bull troutare documented in three of these‘‘native char’’ subpopulations (GreenRiver, South Fork-lower North ForkSkokomish River, and Snohomish River-Skykomish River).

The effects of road construction andassociated maintenance account for a

majority of sediment loads to streams inforested areas (Shepard et al. 1984;Cederholm and Reid 1987; Furniss et al.1991). Sedimentation affects streams byreducing pool depth, altering substratecomposition, reducing interstitial space,and causing braiding of channels(Rieman and McIntyre 1993), whichreduce carrying capacity. Sedimentationnegatively affects bull trout embryosurvival and juvenile bull trout rearingdensities (Shepard et al. 1984; Pratt1992). In National Forests inWashington, large deep pools have beenreduced 58 percent due tosedimentation and loss of pool-formingstructures such as boulders and largewood (USDA et al. 1993). The effects ofsedimentation from roads and loggingare prevalent in 10 basins containing‘‘native char’’ subpopulations(Nooksack, Skykomish, Stillaguamish,Puyallup, upper Cedar, Skokomish,Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, and CoastalPlain-Quinault basins) (HCCC 1995;Olympic National Forest 1995a,b;Sandra Noble and Shelley Spalding,Service, in litt. 1995; WDFW 1997a,WDOE 1997). Bull trout are documentedin six of these basins (upper Cedar,Skokomish, Dungeness, Queets,Quinault, and Skykomish basins). Weconsider five subpopulations withinthese basins to be ‘‘depressed’’. Theseare the Chester Morse Reservoir, lowerPuyallup River, South Fork-lower NorthFork Skokomish River, lowerDungeness-Gray Wolf, and Hoh Riversubpopulations. The remaining sixaffected subpopulations found inCanyon Creek, upper Middle ForkNooksack River, Snohomish River-Skykomish River, Stillaguamish River,Queets River, and lower Quinault Riverare considered ‘‘unknown.’’

A recent assessment of the interiorColumbia Basin ecosystem revealed thatincreasing road densities wereassociated with declines in four non-anadromous salmonid species (bulltrout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout,westslope cutthroat trout, and redbandtrout) within the Columbia River Basin,likely through a variety of factorsassociated with roads (Quigley andArbelbide 1997). Bull trout were lesslikely to use highly roaded basins forspawning and rearing, and if present,were likely to be at lower populationlevels (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).Quigley et al. (1996) demonstrated thatwhen average road densities werebetween 0.4 to 1.1 km/km2 (0.7 and 1.7mi/mi2) on USFS lands, the proportionof subwatersheds supporting ‘‘strong’’populations of key salmonids droppedsubstantially. Higher road densitieswere associated with further declines.



When USFS lands were compared tolands administered by all other entitiesat a given road density, the proportionof lands supporting ‘‘strong’’ bull troutpopulations was lower on landsadministered by other entities. Althoughthis assessment was conducted east ofthe Cascade Mountain Range, someeffects from high road densities may bemore severe in western Washington.Higher precipitation west of the CascadeMountains increases the frequency ofsurface erosion and mass wasting (USDIet al. 1996b). Limited data concerningroad densities are available for theCoastal-Puget Sound DPS. It is known,however, that two bull troutsubpopulations (lower Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River and Chester MorseReservoir) occur in basins with roaddensities greater than 1.1 km/km2 (1.7mi/mi2), and the effects ofsedimentation from high road densityon aquatic habitat is likely acontributing factor to the ‘‘depressed’’status of these two ‘‘native char’’subpopulations. Because basins inportions of the Queets River drainagecontain high road densities, rangingfrom 1.5 to 3.0 km/km2 (2.4 to 4.8 mi/mi2) (ONF 1995a; Cederholm and Reid1987), we believe that the Queets River‘‘native char’’ subpopulation is affectedby high road density.

At least 22 ‘‘native char’’subpopulations within the Coastal-PugetSound DPS are affected by past orpresent forest management activities.Remaining subpopulations not affectedby such activities occur primarilywithin National Parks or WildernessAreas. For example, five ‘‘native char’’subpopulations lie completely withinNational Parks and Wilderness Areaswithdrawn from timber harvest. Theseinclude the upper Quinault River, upperSol Duc River, Gorge Reservoir, DiabloReservoir, and Ross Reservoirsubpopulations. Although the status ofthese ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations isconsidered ‘‘unknown’’ at this time, allexcept the upper Quinault Riversubpopulation are threatened by non-native brook trout (see Factor E).

Agricultural practices and associatedactivities also affect ‘‘native char’’ andtheir aquatic habitats. Irrigationwithdrawals including diversions candewater spawning and rearing streams,impede fish passage and migration, andcause entrainment. Dischargingpollutants such as nutrients, agriculturalchemicals, animal waste and sedimentinto spawning and rearing waters is alsodetrimental (Spence et al. 1996).Agricultural practices regularly includestream channelization and diking, largewoody debris and riparian vegetationremoval, and bank armoring (Spence et

al. 1996). Improper livestock grazingcan promote streambank erosion andsedimentation, and limit the growth ofriparian vegetation important fortemperature control, streambankstability, fish cover, and detrital input.In addition, grazing often results inincreased organic nutrient input instreams (Platts 1991). Eight ‘‘nativechar’’ subpopulations in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (lower Puyallup,Stillaguamish River, lower Skagit River,lower Nooksack River, Green River,South Fork-lower North ForkSkokomish River, Dungeness River-GrayWolf River, and Chehalis River-GraysHarbor) are subject to the effects of pastor ongoing agricultural or livestockgrazing practices (Williams et al. 1975;Hiss and Knudsen 1993; WDF et al.1993; HCCC 1995; ONF 1995b; WDFW1997a). Species composition has beenexamined in five of thesesubpopulations, and bull trout aredocumented in four (Green River, lowerPuyallup, South Fork-lower North ForkSkokomish River, and Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River).

Dams constructed with poorlydesigned fish passage or without fishpassage create barriers to migratory‘‘native char,’’ precluding access tosuitable spawning, rearing, andmigration habitats. Dams disrupt theconnectivity within and betweenwatersheds essential for maintainingaquatic ecosystem function (Naiman etal.1992; Spence et al. 1996) and bulltrout subpopulation interaction (Riemanand McIntyre 1993). Naturalrecolonization of historically occupiedsites can be precluded by migrationbarriers (e.g., McCloud Dam inCalifornia (Rode 1990)). Within theCoastal-Puget Sound DPS, there are atleast 41 existing or proposedhydroelectric projects regulated by theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) within watersheds supporting‘‘native char’’ (Gene Stagner, Service, inlitt. 1997). Of the 41 existing orproposed projects, 17 are currentlyoperating and most are run-of-the-riversmall hydroelectric projects. Negotiatedinstream flows for these projects arebased primarily on resident cutthroattrout or rainbow trout flowrequirements, and may not meetseasonal migratory flow requirements ofbull trout (Tim Bodurtha, Service, in litt.1995). Fish passage has not beenaddressed for 28 of the existing orproposed projects (G. Stagner, in litt.1997). We are aware of at least sevenwater diversions or other damscurrently operating in watersheds with‘‘native char,’’ and none currentlyproviding for upstream fish passage.

These diversions and dams are locatedon the Middle Fork Nooksack, Skagit,Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually rivers.These seven facilities currently affectthe lower Nooksack River, upper MiddleFork Nooksack River, lower SkagitRiver, Gorge Reservoir, DiabloReservoir, Ross Reservoir, lowerPuyallup, upper Puyallup Riversubpopulations. Projects in the Greenand Nisqually rivers block fish passagein the upper stream reaches of thesebasins, although ‘‘native char’’ use ofthe river areas above the facilitiesremains unconfirmed. Various fishsurveys conducted in the upper GreenRiver watershed above the facility, didnot detect ‘‘native char’’ (Ed Connor andPhil Hilgert, R2 Resource Consultants,Inc., in litt. 1998). Surveys of the upperNisqually River watershed areunderway (WDFW 1998a). Dams on theSkokomish and Elwha rivers are alsobarriers to upstream fish migration andhave fragmented populations of ‘‘nativechar’’ within the Coastal-Puget SoundDPS. FERC published an EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) for threeproposed hydroelectric projects onSkagit River tributaries. The final EISrecommends two proposedhydroelectric projects on the lowerNooksack River, affecting twosubpopulations, the lower Skagit Riverand the lower Nooksack River. Weconsider the status of thesesubpopulations ‘‘strong’’ and‘‘unknown,’’ respectively.

