Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AJ12

NOTICE: Part III

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River Populations of Bull Trout

DATES: We will accept comments until August 24, 2004. Public Hearing

The Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Given the high likelihood of requests, we have scheduled a public hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 10, 2004, in Washington State.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Patti Carroll at 503/ 2312080 as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing date.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the Jarbidge River, CoastalPuget Sound, and Saint MaryBelly River populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the Jarbidge River population, the proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 131 miles (mi) (211 kilometers (km)) of streams in Idaho and Nevada. For the CoastalPuget Sound population, the proposed critical habitat designation totals approximately 2,290 mi (3,685 km) of streams, 52,540 acres (ac) (21,262 hectares (ha)) of lakes, and 985 mi (1,585 km) of marine shoreline in Washington. For the Saint MaryBelly River population, the proposed critical habitat designation totals approximately 88 mi (142 km) of streams and 6,295 ac (2,548 ha) of lakes in Montana.

Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of specifying any area as critical habitat. We will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas in a manner that is consistent with the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in N.M. Cattle Growers Ass'n v. USFWS. We hereby solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal prior to final designation to incorporate or address new information received during public comment periods.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of bull trout habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; (4) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
(5) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments;
(6) We are seeking comment on the use of tidal datum to delineate the area of the photic zone (uppermost layer of water into which daylight penetrates sufficiently to influence living organisms), and we are interested in any proposed alternatives that appropriately identify proposed critical habitat for bull trout in the marine nearshore waters; and
(7) We are specifically seeking public comment on areas of habitat for which we do not have documented evidence of occupancy, but which may be essential to provide additional spawning and rearing areas or foraging, migratory, and overwintering (FMO) habitat for existing bull trout populations. Specific areas include: the headwater tributaries of the Jarbidge River system; the Bruneau River and its tributaries; tributaries of the Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, Quinault, and Chehalis River systems; independent tributaries to Hood Canal, Pacific Coast from Cape Flattery to Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor; Sumas River and tributaries of the Chilliwack River system; tributaries of the Nooksack River system, especially those to its major forks; tributaries of the Skagit River system; tributaries of Diablo Lake and the Thunder Creek system; tributaries of Ross Lake and the Lightning Creek system; tributaries of the Stillaguamish River system, especially those to its major forks; tributaries of the Skykomish River and its major forks; and tributaries of the Puyallup River system, especially those to the Carbon, West Fork White, upper White, and Greenwater Rivers.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). The proposed rule, maps, fact sheets, photographs, and other materials relating to this proposal, can be found on our Pacific Region bull trout Web site at http://species.fws.gov/bulltrout. [[Page 35769]]

Please submit email comments to r1bulltroutch@r1.fws.gov in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: bull trout'' in your email subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Regional Office at phone number 503/8722766. Please note that the Internet address r1bulltroutch@r1.fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing within 45 days of the publication of the proposal. Public hearing requests must be received by August 9, 2004. However, due to the high probability of receiving a request for a public hearing on this proposal, we have scheduled public hearings to be held on Tuesday, August 10, 2004, in Tumwater, WA. If, as the result of public requests, we decide to schedule additional public hearings on this proposal, we will announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing. See DATES and ADDRESSES for information on the public hearings currently scheduled.

Anyone wishing to make oral comments for the record at the public hearing is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration.
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we have found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. Our present system for designating critical habitat is driven by litigation rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. We believe that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

While attention to, and protection of, habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the ESA can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.''

Currently, only 445 species or 36 percent of the 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under our jurisdiction have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,211 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take permit process. We believe that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits regarding critical habitat designation, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected us to an everincreasing series of court orders and court approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves us with little ability to prioritize our activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, our own proposals to undertake conservation actions based on biological priorities are significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left us with almost no ability to provide for additional public participation beyond those minimally required by the Administrative Procedures Act, the Act, and our implementing regulations, or to take additional time for review of comments and information to ensure the rule has addressed all the pertinent issues before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This, in turn, fosters a second round of litigation in which those who will suffer adverse impacts from these decisions challenge them. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis, provides little additional protection to listed species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects, and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. These costs result in minimal benefits to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
[[Page 35770]]
Bull Trout Biology, Life History Strategies, and Distribution Biology