Urbanization has led to decreasedhabitat complexity (uniform streamchannels and simple nonfunctionalriparian areas), impediments andblockages to fish passage, increasedsurface runoff (more frequent and severeflooding), and decreased water qualityand quantity (Spence et al. 1996). In thePuget Sound area, human populationgrowth is predicted to increase by 20percent between 1987 and 2000,requiring a 62 percent increase in landarea developed (Puget Sound WaterQuality Authority (PSWQA) 1988 inSpence et al.1996). The effects ofurbanization, concentrated at the lowermost reaches of rivers within PugetSound, primarily affect ‘‘native char’’migratory corridors and rearing habitats.Five ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations inthe Coastal-Puget Sound DPS (lowerDungeness River-Gray Wolf River, lowerPuyallup River, Green River,Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek, andStillaguamish River) are negativelyaffected by urbanization (Williams et al.1975; WDFW 1997a).

Mining can degrade aquatic systemsby generating sediment and heavymetals pollution, altering water pHlevels, and changing stream channels



and flow (Martin and Platts 1981).Although not currently active, mining inthe Nooksack River Basin, where‘‘native char’’ occur, has adverselyaffected streams. For example, theExcelsior Mine on the upper North ForkNooksack River was active at the turn ofthe century and mining spoils wereplaced directly into Wells Creek (Mt.Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest(MBSNF) 1995), a known spawningstream for ‘‘native char.’’ Spoils in andadjacent to the stream may continue tobe sources of sediment and heavymetals.


Forest management practices,livestock grazing, and mining are notthought to be major factors affecting bulltrout in the St. Mary-Belly River DPS.However, bull trout subpopulations arefragmented and isolated by dams anddiversions (Fredenberg 1996; Clayton1998; Mogen 1998). Specifically, theUSBR diversion at the outlet of lower St.Mary Lake is an unscreened trans-Basindiversion (i.e., transferring water to theMissouri River drainage via the MilkRiver) that threatens the species in theSt. Mary River Basin (upper St. MaryRiver, lower St. Mary River, andSwiftcurrent Creek subpopulations).This diversion restricts upstream bulltrout passage into the upper St. MaryRiver. Consequently, migratory (fluvial)bull trout are prevented from reachingsuitable spawning habitat in Divide andRed Eagle creeks (Fredenberg 1996; R.Wagner, pers. comm. 1998). Similarly,the irrigation dam on Swiftcurrent Creek(Lake Sherburne) physically blocks bulltrout passage into the upper watershed(Fredenberg 1996; R. Wagner, pers.comm. 1998), affecting the three St.Mary River subpopulations. In the BellyRiver drainage, two adult bull troutimplanted with radio transmitters thatspawned in the North Fork Belly Rivernear the international border in 1997were subsequently passed down theMountain View Irrigation District Canaland captured (Terry Clayton, AlbertaConservation Association (ACA), in litt.1998).

In addition to the dams physicallyisolating subpopulations, the associateddiversions seasonally dewater thestreams, effectively decreasing availablehabitat for migratory and resident bulltrout (Fredenberg 1996). The diversionat the outlet of lower St. Mary Lake mayresult in a reduction (up to 50 percent)of instream flow of the St. Mary River,possibly affecting juvenile and adultbull trout (R. Wagner, pers. comm.1998). The diversion is unscreened andrecent information suggests downstream

loss through entrainment of bull trout(R. Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).Similarly, the irrigation dam onSwiftcurrent Creek (Lake Sherburne)seasonally dewaters the creekdownstream, effectively eliminatinghabitat (Fredenberg 1996; R. Wagner,pers. comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,Recreational, Scientific, or EducationalPurposes

Declines in bull trout abundance haveprompted States to institute restrictivefishing regulations and eliminate theharvest of bull trout in most waters inIdaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, andWashington. These more restrictiveregulations resulted in an increase inrecent observations of adult bull trout insome areas of their range. However,illegal harvest and incidental hook andrelease of ‘‘native char’’ in fisheriestargeting other species still threaten bulltrout in some areas.


Fishing for ‘‘native char’’ is currentlyclosed in most of the waters within theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment. The State of Washingtonimplemented most of these closures in1994. Harvest of ‘‘native char’’ is stillallowed in the area of the lower SkagitRiver subpopulation in the mainstemSkagit River and several of its tributaries(Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck andSauk rivers) (508 mm (20 in.) minimumsize limit and two fish daily bag limit);the Snohomish River-Skykomish Riversubpopulation in the Snohomish Rivermainstem and the Skykomish Riverbelow the forks (508 mm (20 in.)minimum size limit and two fish dailybag limit) (WDFW 1997a); and portionsof the Quinault and Queets rivers thatare within the Quinault IndianReservation (QIN) boundary (4 fish dailybag limit with no minimum sizerestriction) (Scott Chitwood, QuinaultIndian Nation, pers. comm. 1997;WDFW 1997a). Olympic National Parkhas recently closed fishing for ‘‘nativechar’’ in all park waters (D. Morris, inlitt. 1998). Fishing for bull trout inMount Rainier National Park isprohibited. There is likely somemortality from incidental hook andrelease of ‘‘native char’’ in fisheriestargeting other species, especially instreams where restrictive anglingregulations (i.e., artificial flies or lureswith barbless single hook, baitprohibited) are not established.

The objective of the 508 mm (20 in.)minimum size limit in the Skagit Riverand Snohomish-Skykomish Riversystems is to allow most females to

spawn at least once before harvest(WDFW 1997a), and evidence suggeststhat more females are allowed to spawnin these two systems where theregulation is in place (WDFW 1998b).However, the minimum size limitallows the selective harvest of larger,mature fish that are more fecund (JimJohnston, WDFW, pers. comm. 1995).

Regulations on the Quinault IndianReservation in the lower Quinault Riverand Queets River systems offer less bulltrout conservation opportunity becausethere is no minimum size limit to allowmost females to reach maturity beforebeing subject to harvest. Consistent withthe June 1997 Secretarial Order onTribal-Federal Trust responsibilities andthe Act, we will continue to assess theeffects of these regulations and workwith the Tribes to assure that theconservation needs of bull trout are met.The State of Washington has closedareas of the lower Quinault River andQueets River watersheds outside of theQuinault Indian Reservation to harvestof ‘‘native char’’ (WDFW 1997a).

In 1993, WDFW increased the catchlimit for brook trout in order to reduceinteractions with bull trout (WDFW1995). The increased brook trout catchhas the potential to increase theincidental harvest of bull trout due tomisidentification by anglers. Forexample, only 40 percent of Montanaanglers surveyed correctly identifiedbull trout out of six species of salmonidsfound locally (Mack Long and SeanWhalen, Montana Fish Wildlife andParks, in litt. 1997).

Poaching is still a factor that threatens‘‘native char’’ in nine drainages withinthe Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment. These are the South ForkNooksack River, North Fork NooksackRiver (above and below the falls), SaukRiver and tributaries, North ForkSkykomish River, Chester MorseReservoir, lower Dungeness River-GrayWolf River, Hoh River, Goodman Creek,and Morse Creek (WDW, in litt. 1992;Mongillo 1993; WDFW 1997a; Service1998a).


Historically, the harvest of bull troutin the St. Mary-Belly River DPS wasconsidered ‘‘extensive’’ (Fredenberg1996). Currently, legal angler harvest inthe St. Mary-Belly River DPS occursonly on the Blackfeet IndianReservation, which has a five fish perday limit with only one fish over 508mm (20 in.) (Fredenberg 1996).

In 1994, the Blackfeet Tribe reportedharvest of at least 19 adult and subadultbull trout in gill nets set for acommercial fishery for lake whitefish



(Coregonus clupeaformis) in lower St.Mary Lake (Blackfeet Tribe, in litt.1998). Given the apparent lowabundance of adult bull trout in theupper St. Mary Lake subpopulation andrestricted migration opportunities overthe USBR diversion on lower St. MaryLake, any harvest of bull trout from thissubpopulation represents a threat.Record-keeping by the two commercialfishers is a requirement of the BlackfeetTribal Fish and Game Commission, butis not strictly enforced. As discussed inIssue 2 in the ‘‘Summary of Commentsand Recommendations section’’, acooperative agreement exists among us,the Blackfeet Tribe, and the Bureau ofReclamation which establishes apartnership focused on the conservationand restoration of native salmonids andhabitat in the St. Mary River drainage.We have recently met with the BlackfeetTribe to address our concerns about bulltrout. We will continue to assess theeffects of their harvest regulations and,in accordance with the June 1997Secretarial Order on Tribal-FederalTrust responsibilities and the Act, wewill continue work with the Tribe toassure that the conservation needs ofbull trout are met. Specifically, theongoing research carried out under thecooperative agreement is evaluatingmovement patterns, population status,and genetic structure of the bull trout inthe St. Mary River drainage. We willutilize the results as a basis to developfuture management recommendations.