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are members of the char subgroup of the family Salmonidae and are native to waters of western North America. Bull trout are relatively dispersed in the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, and into Canada. Bull trout also occur in the Klamath River basin of southcentral Oregon. For additional information on the biology and habitat requirements of the bull trout, please refer to the proposed critical habitat rule for the Klamath River and Columbia River populations (68 FR 6863, February 11, 2003), and listing rules for the Klamath River and Columbia River population (63 FR 31647, June 10, 1998), Jarbidge River population (64 FR 17110, April 8, 1999), and CoastalPuget Sound and Saint MaryBelly River populations (64 FR 58910, November 1, 1999).

LifeHistory Strategies

Bull trout exhibit a number of lifehistory strategies: stream resident, migratory, and amphidromous. Streamresident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary streams where they spawn and rear. Some bull trout are migratory, spawning in tributary streams where juvenile fish usually rear from 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial) or lake (adfluvial) where they spend their adult life, returning to the tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Some bull trout populations, coastal cutthroat trout populations, and some other species are commonly referred to as anadromous, as are Pacific salmon. Technically, however, unlike Pacific salmon, bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout, and some other species that enter the marine environment are more properly termed amphidromous. Unlike strict anadromy, amphidromus individuals often return seasonally to freshwater as subadults, sometimes for several years, before returning to spawn (Wilson 1997). For bull trout, the ``amphidromous'' life history form is unique to the CoastalPuget Sound population.

In the CoastalPuget Sound population, amphidromous bull trout require access to marine habitat to complete their life history. For amphidromous bull trout populations, estuaries and marine nearshore areas provide an important component of their FMO habitat, and are integral to maintaining the complex amphidromous lifehistory strategy, which is unique to the CoastalPuget Sound distinct population segment. When juvenile bull trout emigrate downstream to marine waters, they enter a more productive marine environment that allows them to achieve rapid growth and energy storage (similar to adfluvial forms migrating to lakes and reservoirs) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) et al. 1997). Bull trout ``smolts'' typically enter marine water at 2 years of age and around 6 in (150 mm) or longer, although much smaller individuals have been reported (Curtis Kraemer, WDFW, in litt. 2003). While in marine waters, bull trout appear to primarily occupy productive estuarine and nearshore habitat and feed on a variety of prey items, especially small marine fish such as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and sandlance (Ammodytes hexapterus) (WDFW et al. 1997; Brenkman and Corbett 2003). Subadult bull trout use marine habitat to forage, generally from late spring to early fall, and as migration corridors to and from essential marine foraging areas.

These marine habitats also serve as migration corridors to and from nonnatal watersheds providing other essential freshwater foraging and overwintering habitat outside of their natal watersheds (Brenkman and Corbett 2003). Subadults typically leave marine waters in the fall to overwinter in mainstem rivers for a period of time before returning to marine areas to forage (WDFW 1998). They repeat this cycle until maturing at about age 4.

Bull trout migration and lifehistory strategies are closely related to their feeding and foraging strategies. Optimal foraging theory can be used to describe how fish choose between alternative sources of food by weighing the benefits and costs of capturing one possible choice over another. For example, food (prey) often occur in concentrated patches of abundance (patch model in Gerking 1994). As the predator feeds, the prey population is reduced sooner or later, and it becomes more profitable to seek a new patch of prey rather than continue feeding on the original one, which is why bull trout appear to wander from one marine site to another.

Bull trout appear to be largely opportunistic feeders, and bull trout habitat use can be variable depending upon foraging opportunities (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1998). According to optimal foraging theory, as positions of patches and the types of prey change with the seasons, the predator must constantly modify its behavior in order to stay alive and maximize fitness (Hart 1986). In the Puget Sound area, bull trout may seasonally prey upon salmon eggs, smolts, or hatchery salmon. At other times, they may enter marine waters to prey upon surf smelt and Pacific herring where these fish school or spawn (Kraemer 1994). Seasonally, bull trout may also enter marine areas in order to locate abundant freshwater prey species in adjacent rivers not connected to their core area (Sam Brenkman, Olympic National Park, in litt. 2003). In a Montana study in Flathead Lake (Leathe and Graham 1982), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) were an important food source for bull trout during spring months. By autumn, the bull trout had moved to near the mouth of the Flathead River, reportedly to exploit a pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) spawning run (Leathe and Graham 1982).