C. Disease or PredationDiseases affecting salmonids are

present or likely present in bothpopulation segments, but are notthought to be a factor threatening bulltrout. Instead, interspecific interactions,including predation, likely negativelyaffect bull trout where non-nativesalmonids are introduced (Bond 1992;Ziller 1992; Donald and Alger 1993;Leary et al. 1993; MBTSG 1996a; J.Palmisano and V. Kaczynski, NorthwestForestry Resources Council, in litt.1997).


Disease is not believed to be a factorin the decline of bull trout in theCoastal-Puget Sound DPS. Outbreaks ofthe parasite Dermocystidium salmonisin the lower Elwha River may negativelyaffect ‘‘native char’’ in years of highchinook salmon returns (Kevin Amos,WDFW, pers. comm. 1997). Thesusceptibility of bull trout to theparasite is unknown. There is concernabout whirling disease (Myxoboluscerebralis), which occurs in wild troutwaters of western states, and though this

may be a potential threat to bull trout,we do not have specific information onit at this time.

Predation is not considered a primaryfactor in the decline of Coastal-PugetSound ‘‘native char.’’ The onlyexception may be largemouth bass(Micropterus salmoides) in CushmanReservoir on the Skokomish River thatmay potentially affect the bull troutsubpopulation (Sam Brenkman, OregonState University, pers. comm. 1997;WDFW 1997a).


Disease and predation are not knownto be factors affecting the survival ofbull trout in the St. Mary-Belly RiverBasin. Whirling disease has beendocumented in numerous MissouriRiver watersheds in central Montana,though not in the Saskatchewan Riverdrainage where the St. Mary-Belly Riverbull trout subpopulations occur.

D. The Inadequacy of ExistingRegulatory Mechanisms

Although varying efforts areunderway to assist in conserving bulltrout throughout the coterminousUnited States (e.g., Batt 1996; Light et al.1996; Robert Joslin, USFS, in litt. 1997;Allan Thomas, BLM, in litt. 1997;Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team1997), the implementation andenforcement of existing Federal andState laws designed to conserve fisheryresources, maintain water quality, andprotect aquatic habitat have not beensufficient to prevent past and ongoinghabitat degradation leading to bull troutdeclines and isolation. Statutorymechanisms, including the NationalForest Management Act, the FederalLand Policy and Management Act, thePublic Rangelands Improvement Act,the Clean Water Act, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, FederalPower Act, State Endangered SpeciesActs and numerous State laws andregulations oversee an array of land andwater management activities that affectbull trout and their habitat.


In April 1994, the Secretaries ofAgriculture and Interior adopted theNorthwest Forest Plan for managementof late-successional forests within therange of the northern spotted owl (Strixoccidentalis caurina) (USDA and USDI1994a). This plan set forth objectives,standards, and guidelines to provide fora functional late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem. Included in theplan is an aquatic conservation strategyinvolving riparian reserves, key

watersheds, watershed analysis, andhabitat restoration. Approximately 35percent of the total acreage within theCoastal-Puget Sound bull troutpopulation segment are Federal landssubject to Northwest Forest Planstandards and guidelines (U.S.Geological Survey (USGS), in litt. 1996).In 1994, an assessment paneldetermined that the proposed standardsand guidelines in the Northwest ForestPlan would result in an 85 percentfuture likelihood of attaining sufficientaquatic habitat to support well-distributed populations of bull trout onFederal lands (USDA and USDI 1994b).Prior to 1997, most projects developedunder the Northwest Forest Plan in thisDPS were determined to have ‘‘noimpact’’ on bull trout and its habitat.However, these determinations weremade prior to the development ofspecific criteria (Service 1998c) toevaluate the effects of Forest Serviceactivities on bull trout and their habitat.Because existing aquatic habitatconditions are severely degraded inmany subbasins, the effects from pastland management activities can beexpected to continue into theforeseeable future in the form ofincreased stream temperatures, alteredstream flows, sedimentation, and lack ofinstream cover. These effects are oftenexacerbated by landslides, road failures,and debris torrents. Many of theseaquatic systems will require decades tofully recover (USDA et al. 1993). Untilthen, future habitat losses can beexpected due to past activities,potentially resulting in localextirpations, migratory barriers, andreduced reproductive success (Spence etal. 1996).

Washington State Forest PracticeRules (WFPR) apply to all State, city,county, and private lands not currentlycovered under a Habitat ConservationPlan (HCP) or other conservationagreement in Washington.Approximately 45 percent of theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment is held under privateownership and 1.5 percent under city orcounty ownership. Bull trout and theirhabitats continue to face threats fromongoing and future timber harvestactivities on many of these lands. TheWFPR set forth timber harvestregulations for non-Federal and non-Tribal forested lands in the State ofWashington. These rules set standardsfor timber harvest activities in andaround riparian areas, in an effort toprotect aquatic resources. These riparianmanagement zone widths, as specifiedby the WFPR, do not ensure protectionof the riparian components, because the

VerDate 29-OCT-99 16:50 Oct 29, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01NOR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 01NOR2


minimum buffer widths are likelyinsufficient to fully protect riparianecosystems (USDI et al. 1996a).

In January 1997, the Washington StateDepartment of Natural Resources(WDNR) developed a multispecies HCPunder section 10 of the Act, covering allWDNR-owned lands within the range ofthe northern spotted owl. The WDNRHCP primarily addresses theconservation needs for old-growthforest-dependent species, such as thenorthern spotted owl and marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratusmarmoratus), while allowing WDNR tomeet its trust responsibilities to theState. The HCP also addresses theconservation needs of other terrestrialand aquatic species on WDNR lands.Approximately 10 percent of theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment is in State ownership and iscovered by the HCP. The HCPspecifically provides RiparianConservation Strategies designed tomaintain the integrity and function offreshwater stream habitat necessary forthe health and persistence of aquaticspecies, especially salmonids. Roadmaintenance and network planningstrategies included in the HCP also playimportant roles in protecting aquatichabitats, but are often reliant on theRiparian Conservation Strategy streambuffers for complete protection. If fullyand properly implemented, the HCPshould aid in the restoration andprotection of freshwater salmonidhabitat on the Olympic Peninsula andthe areas on the west slope of theCascades. There are still ‘‘legacy’’threats to bull trout subpopulations onState lands even with the HCP in place.For example, the HCP states, ‘‘Adverseimpacts to salmonid habitat willcontinue to occur because past forestpractices have left a legacy of degradedriparian ecosystems, deforested unstablehillslopes, and a poorly planned andmaintained road network’’ (WDNR1997). Areas logged in the past will takedecades to fully recover. In addition,‘‘Some components of the riparianconservation strategy require on-sitemanagement decisions, and adverseimpacts to salmonid habitat may occurinadvertently.’’ For example, timberharvesting in the riparian buffer must‘‘maintain or restore salmonid habitat,’’but, at present, the amount of timberharvesting in riparian ecosystemscompatible with high quality salmonidhabitat is unknown (WDNR 1997).

In 1992, the WDFW (formerly theWDW) developed a draft bull trout-Dolly Varden management and recoveryplan. In 1995, WDFW released a draftEIS for the management plan. The planestablishes a goal of restoring and

maintaining the health and diversity of‘‘native char’’ stocks and their habitatsin the State of Washington (WDFW1995). In 1998, WDFW distributed arevised draft of the bull trout and DollyVarden management plan to us forreview (WDFW 1998b). Althoughcommendable goals and strategies arepresented in the new draft plan, specificguidance on how these goals andstrategies would be accomplished is notprovided. Our review of the plandetermined that it does not fully addressall elements necessary to conserve andrestore bull trout populations (NancyGloman, Service, in litt. 1998). Becauseall elements necessary for conservationand restoration of bull trout are not fullyaddressed and there are uncertaintiesconcerning implementation of the plan,the effect of the plan on future bull troutconservation in Washington isunknown.