Upon reaching maturity, amphidromous bull trout begin reentering mainstem rivers in late spring and early summer to migrate to their spawning tributaries (WDFW 1998). Similar to the adfluvial life history, after amphidromous forms complete spawning, they usually return downstream to lower mainstem rivers and marine habitats (Kraemer 1994).

Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment Distribution

Although historical records are lacking, bull trout were likely more abundant and widely distributed in the Bruneau and Jarbidge River Basins than they are today because of barriers to fish passage and past habitat degradation (Gilbert and Evermann 1894; Durrant 1935; McNeill et al. 1997). Currently, bull trout occur primarily in the Jarbidge River Basin in both Idaho and Nevada. The Jarbidge River population includes six local populations of resident bull trout: the East Fork Jarbidge River (including the East Fork headwaters, Cougar Creek, and Fall Creek), West Fork Jarbidge River (including Sawmill Creek), Dave Creek, Jack Creek, Pine Creek, and Slide Creek, and some remnant fluvial bull trout. These populations are considered to be quite low in abundance and at risk of extirpation (J. Dunham, University of Nevada Reno, in litt. 1998).

Among the many factors that contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Jarbidge River Basin, those which appear to have been particularly significant are as follows: (1) Isolation of the population due to dams and water
[[Page 35771]]
diversions that impeded migratory bull trout movements (Gilbert and Evermann 1894; Lay 2000); (2) habitat degradation, including alterations in water temperature, water quality, and sedimentation rates, resulting from past forest and rangeland management practices, mining, and roads (McNeill et al. 1997); and (3) fisheries management, particularly fishing pressure and potential overharvest, and the introduction of competing nonnative species (Durrant 1935; Nevada Division of Wildlife 1961, 1975; Johnson 1990; Frederick and Klott 1999).
CoastalPuget Sound Distinct Population Segment Distribution

The CoastalPuget Sound population includes bull trout residing in the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula regions of western Washington. Historical reports for this population demonstrates that bull trout, especially the amphidromous form, were once more abundant and more widely distributed (Suckley and Cooper 1860; Service 1913; Norgore and Anderson 1921; King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR) 2000). Bull trout still occur in most major watersheds within the population, but the distribution and abundance within these watersheds often has been reduced by humancaused conditions (Service 2002, 2004). Bull trout are now rarely observed in the Nisqually River and Chehalis River systems, which may have supported spawning populations in the past (Service 2002, 2004). In the Puyallup River system, the amphidromous life history form currently exists in low numbers, as does the migratory form in the South Fork Skokomish River (Service 2002, 2004). In the Elwha River and parts of the Nooksack River, amphidromous bull trout are unable to access historic spawning habitat resulting from manmade barriers (Service 2002, 2004).

The CoastalPuget Sound region is affected by the same significant factors that contributed to the decline of bull trout in the Columbia River and Klamath River Basins (67 FR 71236). These include the fragmentation and isolation of local populations due to dams and diversions, degradation of spawning and rearing habitat, and introduction of nonnative fish species. In addition to these factors, amphidromous bull trout distribution and abundance in the CoastalPuget Sound region is threatened by the degradation of mainstem river FMO habitat, and the degradation and loss of marine nearshore foraging and migration habitat.
Saint MaryBelly River Distinct Population Segment Distribution

The Saint MaryBelly River population includes headwaters of the Saint Mary and Belly River systems in the U.S. These two streams flow north, from highelevation slopes along the Rocky Mountain front in northcentral Montana. This population is the only portion of the conterminous U.S. range of bull trout that is located east of the Continental Divide. Most of the Saint Mary River and Belly River watersheds are located in Alberta, Canada. The interjurisdictional nature of the Saint Mary River and Belly River watersheds is relatively unique in the bull trout's range and makes international coordination especially critical. Major land ownership includes Glacier National Park and the Blackfeet Nation in the United States, and the Province of Alberta, Waterton Lakes National Park, the Blood Tribe, and various private entities in Canada.

The Saint Mary River watershed occurs in steep, glaciated valleys in Glacier National Park. It flows northward through the glaciated troughs of two large lakes, Saint Mary Lake and Lower Saint Mary Lake, and then across the northwest corner of the Blackfeet Reservation before crossing the international border into Alberta, Canada. In addition to the two major lakes, the watershed contains many smaller highelevation lakes, three of which have existing bull trout populations. There are at least five tributary drainages in the U.S. with important bull trout spawning and rearing habitat. The Saint Mary River, in Canada, flows northeast through southwest Alberta and enters the Oldman River a few miles upstream from Lethbridge, Alberta.

The Belly River originates on the east slope of the Rocky Mountains, in the northernmost portion of Glacier National Park, between the Saint Mary River drainage to the east and the Waterton River drainage to the west. The Belly River flows north for about 12.0 mi (19.3 km), entirely within glaciated valleys and lakes in Glacier National Park, before crossing the international border into Alberta, Canada. In Canada, the Belly River flows through mostly prairie foothill habitat from the international border to the confluence of the Oldman River, some 112 mi (180 km) downstream. Only a few miles of the headwaters of the Belly River in the United States contain bull trout (Fitch 1997).

Within the Saint MaryBelly River Recovery Unit in the United States, the historical distribution of bull trout is believed to be relatively intact. However, abundance of bull trout in U.S. portions of these watersheds has been reduced, and portions of the habitat are fragmented from natural condition due to manmade structures such as dams and diversions (Service 1993). It is considered likely that the mountains and transitional zones of the Saint Mary and Belly Rivers (the U.S. headwaters and upper reaches in Canada) were historical strongholds for bull trout in these drainages (Fitch 1997). In the lower reaches of the Saint Mary and Belly Rivers in Alberta, bull trout may have been occasionally present, though they were not commonly distributed in these prairie streams (Clayton 1999). Historical connectivity for bull trout to migrate between the Saint Mary and Belly River systems may not have occurred, at least not for much of the recent postglaciated period that extends over approximately the past 10,000 years (Costello et al. 2003).

Threats to Bull Trout Populations

The range of the bull trout is likely to have contracted and expanded over time in relation to natural climate changes; the distribution of the species probably was likely patchy even in pristine environments. However, regardless of uncertainty about the exact historical range, the number and size of historical populations, and the role of natural factors in the status of the species, there is widespread agreement in scientific literature that many factors related to human activities have impacted bull trout and continue to pose significant risks of further extirpations of local populations (see Fitch 1997; Clayton 1999; Post and Johnson 2002; Costello et al. 2003). In the Saint Mary River drainage within the United States, the primary threat to bull trout habitat is water diversions in the U.S. and Canada, which can cause entrainment of fish, disruption of migratory corridors, dewatering of instream habitat, and alteration of stream temperature regimes, and may preclude connectivity with some local headwater populations, such as in Lee Creek.

A second major issue is the lingering effect of a halfcentury of fish introductions, particularly the widespread stocking and establishment of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), which may compete with and hybridize with bull trout. Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and northern pike (Esox lucius), two species with the potential to compete with bull trout, are native in the Saint Mary River drainage. As a result, bull trout were probably precluded from establishing strong
[[Page 35772]]
migratory populations in the most productive lowland lacustrine habitats in the drainage, such as in Saint Mary Lakes (Donald and Alger; Service 2002). In addition, much of the potential habitat for adfluvial populations of bull trout in headwater lakes was historically isolated and fishless, due to barriers formed by natural waterfalls. Hence, bull trout populations in the Saint Mary system seem to have developed a mixture of fluvial and adfluvial migratory life history patterns, spending much of their time in the Saint Mary River and several of its major tributaries. Localized habitat impacts occur in some of the watersheds from forestry, livestock grazing, agriculture, mining, and transportation corridors. These impacts are generally site specific and less pervasive than the impacts due to the diversions (Fitch 1997; Clayton 1999; Service 2002).