Since 1994, WDFW has beendeveloping a Wild Salmonid Policy(WSP) to address management of allnative salmonids in the State. InSeptember 1997, WDFW released thefinal EIS for the WSP. The policyestablishes a goal to protect, restore, andenhance the productivity, production,and diversity of wild salmonids andtheir ecosystems to sustain ceremonial,subsistence, commercial, andrecreational fisheries; non-consumptivefish benefits; and related cultural andecological values well into the future(WDFW 1997b). The WSP, in its currentform, may not adequately protect bulltrout because the primary focus isrestoring wild salmon and steelhead.Although other wild salmonids,including bull trout, are referred to inthe document, the proposed policy doesnot address the unique requirements ofbull trout. As a result, proposed habitatand water quality standards (currentState surface water quality standards),originally developed with a focus onsalmon, may fall short in protection forbull trout. The final EIS is notconsidered a policy document to directWDFW. The EIS describes a set ofalternatives presented to theWashington State Fish and WildlifeCommission (Commission). TheCommission has the final responsibilityfor taking action on the preferredalternative and recommending policydirection. When implemented, thepolicy would present guidelines foractions that WDFW must follow, butwould not be binding on other State,Tribal, or private entities. Thepublication of a WSP will likely occurin the near future, but the format andexact content of the document isunknown. Given the uncertainties

surrounding implementation of the planand lack of specificity concerning bulltrout, including funding, possiblebenefits to bull trout can not beevaluated.

Section 305(b) of the 1972 FederalClean Water Act requires States toidentify water bodies biennially that arenot expected to meet State surface waterquality standards (WDOE 1996). Thesewaters are reported in the section 303(d)list of water quality limited streams. TheWashington State 303(d) list (WDOE1997) reflects the poor condition oflower stream reaches of some systemscontaining bull trout and Dolly Varden.At least 30 stream reaches withinhabitat occupied by 13 subpopulationsof ‘‘native char’’ are listed on theWashington State proposed 1998 303(d)list of water quality impaired streams(WDOE 1997). Eight of thesesubpopulations are ‘‘depressed,’’ one is‘‘strong,’’ and four are ‘‘unknown.’’Waters included on the 303(d) list dueto temperature exceedances are found inareas where the Chehalis River-GraysHarbor, lower Quinault River, HohRiver, lower Elwha River, NisquallyRiver, lower Puyallup, Green River,Sammamish River-Issaquah Creek,Stillaguamish River, and lowerNooksack River subpopulations occur.We have identified bull trout in two ofthese subpopulations (Green River andlower Puyallup). The State temperaturestandards are likely inadequate for bulltrout because temperatures in excess of15° C (59° F) are thought to limit bulltrout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre1993) and the State temperaturestandard for the highest class of watersis 16° C (61° F).

Subpopulations that occur in waterson the 303(d) list not meeting instreamflow standards include the DungenessRiver-Gray Wolf River, South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River,lower Puyallup River, lower SkagitRiver, and lower Nooksack River‘‘native char’’ subpopulations. Bull troutare known to occur in four of thesesubpopulations (Dungeness River-GrayWolf River; South Fork-lower NorthFork Skokomish River; lower Puyallup;and lower Skagit River). Although nominimum instream flow requirementsexist for bull trout, variable stream flowsand low winter flows are thought tonegatively influence the embryos andalevins (a young fish which has not yetabsorbed its yolk sac) of bull trout(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

The Chehalis River-Grays Harbor andSammamish River-Issaquah Creek‘‘native char’’ subpopulations occur inwaters on the 303(d) list for not meetingthe standards for dissolved oxygen.Although no dissolved oxygen



standards exist for bull trout, poor waterquality and highly degraded migratorycorridors may hinder or interruptmigration (Spence et al. 1996), leadingto the further fragmentation of habitatand isolation of bull trout.

Surface waters are assigned to one offive classes under the Water QualityStandards for Surface Waters of theState of Washington (WAC 173–201A–130). These classes are AA(extraordinary), A (excellent), B (good),C (fair) and Lake class. These classes ofcriteria are established for the followingwater quality parameters: temperature,fecal coliform, turbidity, dissolvedoxygen, and toxic deleterious materialconcentrations. With the exception ofdissolved oxygen, parameters are not toexceed specified maximum levels foreach class. Maximum water temperaturecriteria range from 16° C (60.8° F) (ClassAA), 18° C (64.4° F) (Class A), 21° C(69.8° F) (Class B), to 22° C (71.6° F)(Class C). Bull trout streams within theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment have stream segments that fallin classes AA, A, and B. Given theapparent low temperature requirementsof bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre1993), these temperature standards arelikely inadequate to protect bull troutspawning, rearing or migration.Segments of the Quinault, Queets,Elwha, Skokomish, Nisqually, White,Green, and Snohomish rivers do notmeet existing State standards for theirrespective classes. It is unknownwhether the current standardsestablished for other water qualityparameters (fecal coliform, turbidity,dissolved oxygen, toxic deleteriousmaterial concentrations) within thevarious classes, are adequate to protectbull trout. See Factor A for additionaldiscussion of water quality.


Two USBR structures likely affect bulltrout by dewatering stream reaches,acting as passage barriers or exposingfish to entrainment (Service 1998b). Weare not aware that the effects of thestructures were considered in theirconstruction (1902 and 1921) oroperation. Currently, operators attemptto minimize passage and entrainmentproblems by staging the fall dewateringof the canal and removing boards in thedam during winter. USBR has notevaluated the effectiveness of theoperations and has not establishedformal guidelines to minimize theeffects of the structures’ operations onbull trout. The draft Montana Bull TroutRestoration Plan (1998) does not addressor incorporate recommendations for bull

trout conservation found in the St.Mary-Belly River population segment.

E. Other Natural or Manmade FactorsAffecting Its Continued Existence

Natural and manmade factorsaffecting the continued existence of bulltrout include: previous introductions ofnon-native species that compete andhybridize with ‘‘native char;’’subpopulation habitat fragmentationand isolation caused by humanactivities; and the risk of localextirpations due to natural events suchas droughts and floods.

Introductions of non-native species bythe Federal government, State fish andgame departments and unauthorizedprivate parties across the range of bulltrout have resulted in declines inabundance, local extirpations, andhybridization of bull trout (Bond 1992;Howell and Buchanan 1992; Leary et al.1993; Donald and Alger 1993; Pratt andHuston 1993; MBTSG 1995b,d: 1996g;Platts et al.1995; John Palmisano and V.Kaczynski, in litt. 1997). Non-nativespecies may exacerbate stresses on bulltrout from habitat degradation,fragmentation, isolation, and speciesinteractions (Rieman and McIntyre1993). In some lakes and rivers,introduced species including rainbowtrout and kokanee may benefit largeadult bull trout by providingsupplemental forage (Faler and Bair1991; Pratt 1992; ODFW, in litt. 1993;MBTSG 1996a). However, the sameintroductions of game fish cannegatively affect bull trout due toincreased angling and subsequentincidental catch, illegal harvest of bulltrout, and competition for space (Rode1990; Bond 1992; WDW 1992; MBTSG1995d).


Competition and hybridization withintroduced brook trout threatens thepersistence of some ‘‘native char’’subpopulations in the Coastal-PugetSound DPS. The State of Washingtonhas introduced brook trout into severalheadwater areas occupied by ‘‘nativechar;’’ however, the distribution ofbrook trout within many of these areasappears to be limited. Brook trout canaffect bull trout even in areas withundisturbed habitats (e.g., NationalParks). Brook trout normally have areproductive advantage (earliermaturation) over resident bull trout,which can lead to species replacement(Leary et al. 1993; Thomas 1992). Atpresent, the distribution of 14 ‘‘nativechar’’ subpopulations partially overlapwith brook trout in the upper Sol DucRiver, upper Elwha River, lower

Dungeness River-Gray Wolf River, upperNorth Fork Skokomish River, SouthFork-lower North Fork SkokomishRiver, Green River, lower Puyallup(Carbon River), Snohomish River,Skykomish River, Gorge Reservoir,Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, LowerSkagit River, upper Middle ForkNooksack River, and Canyon Creek(Reed Glesne, North Cascades NationalPark, in litt. 1993; Mongillo and Hallock1993; John Meyer, Olympic NationalPark, pers. comm. 1995; Morrill andMcHenry 1995; S. Brenkman, pers.comm. 1997; Brady Green, MBSNF,pers. comm. 1997).

‘‘Native char’’ subpopulations thathave become geographically isolatedmay no longer have access to migratorycorridors. First- and second-orderstreams in steep headwaters tend to behydrologically and geomorphicallymore unstable than large, low-gradientstreams. Thus, salmonids are beingrestricted to habitats where thelikelihood of extirpation because ofrandom environmental events isgreatest’’ (Spence et al. 1996). ‘‘Nativechar’’ subpopulations that are likely tobe negatively affected by natural eventsas a result of isolation are CushmanReservoir, South Fork-lower North ForkSkokomish River, Gorge Reservoir,Diablo Reservoir, Ross Reservoir, upperMiddle Fork Nooksack River, upperQuinault River, upper Sol Duc River,upper Dungeness River, and ChesterMorse Reservoir (Service 1998a). Ofthese 10 ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations,we have examined species compositionin seven and bull trout have beenconfirmed in five (Cushman Reservoir,South Fork-lower North ForkSkokomish River, upper Quinault River,Chester Morse Reservoir, and upperMiddle Fork Nooksack River), of whichthree are ‘‘depressed’’ (Service 1998a).

St. Mary-Belly Population SegmentNon-native species are pervasive

throughout the St. Mary and Belly rivers(Fitch 1994; Fredenberg 1996; Clayton1997). Brook, brown, and rainbow trouthave been widely introduced in thearea. We are not aware of any studiesconducted in the DPS evaluating theeffects of introduced non-native fisheson bull trout. However, because brooktrout occur in the four bull troutsubpopulations, competition andhybridization are threats in the St. Maryand Belly rivers (Service 1998b),especially on resident bull trout (R.Wagner, pers. comm. 1998).

We have carefully assessed the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable regarding the past, present,and future threats faced by the Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly River



population segments of bull trout indetermining this rule. Based on thisevaluation, we have determined to listthe bull trout as threatened in bothpopulation segments as summarizedbelow.


Bull trout and ‘‘native char’’ in theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment have declined in abundanceand distribution within manyindividual river basins. Bull trout and‘‘native char’’ currently occur as 34separate subpopulations, whichindicates the level of habitatfragmentation and geographic isolation.Seven subpopulations are isolated abovedams or other diversion structures, withat least 17 dams proposed in streamsinhabited by other bull trout or ‘‘nativechar’’ subpopulations. Bull trout and‘‘native char’’ are threatened by thecombined effects of habitat degradationand fragmentation, blockage ofmigratory corridors, poor water quality,harvest, and introduced non-nativespecies. Although severalsubpopulations lie completely orpartially within National Parks orWilderness Areas, these subpopulationsare threatened by the presence of brooktrout, or from habitat degradation that isoccurring outside of these restrictedland use areas. Based on the bestavailable information, we haveconcluded that at least 10subpopulations are currently‘‘depressed,’’ one subpopulation is‘‘strong,’’ and the status of theremaining 23 subpopulations is‘‘unknown.’’ Some subpopulations inthe north Puget Sound have relativelygreater abundance compared to otherareas of the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment. However, weremain concerned over the reporteddeclines in abundance in other northPuget Sound subpopulations, and thedocumented threats present in thesesubpopulation basins. Availableanecdotal information indicatesadditional subpopulations within thepopulation segment have declined inabundance.


The St. Mary-Belly populationsegment contains the only bull troutfound east of the Continental Divide inthe coterminous United States. Weidentified four subpopulations isolatedprimarily by irrigation dams anddiversions. Recent surveys indicate thatbull trout occur in relatively lowabundance, with three subpopulations‘‘depressed’’ and the status of one

subpopulation ‘‘unknown.’’ Migratorybull trout are known to occur in threesubpopulations, but thesesubpopulations are isolated by irrigationdams and unscreened diversions. Weconsider the dams and unscreeneddiversions a major factor affecting bulltrout in the population segment byinhibiting fish movement and possiblyentrainment into diversion channelsand habitat alterations associated withdewatering. There are no formalguidelines to minimize the effects of theoperation of the structures on bull trout.Bull trout are also threatened bynegative interactions with non-nativebrook trout that occur with the foursubpopulations.

Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as—(i) the specific areawithin the geographical area occupiedby a species, at the time it is listed inaccordance with the Act, on which arefound those biological features (I)essential to the conservation of thespecies and (II) that may require specialmanagement considerations orprotection and; (ii) specific areasoutside the geographical area occupiedby a species at the time it is listed, upona determination that such areas areessential for the conservation of thespecies. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the useof all methods and procedures neededto bring the species to the point atwhich listing under the Act is no longernecessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, asamended, and implementing regulations(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to themaximum extent prudent anddeterminable, the Secretary designatecritical habitat at the time the species isdetermined to be endangered orthreatened. Our regulations (50 CFR424.12(a)) state that critical habitat isnot determinable if informationsufficient to perform required analysisof impacts of the designation is lackingor if the biological needs of the speciesare not sufficiently well known topermit identification of an area ascritical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of theAct requires us to consider economicand other relevant impacts ofdesignating a particular area as criticalhabitat on the basis of the best scientificdata available. The Secretary mayexclude any area from critical habitat ifhe determines that the benefits of suchexclusion outweigh the conservationbenefits, unless to do so would result inthe extinction of the species.

We find that the designation ofcritical habitat is not determinable forbull trout in the coterminous UnitedStates, based on the best available

information. When a ‘‘notdeterminable’’ finding is made, wemust, within 2 years of the publicationdate of the original proposed rule,designate critical habitat, unless thedesignation is found to be not prudent.We reached a ‘‘not determinable’’critical habitat finding in the proposedrule, and we specifically requestedcomments on this issue. While wereceived a number of commentsadvocating critical habitat designation,none of these comments providedinformation that added to our ability todetermine critical habitat. Additionally,we did not obtain any new informationregarding specific physical andbiological features essential for bulltrout during the open comment period,including the five public hearings. Thebiological needs of bull trout is notsufficiently well known to permitidentification of areas as critical habitat.Insufficient information is available onthe number of individuals or spawningreaches required to support viablesubpopulations throughout each of thedistinct population segments. Inaddition, we have not identified theextent of habitat required and allspecific management measures neededfor recovery of this fish. Thisinformation is considered essential fordetermining critical habitat for thesepopulation segments. In addition,within the Coastal-Puget Sound bulltrout are sympatric with Dolly Varden.These two species are virtuallyimpossible to visually differentiate andgenetic and morphological-meristicanalyses to determine the presence orabsence of bull trout and Dolly Vardenhave only been conducted on 15 of the35 ‘‘native char’’ subpopulations. Thepresence of bull trout in the remaining20 subpopulations in the Coastal-PugetSound along with the information notedabove is considered essential fordetermining critical habitat for thesepopulation segments. Therefore, we findthat designation of critical habitat forbull trout in the coterminous UnitedStates is not determinable at this time.We will protect bull trout habitatthrough the recovery process andthrough section 7 consultations todetermine whether Federal actions arelikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of the species.

Available Conservation MeasuresConservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered orthreatened under the Act includerecognition, recovery actions,requirements for Federal protection, andprohibitions against certain activities.Recognition through listing encouragesand results in conservation actions by



Federal, State, and private agencies,groups, and individuals. The Actprovides for possible land acquisitionand cooperation with the States andrequires that recovery actions be carriedout for all listed species. The protectionrequired of Federal agencies and theprohibitions against taking and harm arediscussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,requires Federal agencies to evaluatetheir actions with respect to any speciesthat is proposed or listed as endangeredor threatened and with respect to itscritical habitat, if any is beingdesignated. Regulations implementingthis interagency cooperation provisionof the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federalagencies to ensure that activities theyauthorize, fund, or carry out are notlikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of a listed species or todestroy or adversely modify its criticalhabitat. If a Federal action may affect alisted species or its critical habitat, theresponsible Federal agency must enterinto formal consultation with us.

The Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly River population segmentsoccur on lands administered by theUSFS, NPS, and BLM; various State-and privately-owned properties inWashington (Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment) and Montana (St.Mary-Belly River population segment);Blackfeet Tribal lands in Montana, andvarious Tribal lands in Washington.Federal agency actions that may requireconsultation as described in thepreceding paragraph include COEinvolvement in projects such as theconstruction of roads and bridges, andthe permitting of wetland filling anddredging projects subject to section 404of the Clean Water Act; Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission licensedhydropower projects authorized underthe Federal Power Act; USFS and BLMtimber, recreation, mining, and grazingmanagement activities; EnvironmentalProtection Agency authorizeddischarges under the National PollutantDischarge System of the Clean WaterAct; and U.S. Housing and UrbanDevelopment projects.