In the Belly River drainage, the reasons for decline were similar, though they occur mostly in downstream reaches in Canada. The headwater lakes in Glacier National Park currently support mostly populations of nonnative rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), brook trout, and kokanee. The habitat in U.S. portions of the Belly River drainage is mostly intact, as it occurs primarily in backcountry areas of Glacier National Park.

For populations of bull trout throughout their range, the ramifications and effects of isolation and habitat fragmentation on various aspects of the life cycle of bull trout are highlighted in much of the scientific literature on this species. Isolation of populations and habitat fragmentation resulting from barriers to migration has negatively impacted bull trout in several ways that have important implications for the conservation of the species. These include: (1) Reducing geographical distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998); (2) increasing the probability of losing individual local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. 1995; MBTSG 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Nelson et al. 2002); (3) increasing the probability of hybridization with introduced brook trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993); (4) reducing the potential for movements that are necessary to meet developmental, foraging, and seasonal habitat requirements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998); and (5) reducing reproductive capability by eliminating the larger, more fecund migratory form of bull trout from many subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998).

Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout throughout most of their range through competition, hybridization, and possibly predation (Leary et al. 1993). Brook trout appear to be better adapted to degraded habitat than bull trout, and brook trout are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (Leary et al. 1985). In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout (Leary et al. 1993; MBTSG 1998). Nonnative lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. A study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia found that lake trout reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes, and concluded that lacustrine populations of bull trout usually cannot be maintained if lake trout are introduced (Donald and Alger 1993).

Previous Federal Action

On November 29, 2002, we published the courtordered proposed critical habitat designation for the bull trout Klamath River and Columbia River populations (67 FR 71235). In that proposed rule, we included a detailed summary of previous Federal actions completed prior to publication of that proposal as it related to all bull trout populations. We now provide information on actions as they relate just to the Jarbidge River, CoastalPuget Sound, and Saint MaryBelly River populations.

On June 10, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 31693) a proposed rule to list the Jarbidge River, CoastalPuget Sound, and Saint MaryBelly River population segments of bull trout as a threatened species. On August 11, 1998, we published an emergency rule in the Federal Register (63 FR 42757) listing the Jarbidge River population as endangered. We published the final rule listing the Jarbidge River population as threatened on April 8, 1999 (64 FR 17110), and listed the CoastalPuget Sound and Saint MaryBelly River populations as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). At the time of each listing, we made the finding that critical habitat was not determinable for these populations because their habitat needs were not sufficiently well known (64 FR 58927).

On January 26, 2001, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Oregon challenging our failure to designate critical habitat for bull trout. We entered into a settlement agreement on January 14, 2002, in which we agreed to submit for publication in the Federal Register a proposed rule for critical habitat designation for the Jarbidge River, CoastalPuget Sound, and Saint MaryBelly River populations by October 1, 2003, and a final rule by October 1, 2004. A subsequent agreement resulted in extending the date for finalizing the proposed rule by June 15, 2004, and completing a final rule by June 15, 2005.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Occupied habitat may be included in critical habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) [[Page 35773]]

Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species.

Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271) and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines (2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant to bull trout. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Methods

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available to determine areas essential to the conservation of the bull trout, including proposing critical habitat, we review the overall approaches to the conservation of the species undertaken by local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribal governments; and private individuals and organizations since the species was listed in 1998. We relied heavily on information developed by the Bull Trout Recovery Unit Teams, which were comprised of Federal, State, Tribal, and private industry biologists, as well as experts from other scientific disciplines such as hydrology and forestry, resource users, and other stakeholders with an interest in bull trout and the habitats they depend on for survival. We reviewed available information concerning bull trout habitat use and preferences, habitat conditions, threats, limiting factors, population demographics, and the known locations, distribution, and abundances of bull trout.

During our evaluation of information, we took into account the relatively low probability of detection of bull trout in traditional fish sampling and survey efforts, as well as the limited extent of such efforts across the range of bull trout. Because of their varied life history strategies, nocturnal habits, and low population densities in many areas, the detectability of bull trout in a given area is highly variable (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Furthermore, much of the current information on bull trout presence is the product of informal surveys or sampling conducted for other species or other purposes. The primary limitations of informal surveys are that they provide no estimate of certainty (i.e., a measure of the probability of detection), and they may be inadequate for determining parameters such as the densities and distribution of the population. The need for a statistically sound bull trout survey protocol has been addressed only recently through the development, by the American Fisheries Society, of a peerreviewed protocol for determining presence/absence, for juvenile and resident bull trout (Peterson et al. 2002).

Areas where presence of the species is undetermined may be essential to the conservation of the species if they provide connectivity between areas of highquality habitat or access to an abundant food base, served as important migration corridors for fluvial or adfluvial fish, or were identified in the Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2002, 2004) as necessary for local population expansion or reestablishment in order to achieve recovery, so that delisting can occur. Restoration of reproducing bull trout populations to additional portions of their historical range would significantly reduce the likelihood of extinction due to natural or humancaused factors that might otherwise further reduce population size and distribution. Thus, an integral component of the Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2002, 2004) is the selective reestablishment of secure, selfsustaining populations in certain areas where the species has apparently, but not necessarily conclusively, been extirpated.

In some areas (e.g., areas of Montana where bull trout surveys have been consistently conducted for a decade or more), we feel there is a relatively reliable level of information available on bull trout distribution. However, given the limitations of our current knowledge and the specific life history traits of bull trout described above, we feel that in many areas across their range a lack of bull trout detections to date does not provide definitive evidence of their absence in a particular lake, stream, or river. Accordingly, we considered information gathered during the bull trout recovery planning process, as supplemented by even more recent information developed by State agencies, Tribes, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and other entities, in the development of our critical habitat proposal. Data concerning accessibility, proximity to known bull trout streams, habitat conditions, and status of primary constituent elements were also considered when available. To address areas where data gaps exist, we also solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable fisheries biologists in the local area.

However, because of our desire to limit any potential regulatory effects of a critical habitat designation to those areas where we believe we have the greatest set of supporting information, we have limited this critical habitat proposal to areas of known occupancy that we consider essential to the conservation of the species. We acknowledge that considerable scientific information exists as to the importance of other areas to the conservation of the species where bull troutspecific surveys have not been conducted. Accordingly, we are specifically seeking public comment on areas of habitat for which we do not have documented evidence of occupancy, but which may be important to provide additional spawning and rearing areas or FMO habitat for existing bull trout populations. These habitat areas may contain the primary constituent elements, in particular an adequate forage base, and are accessible to existing bull trout populations. Additionally, we are seeking information on areas of habitat with evidence of occupancy of which we are unaware.

Specific areas for which we are seeking additional information include: the headwater tributaries of the Jarbidge River system; the Bruneau River and its
[[Page 35774]]
tributaries; tributaries of the Skokomish, Dungeness, Hoh, Queets, Quinault, and Chehalis River systems; independent tributaries to Hood Canal, Pacific Coast from Cape Flattery to Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor; Sumas River and tributaries of the Chilliwack River system; tributaries of the Nooksack River system, especially those to its major forks; tributaries of the Skagit River system; tributaries of Diablo Lake and the Thunder Creek system; tributaries of Ross Lake and the Lightning Creek system; tributaries of the Stillaguamish River system, especially those to its major forks; tributaries of the Skykomish River and its major forks; and tributaries of the Puyallup River system, especially those to the Carbon, West Fork White, upper White, and Greenwater Rivers. If we receive evidence of occupancy of stream segments in any of these areas, we will evaluate the appropriateness of including them in the final critical habitat designation.

Important considerations in selecting areas for critical habitat designation include factors specific to each river system, such as size (e.g., stream order), gradient, channel morphology, connectivity to other aquatic habitats, and habitat complexity and diversity, as well as rangewide recovery considerations. This effort was especially assisted by the recovery strategy described in the Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2002, 2004). We took into account that preferred habitat for bull trout ranges from small headwater streams that are used largely for spawning and rearing, to downstream, mainstem portions of river networks that are used for rearing, foraging, overwintering, and migration.