On January 27, 1998, an interagencymemorandum between the USFS, BLMand us outlined a process for bull troutsection 7 conference and consultation inrecognition of the possibility of animpending listing of bull trout in theKlamath River and Columbia Riverbasins. The process considers bothprogrammatic actions (e.g., landmanagement plans) and site-specificactions (e.g., timber sales and livestockgrazing allotments) and incorporatesconference and consultation at the

watershed level. The process uses amatrix (Service 1998c) to determine theenvironmental baseline and the effectsof actions on the environmental baselineof bull trout. The USFS and BLMprovided a Biological Assessment (BA)to us on June 15, 1998, which evaluatedthe effects of implementing the landmanagement plans, as amended byPACFISH and INFISH strategy, in theKlamath River and Columbia Riverbasins. PACFISH is the InterimStrategies for Managing AnadromousFish-producing Watersheds in EasternOregon and Washington, Idaho, andPortions of California, developed by theUSFS and BLM. PACFISH is intended tobe an ecosystem-based, aquatic habitatand riparian-area management strategyfor Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout habitat on landsadministered by the two agencies thatare outside the area subject toimplementation of the NFP. INFISH isthe Inland Native Fish Strategy, whichwas developed by the USFS to providean interim strategy for inland native fishin eastern Oregon and Washington,Idaho, western Montana, and portions ofNevada. The BA concluded the plans, asamended, would not jeopardize theKlamath River and Columbia RiverDPSs of bull trout. In addition, in a June19, 1998, letter, the land managementagencies provided commitments inimplementing the PACFISH and INFISHaquatic conservation strategies to ensurethe USFS and BLM management plansand associated actions would conservefederally listed bull trout. Thecommitments addressed: restoration andimprovement; standards and guidelinesof PACFISH and INFISH; key andpriority watershed networks; watershedanalysis; monitoring; long-termconservation and recovery; and section7 consultation at the watershed level.The BA and additional commitmentswere part of the materials we evaluatedin developing a biological opinion onthe management plans. The non-jeopardy biological opinion, issuedAugust 14, 1998, endorsedimplementation of those commitmentsin the Klamath River and ColumbiaRiver basins, in addition to identifyingfurther actions to help ensureconservation of bull trout in those DPSs.The NFP applies to Federal lands in theCoastal-Puget Sound populationsegment. Although we have notfinalized a programmatic biologicalopinion, programmatic consultationswith three National Forests have beenre-initiated, including conferencing onbull trout with the USFS regional officefor the Olympic, Mount Baker-

Snoqualmie, and Gifford PinchotNational Forests.

The Act and implementingregulations found at 50 CFR 17.31 setforth a series of general prohibitions andexceptions that apply to all threatenedwildlife. These prohibitions, in part,make it illegal for any person subject tothe jurisdiction of the United States totake (which includes to harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,or collect; or attempt any of these),import or export, ship in interstatecommerce in the course of commercialactivity, or sell or offer for sale ininterstate or foreign commerce anylisted species. It is also illegal topossess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, orship any such wildlife that has beentaken illegally. Certain exceptions applyto our agents and State conservationagencies. In this case, a special ruletailored to this particular species takesthe place of the regulations in 50 CFR17.31; the special rule, though,incorporates most requirements of thegeneral regulations, although withadditional exceptions.

We may issue permits under section10(a)(1) of the Act to carry out otherwiseprohibited activities involvingendangered and threatened wildlifeunder certain circumstances.Regulations governing permits are at 50CFR 17.32 for threatened species. Suchpermits are available for scientificpurposes, to enhance the propagation orsurvival of the species, and/or forincidental take in connection withotherwise lawful activities. Permits arealso available for zoological exhibition,educational purposes, or specialpurposes consistent with the purpose ofthe Act. For copies of the regulationsconcerning listed plants and animals,and general inquiries regardingprohibitions and permits, contact theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Ecological Services, Endangered SpeciesPermits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,Portland, Oregon, 97232–4181(telephone 503/231–2063; facsimile503/231–6243).

It is our policy, as published in theFederal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR34272), to identify to the maximumextent practicable at the time a specieslist, listing those activities that would orwould not constitute a violation ofsection 9 of the Act. The intent of thispolicy is to increase public awareness ofthe effect of this listing on proposed andongoing activities within the species’range. We believe the following actionswould not be likely to result in aviolation of section 9, provided theactivities are carried out in accordancewith all existing regulations and permitrequirements:

VerDate 29-OCT-99 16:50 Oct 29, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01NOR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 01NOR2


(1) Actions that may affect bull troutand are authorized, funded or carriedout by a Federal agency when the actionis conducted in accordance with anincidental take statement issued by uspursuant to section 7 of the Act;

(2) Possession of bull trout caughtlegally in accordance with authorizedState, NPS, and Tribal fishingregulations (see ‘‘Special Rule’’ section);

(3) State, local and other activitiesapproved by us under section 4(d),section 6(c)(1), or section 10(a)(1) of theAct;

(4) The planting of native vegetationwithin riparian areas, using hand toolsor mechanical auger. This does notinclude any site preparation thatinvolves the removal of nativevegetation (such as deciduous trees andshrubs) or goes beyond that necessary toplant individual trees, shrubs, etc.;

(5) The installation of fences toexclude livestock impacts to theriparian area and stream channel. Theinstallation of new off-channel livestockwatering facilities where livestock usestreams for watering, and the operationand maintenance of existing off-channellivestock watering facilities. Thesewatering facilities must consist of lowvolume pumping, gravity feed or wellsystems, and in-water intakes must bescreened consistent with NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS)Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria For PumpIntakes. This does not include thepotential impacts associated with thegrazing activity itself or negative effectsattributable to depleting stream flowdue to water withdrawal;

(6) The placement of human accessbarriers, such as gates, fences, boulders,logs, vegetative buffers, and signs tolimit use- and disturbance-associatedimpacts. These impacts include timbertheft, disturbance to wildlife, poaching,illegal dumping of waste, erosion ofsoils, and sedimentation of aquatichabitats, particularly in sensitive areassuch as riparian habitats or geologicallyunstable zones. This does not includeroad maintenance or the potentialimpacts associated with the road itself;

(7) The current operation andmaintenance of fish screens on variouswater facilities that meet the currentNMFS Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria andJuvenile Fish Screen Criteria For PumpIntakes. This does not include the useof traps or other collection devices atscreen installations, operation of thediversion structure, or negative effectsattributable to depleting stream flowdue to water diversion;

(8) The installation, operation, andmaintenance of screens where theexisting canal or ditch is located off themain stream channel. The canal or ditch

must be dewatered prior to screen andbypass installation and prior to fishentering the canal or ditch. Installedscreens and bypass structures must meetthe current NMFS Juvenile Fish ScreenCriteria. Bypass must be accomplishedthrough free (volitional) access, withadequate velocities, constructionmaterials and stream re-entry conditionsthat will not result in harm or death tofish. This does not include the use oftraps or other collection devices atscreen installations, placement oroperation of the diversion structure, ornegative effects attributable to depletingstream flow due to water diversion;

(9) The general maintenance ofexisting structures (such as homes,apartments, commercial buildings)which may be located in closeproximity to a stream corridor, butoutside of the stream channel. This doesnot include potential impacts associatedwith sediment or chemical releases thatmay adversely affect bull trout or theirhabitat, nor does this include thoseactivities that may degrade existingriparian areas or alter streambanks (suchas removal of streamside vegetation andstreambank stabilization); and

(10) The lawful use of existing State,county, city, and private roads. Thisdoes not include road maintenance andthe potential impacts associated withthe road itself that may destroy or alterbull trout habitat (such as grading ofunimproved roads, stormwater andcontaminant runoff from roads, failingroad culverts, and road culverts thatblock fish migration), unless authorizedby us through section 7 or 10 of the Act.

The following actions likely would beconsidered a violation of section 9:

(1) Take of bull trout without a permitor other incidental take authorizationfrom us. Take includes harassing,harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting,wounding, killing, trapping, capturing,or collecting, or attempting any of theseactions, except in accordance withapplicable State, NPS, and Tribal fishand wildlife conservation laws andregulations;

(2) To possess, sell, deliver, carry,transport, or ship illegally taken bulltrout;

(3) Unauthorized interstate andforeign commerce (commerce acrossState and international boundaries) andimport/export of bull trout (as discussedin the prohibition discussion earlier inthis section);

(4) Intentional introduction of non-native fish species that compete orhybridize with, or prey on bull trout;

(5) Destruction or alteration of bulltrout habitat by dredging,channelization, diversion, in-streamvehicle operation or rock removal,

grading of unimproved roads,stormwater and contaminant runofffrom roads, failing road culverts, androad culverts that block fish migrationor other activities that result in thedestruction or significant degradation ofcover, channel stability, substratecomposition, turbidity, temperature,and migratory corridors used by thespecies for foraging, cover, migration,and spawning;

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxicchemicals, silt, or other pollutants intowaters supporting bull trout that resultin death or injury of the species; and

(7) Destruction or alteration ofriparian or lakeshore habitat andadjoining uplands of waters supportingbull trout by timber harvest, grazing,mining, hydropower development, roadconstruction or other developmentalactivities that result in destruction orsignificant degradation of cover,channel stability, substrate composition,temperature, and migratory corridorsused by the species for foraging, cover,migration, and spawning.

We will review other activities notidentified above on a case-by-case basisto determine if a violation of section 9of the Act may be likely to result fromsuch activity. We do not consider theselists to be exhaustive and provide themas information to the public.