Our method included consideration of information regarding habitat essential to maintaining the migratory lifehistory forms of bull trout, in light of the repeated emphasis about the importance of such habitat in the scientific literature (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Hard 1995; Healey and Prince 1995; Rieman et al. 1995; MBTSG 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Nelson et al. 2002). As explained previously, habitat for movement upstream and downstream is important for all lifehistory forms for spawning, foraging, growth, access to rearing and overwintering areas, or thermal refugia (e.g., springfed streams in late summer), avoidance of extreme environmental conditions, and other normal behavior. Successful migration requires biologically, physically, and chemically unobstructed routes for movement of individuals. Therefore, our method included considering information regarding habitat that is essential for movement into and out of larger rivers, because of the importance of such areas to the fluvial form of bull trout. We similarly identified habitat that is essential for movement between streams and lakes by adfluvial forms.

Migratory corridors also are important for movement between populations (e.g. Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. 1995; Dunham and Rieman 1999). Thus, in addition to considering areas important for migration within populations, our method also included considering information regarding migration corridors necessary to allow for genetic exchange between local populations. Corridors that provide for such movements can support eventual recolonization of unoccupied areas or otherwise play a significant role in maintaining genetic diversity and metapopulation viability. Because these factors are important in identifying areas that are essential to the conservation of bull trout, our method included consideration of the various roles that migratory corridors have for bull trout.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features are used for all listed species and include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding and reproduction; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic and geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

The specific biological and physical features, otherwise referred to as the primary constituent elements, which comprise bull trout habitat are based on specific components that provide for the essential biological components of the species as described below.

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water temperature and quality; cover; channel form and stability; spawning and rearing substrate conditions; appropriate hydrograph; migratory corridors: food base abundance; and the absence of predatory or interbreeding species or species that compete for resources.

Relatively cold water temperatures, particularly summer water temperatures, are characteristic of bull trout habitat. Water temperatures above 59 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) (15 [deg]Celsius (C)) are believed to limit their distribution (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Although adults have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C), Gamett (1999) documented steady and substantial declines in abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 59 to 69 [deg]F (15 to 20 [deg]C). Thus, water temperature may partially explain the generally patchy distribution of bull trout in a watershed. In large rivers, bull trout are often observed ``dipping'' into the lower reaches of tributary streams, and it is suspected that cooler waters in these tributary mouths may provide important thermal refugia, allowing them to forage, migrate, and overwinter in waters that would otherwise be, at least seasonally, too warm. Spawning areas often are associated with coldwater springs, groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a given watershed (Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. 1997).

Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Watson and Hillman 1997). Juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). McPhail and Baxter (1996) reported that newly emerged fry are secretive and hide in gravel along stream edges and in side channels. They also reported that juveniles are found mainly in pools but also in riffles and runs that they maintain focal sites near the bottom, and that they are strongly associated with instream cover, particularly overhead cover. Bull trout have been observed overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools containing large woody debris (Jakober 1995). Adult bull trout migrating to spawning areas have been recorded as staying 2 to 4 weeks at the mouths of spawning tributaries in deeper holes or near log or cover debris (Fraley and Shepard 1989).

The stability of stream channels and stream flows are important habitat characteristics for bull trout populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover for bull trout are sensitive to activities that directly or [[Page 35775]]
indirectly affect stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawning period, and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).

Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical characteristics to provide the necessary habitat requirements for bull trout spawning and rearing, and that the characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout the watersheds in which bull trout occur. The preferred spawning habitat of bull trout consists of lowgradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures (Swanberg 1997). However, migratory forms are known to begin spawning migrations as early as April, and to move upstream as much as 155 mi (250 km) to spawning areas (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Swanberg 1997). Fraley and Shepard (1989) reported that initiation of spawning by bull trout in the Flathead River system appeared to be related largely to water temperature, with spawning initiated when water temperatures dropped below 48 to 50 [deg]F (9 to 10 [deg]C). Goetz (1989) reported a temperature range from 39 to 50 [deg]F (4 to 10 [deg]C) (Goetz 1989). Such areas often are associated with coldwater springs or groundwater upwelling (Rieman et al. 1997; Baxter et al. 1999). Fraley and Shepard (1989) also found that groundwater influence and proximity to cover are important factors influencing spawning site selection. They reported that the combination of relatively specific requirements resulted in a restricted spawning distribution in relation to available stream habitat. Depending on the water temperature, egg incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992). Water temperatures of 34.2 to 41.7 [deg]F (1.2 to 5.4 [deg]C) have been reported for incubation, with an optimum (best embryo survivorship) temperature reported to be from 36 to 39 [deg]F (2 to 4 [deg]C) (Fraley and Shepard 1989; McPhail and Baxter 1996).