Direct your questions regardingwhether specific activities mayconstitute a violation of section 9 to theSupervisor, Western Washington Office,510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102,Lacey, Washington 98503 (telephone360/753–9440; facsimile 360/753–9518)for the Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment; the Montana Field Office, 100N. Park, Suite 320 Helena, Montana59601 (telephone 406/449–5225;facsimile 406/449–5339) for the St.Mary-Belly River population segment.

Special RuleSection 4(d) of the Act provides that

when a species is listed as threatened,we are to issue such regulations as arenecessary and advisable to provide forthe conservation of the species. We havegenerally done so by adoptingregulations (50 CFR 17.31) applyingwith respect to threatened species thesame prohibitions that under the Actapply with respect to endangeredspecies. Those prohibitions generallymake it illegal to import, export, take,possess, ship in interstate commerce, orsell a member of the species. The ‘‘take’’that is prohibited includes harassing,harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting,wounding, killing, trapping, capturing,or collecting the wildlife, or attemptingto do any of those things. However, wemay also issue a special rule tailored to



a certain threatened species,establishing with respect to it only thoseparticular prohibitions that arenecessary and advisable for itsconservation. In that case, the generalprohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31 do notapply to that species, and the specialrule contains all the prohibitions andexceptions that do apply. Typically,such special rules incorporate all theprohibitions contained in 50 CFR 17.31,with additional exceptions for certainforms of take that we have determinedare not necessary and advisable toprohibit in order to provide for theconservation of that particular species.

The special rule in this finaldetermination for bull trout will applyto bull trout wherever found in thecoterminous lower 48 States, except inthe Jarbidge River basin in Nevada andIdaho. The principal effect of the specialrule is to allow take in accordance withState, NPS, and Native American Tribalpermitted fishing activities. Since weare finalizing the listing of bull trout asa coterminous listing, we are essentiallyadding the special rule we had proposedfor the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly River population segmentsto the existing special rule for theKlamath and Columbia River populationsegments published on June 10, 1998(63 FR 31647). The resultant special ruleis effectively identical to the proposedrule for the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly population segments anddoes not change the existing special rulefor the Klamath and Columbia Riverpopulation segments. The special rulefor the Jarbidge River populationsegment is effectively identical to thespecial rule for the other fourpopulation segments except that it isonly valid until April 9, 2001, and thus,will remain separate.

We believe that statewide anglingregulations have become morerestrictive in an attempt to protect bulltrout in Washington, Idaho, Oregon,California, and Montana, and areadequate to provide continuedconservation benefits for bull trout inthe Klamath River, Columbia River,Coastal-Puget Sound and the St. Mary-Belly River population segments. TheState of Washington closed fishing in1994 for ‘‘native char’’ in most waterswithin the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation. Legal angler harvest in theSt. Mary-Belly River DPS in Montanaoccurs only on the Blackfeet IndianReservation. Legal harvest of bull troutin the Klamath River basin waseliminated in 1992 when the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlifeimposed a fishing closure. Statemanagement agencies in Idaho, Oregon,Montana, and Washington have

suspended harvest of bull trout in theColumbia River basin, except in LakeBilly Chinook (Oregon) and Swan Lake(Montana). Since the States and manyTribal governments have demonstrateda willingness to adjust their regulationsto reduce fishing pressures whereneeded, we do not believe it isnecessary and advisable for theconservation of the species to prohibittake through regulated fishing ofsubpopulations of bull trout that areexhibiting stable or increasing numbersof individuals and where habitatconditions are not negatively depressinglocal fish stocks. Using discretion whenapplying 4(d) exemptions can fosterincentives for States and Tribes toexpedite conservation efforts byproviding rewards for restoring stocksand allowing regulated harvest prior todelisting. For example, Washington hasonly two systems in the Coastal-PugetSound population segment that are openfor bull trout fishing. These systemshave a two fish limit with a minimum508 mm (20 in.) size limit to allowfemales to spawn at least once. Also, aslong as these systems are closelymonitored, we are gaining valuableinformation about the life history,relative abundance, and distribution ofbull trout, which will be important forworking towards the recovery of thespecies. We intend to continue to workwith the States and Tribes in assessingwhether current fishing regulations areadequate to protect bull trout, and indeveloping management plans andagreements with the objective ofrecovery and eventual delisting of thespecies.

In accordance with the June 1997Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal trustresponsibilities and the Act, we willwork with Tribal governments thatmanage bull trout streams to restoreecosystems and enhance Tribalmanagement plans affecting the species.We believe that the special rule isconsistent with the Secretarial Orderdesigned to enhance Native Americanparticipation under the Act and willallow more efficient management of thespecies on Tribal lands.

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Registerwe have published a Notice of Intentwhich outlines our intent to develop,through section 4(d) of the Act, anotherspecial rule for bull trout that wouldprovide conservation benefits to thespecies, while ensuring the futurecontinuation of land managementactions. The special rule would addresstwo categories of activities affecting bulltrout: (1) Habitat restoration; and (2)regulations that govern land and watermanagement activities. Please refer to

the notice for further information and ifyou wish to provide comments to us.

Similarity of Appearance

Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes thelisting of a non-threatened orendangered species based on similarityof appearance to a threatened orendangered species if—(A) the speciesso closely resembles in appearance anendangered or threatened species thatenforcement personnel would havesubstantial difficulty in differentiatingbetween the listed and unlisted species;(B) the effect of this substantialdifficulty is an additional threat to anendangered or threatened species; and(C) such treatment will substantiallyfacilitate the enforcement and furtherthe policy of the Act.

Within the Coastal-Puget Soundpopulation segment, bull trout occursympatrically within the range of theDolly Varden. These two species soclosely resemble one another in externalappearance that it is virtuallyimpossible for the general public tovisually differentiate the two. Currently,WDFW manages bull trout and DollyVarden together as ‘‘native char.’’Fishing for bull trout and Dolly Vardenis open in four subpopulations withinthe Coastal-Puget Sound populationsegment, two under WDFW regulations,and two under Native American Tribalregulations. These ‘‘native char’’fisheries may adversely affect thesesubpopulations of bull trout. However,under current harvest management,there is no evidence that the specificharvest for Dolly Varden creates anadditional threat to bull trout withinthis population segment. Therefore, asimilarity of appearance rule is notbeing issued for Dolly Varden at thistime. However, if bull trout and DollyVarden are managed in WashingtonState as separate species in the future,we may consider, at that time, themerits of proposing Dolly Varden underthe similarity of appearance provisionsof the Act.

Section 7 Consultation

Although this rule consolidates thefive bull trout DPSs into one listedtaxon, based on conformance with theDPS policy for purposes of consultationunder section 7 of the Act, we intend toretain recognition of each DPS in lightof available scientific informationrelating to their uniqueness andsignificance. Under this approach, theseDPSs will be treated as interim recoveryunits with respect to application of thejeopardy standard until an approvedrecovery plan is developed. Formalestablishment of bull trout recovery



units will occur during the recoveryplanning process.

Paperwork Reduction Act for theListing

This rule does not contain any newcollections of information other thanthose already approved under thePaperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq., and assigned Office ofManagement and Budget clearancenumber 1018–0094. An agency may notconduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to a collection ofinformation, unless it displays acurrently valid control number. Foradditional information concerningpermit and associated requirements forthreatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

Required Determinations for theSpecial Rule

Regulatory Planning and Review,Regulatory Flexibility Act, and SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act

The special rule was not subject toOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) review under Executive Order12866.

This special rule will not have anannual economic effect of $100 millionor adversely affect an economic sector,productivity, jobs, the environment, orother units of the government.Therefore, a cost-benefit and fulleconomic analysis is not required.

Section 4(d) of the Act providesauthority for us to issue regulationsnecessary to provide for theconservation of species listed asthreatened. We find that State, NPS, andNative American Tribal anglingregulations have become morerestrictive in an attempt to protect bulltrout in the coterminous United States.We believe that existing anglingregulations developed independently bythe States, National Park Service, andNative American Tribes are adequate toprovide continued conservation benefitsfor the bull trout in the coterminousUnited States. As a result, the specialrule will allow angling to take place inthe river systems within the KlamathRiver, Columbia River, Coastal-PugetSound, and St. Mary-Belly River DPSsunder existing State regulations. TheJarbidge River DPS has a separatespecial rule that was made final onApril 8, 1999 (64 FR 17110), andcontinues to remain in effect for thatDPS. The economic effects discussionaddresses only the economic benefitsthat will accrue to the anglers who cancontinue to fish in river systems withinthe Klamath River, Columbia River,Coastal-Puget Sound and St. Mary-Belly

River population segments. Althoughthe special rule for the Klamath Riverand Columbia River DPSs was finalizedon June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647), andcontinues to remain in effect, they areincluded in this ‘‘RequiredDeterminations for the Special Rule’’section since the special rule applies toall four DPSs (see ‘‘Special Rule’’section for further discussion of thisissue).

This special rule will allow continuedangling opportunities in Washington,Idaho, Oregon, California, and Montanaunder existing State, NPS, and NativeAmerican Tribal regulations. Data onthe number of days of trout fishingunder new State regulations areavailable by State from the 1996National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,and Wildlife Associated Recreation.These data pertain to total trout fishingin each State. In order to develop anestimate of angling days preserved bythis rule, we used the proportion of theriver miles in this rule to total rivermiles of coldwater running rivers andstreams in each State to estimate theportion of total trout angling daysaffected by this rule. Because of the lackof definitive data, we decided to do aworst case analysis. We analyzed theeconomic loss in angling satisfaction,measured as consumer surplus, if alltrout fishing were prohibited in theKlamath, Columbia, St. Mary-Bellyrivers and the Coastal-Puget Sound.Since there are substitute sites in eachState where fishing is available, thismeasure of consumer surplus is aconservative estimate and would be amaximum estimate. The total estimatedangling days affected is 266,490annually. We used a consumer surplusof $19.35 (1999$) per day for troutfishing to get an estimated benefit ofslightly over $5 million annually. If theassumption that the affected riversreceive an average amount of anglingpressure does not hold true, and theangling pressure is twice the average forthe affected rivers, then the annualconsumer surplus will be in the rangeof $10 million annually. Consequently,this rule will have a small measurableeconomic benefit on the United Stateseconomy, and even in the event thatfishing pressure is twice the Stateaverage in the affected rivers, this rulewill not have an annual effect of $100million or more for a significant rule-making action.

This special rule will not createinconsistencies with other agencies’actions.

The special rule allows for continuedangling opportunities in accordancewith existing State, NPS, and NativeAmerican Tribal regulations.

This special rule will not materiallyaffect entitlements, grants, user fees,loan programs, or the rights andobligations of their recipients. Thisspecial rule does not affect entitlementprograms.

This special rule will not raise novellegal or policy issues. There is noindication that allowing for continuedangling opportunities in accordancewith existing State, NPS, and NativeAmerican Tribal regulations would raiselegal, policy, or any other issues.

The Department of the Interiorcertifies that the final rule will not havea significant economic effect on asubstantial number of small entities asdefined under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis is not required.Accordingly, a Small Entity ComplianceGuide is not required. We recognize thatsome affected entities are considered‘‘small’’ in accordance with theRegulatory Flexibility Act, however, noindividual small industry within theUnited States will be significantlyaffected by allowing for continuedangling opportunities in accordancewith existing State, NPS, and Tribalregulations.

The special rule is not a major ruleunder 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act.

This special rule does not have anannual effect on the economy of $100million or more. Trout fishing in theKlamath River, Columbia River, theCoastal-Puget Sound, and the St. Mary-Belly River generates expenditures bylocal anglers of an estimated $8.7million per year. Consequently, themaximum benefit of this rule for localsales of equipment and supplies is nomore than $8.7 million per year andmost likely smaller because all fishingwould not cease in the area even if theKlamath River, Columbia River, theCoastal-Puget Sound, and the St. Mary-Belly River were closed to trout fishing.The availability of numerous substitutesites would keep anglers spending at alevel probably close to past levels.

This special rule will not cause amajor increase in costs or prices forconsumers, individual industries,Federal, State, or local governmentagencies, or geographic regions. Thisspecial rule allows the continuation offishing in the Klamath River, ColumbiaRiver, Coastal-Puget Sound and St.Mary-Belly River population segmentsand, therefore, allows for the usual saleof equipment and supplies by localbusinesses. This special rule will notaffect the supply or demand for anglingopportunities in Washington, Idaho,Oregon, California, and Montana, and



therefore, should not affect prices forfishing equipment and supplies, or theretailers that sell equipment. Troutfishing in the affected rivers accountsfor less than 2 percent of the availabletrout fishing in the States.

This special rule does not havesignificant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investmentproductivity, innovation, or the abilityof United States based enterprises tocompete with foreign-based enterprises.Because this rule allows for thecontinuation of spending of a smallnumber of affected anglers,approximately $8.6 million for troutfishing, there will be no measurableeconomic effect on the freshwatersportfish industry which has annualsales of equipment and travelexpenditures of $24.5 billionnationwide.

Unfunded Mandates Reform ActIn accordance with the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, etseq.):

This special rule will not‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect smallgovernments. A Small GovernmentAgency Plan is not required; and

This special rule will not produce aFederal mandate of $100 million orgreater in any year; that is, it is not a‘‘significant regulatory action’’ underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings ImplicationWe have determined that this special

rule has no potential takings of privateproperty implications as defined byExecutive Order 12630. The special rule

would not restrict, limit, or affectproperty rights protected by theConstitution.

FederalismThis special rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,in their relationship between theFederal Government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among various levels ofgovernment. Therefore, in accordancewith Executive Order 12612, we havedetermined that this special rule doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications to warrant a FederalismAssessment.

Civil Justice ReformThe Department of the Interior has

determined that this special rule meetsthe applicable standards provided insections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of ExecutiveOrder 12988.

National Environmental Policy ActWe have determined that an

Environmental Assessment andEnvironmental Impact Statement, asdefined under the authority of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969, need not be prepared inconnection with regulations adoptedpursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. Wepublished a notice outlining our reasonsfor this determination in the FederalRegister on October 25, 1983 (48 FR49244).

References CitedA complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Snake River Basin Office (seeADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

The primary authors of this final ruleare Jeffrey Chan, Western WashingtonFishery Resource Office, Olympia,Washington; Wade Fredenberg, CrestonFish and Wildlife Center, Kalispell,Montana; Samuel Lohr, Snake RiverBasin Office, Boise, Idaho; and ShelleySpalding, Western Washington StateOffice, Olympia, Washington.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,Exports, Imports, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements,Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17,subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of theCode of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising theentries for ‘‘trout, bull’’ under FISHES,in the List of Endangered andThreatened Wildlife to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatenedwildlife.

* * * * *(h) * * *

SPECIESHistoric range

Vertebrate populationwhere endangered or

threatenedStatus When

listedCriticalhabitat

SpecialrulesCommon name Scientific name

* * * * * * *FISHES

* * * * * * *Trout, bull .......... Salvelinus confluentus .. U.S.A. (AK, Pacific NW

into CA, ID, NV, MT),Canada (NW Terri-tories).

U.S.A, coterminous(lower 48 states).

T 637, 659,670

NA 17.44(w)17.44(x)

* * * * * * *

3. Amend § 17.44 by revisingparagraph (w) to read as follows:

§ 17.44 Special rules—fishes.

* * * * *(w) What species are covered by this

special rule? Bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus), wherever found in thecoterminous lower 48 States, except in

the Jarbidge River Basin in Nevada andIdaho (see 50 CFR 17.44(x)).

(1) What activities do we prohibit?Except as noted in paragraph (w)(2) ofthis section, all prohibitions of 50 CFR17.31 and exemptions of 50 CFR 17.32shall apply to the bull trout in thecoterminous United States as defined inparagraph (w) of this section.

(i) No person may possess, sell,deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, orexport, by any means whatsoever, anysuch species taken in violation of thissection or in violation of applicableState, National Park Service, and NativeAmerican Tribal fish and conservationlaws and regulations.

(ii) It is unlawful for any person toattempt to commit, solicit another to



commit, or cause to be committed, anyoffense listed in this special rule.

(2) What activities do we allow? In thefollowing instances you may take thisspecies in accordance with applicableState, National Park Service, and NativeAmerican Tribal fish and wildlifeconservation laws and regulations, asconstituted in all respects relevant toprotection of bull trout in effect onNovember 1, 1999:

(i) Educational purposes, scientificpurposes, the enhancement of

propagation or survival of the species,zoological exhibition, and otherconservation purposes consistent withthe Act; or

(ii) Fishing activities authorizedunder State, National Park Service, orNative American Tribal laws andregulations;

(3) How does this rule relate to Stateprotective regulations? Any violation ofapplicable State, National Park Service,or Native American Tribal fish andwildlife conservation laws or

regulations with respect to the taking ofthis species is also a violation of theEndangered Species Act.* * * * *

Dated: October 14, 1999.

Donald Barry,Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife andParks.[FR Doc. 99–28295 Filed 10–29–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P


november 1, 1999 federal register final rule 1999.pdf · 2019-03-18 · 58910 federal register/vol....

Documents