Juveniles remain in the substrate after hatching, such that the time from egg deposition to emergence of fry can exceed 200 days. During the relatively long incubation period in the gravel, bull trout eggs are especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation (Fraley and Shepard 1989). Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence (Pratt 1992). Weaver and Fraley (1991) reported an 80 percent emergence success rate when no fine material was present and less than a 5 percent emergence success rate when half of the incubation gravel was smaller than 0.25 in (0.635 cm). Juveniles are likely to be negatively affected as well. High juvenile densities have been reported in areas characterized by a diverse cobble substrate and a low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984).

The stability of stream channels and stream flows are important habitat characteristics for bull trout populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The side channels, stream margins, and pools with suitable cover for bull trout are sensitive to activities that directly or indirectly affect stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawning period, and channel instability may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Pratt and Huston 1993).

The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of local bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Gilpin 1997; Rieman and Clayton 1997; Rieman et al. 1997). Bull trout rely on migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing habitats to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Migratory bull trout become much larger than resident fish in the more productive waters of larger streams and lakes, leading to increased reproductive potential (McPhail and Baxter 1996). The use of migratory corridors by bull trout also results in increased dispersion, facilitating gene flow among local populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or return to nonnatal streams. Also, local populations that have been extirpated by catastrophic events may become reestablished as a result of movements by bull trout through migratory corridors (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) 1998).

While stream habitats have received more attention, lakes and reservoirs also figure prominently in meeting the life cycle requirements of bull trout. For adfluvial bull trout populations, lakes and reservoirs provide an important component of the core foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat, and are integral to maintaining the adfluvial life history strategy that is commonly exhibited by bull trout. When juvenile bull trout emigrate downstream to a lake or reservoir from the spawning and rearing streams in the headwaters, they enter a more productive lentic environment that allows them to achieve rapid growth and energy storage. Typically, juvenile bull trout are at least 2 years old and 4 in (100 mm) or longer upon entry to the lake environment. For the next 2 to 4 years they grow rapidly. At a typical age of 5 years or older, when total length normally exceeds 16 in (400 mm), they reach sexual maturity. The lake environment provides the necessary attributes of food, space, and shelter for the subadult fish to prepare for the rigors of migratory passage upstream to the natal spawning area, a migration that may last as long as 6 months and cover distances as much as 155 mi (250 km) upriver.

When adfluvial bull trout reach adulthood and complete the spawning migration, mating in the fall in the stream where they originated, they usually return downstream to the lake very rapidly. Adult adfluvial bull trout may live as long as 20 years and can complete multiple migrations between the lake and the spawning stream. In many populations, alternate year spawning is the normal pattern, and adult fish may require as much as 20 months in the lake or reservoir habitat to facilitate adequate energy storage and gamete development before they return to spawn again.

One of the key factors influencing the distribution and abundance of bull trout is the extent to which habitat patches in sufficient number and proximity provide for the natural reestablishment of local subpopulations. Ratliff and Howell (1992) noted that habitat fragmentation and the resulting isolation of populations can exacerbate problems facing declining populations, including reduced genetic variability that can lead to inbreeding depression, further lowering productivity and increasing the risk of extinction. They described the loss of fluvial and adfluvial life histories as a major concern for bull trout conservation, noting that these larger fish have greater reproductive potential because of their increased fecundity and also are less likely to hybridize with the smaller brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) that often cooccur in spawning areas.

Although the loss of a few populations may have little effect on overall genetic diversity, without conserving suites of populations and their habitats (i.e., core areas and, on a larger scale, recovery units), the loss of phenotypic diversity may be substantial, with negative consequences to the viability of the species (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Hard 1995; Healey and
[[Page 35776]]
Prince 1995; MBTSG 1998; Taylor et al. 1999; Nelson et al. 2002). Therefore, the maintenance of phenotypic variability and plasticity for adaptive traits (e.g., variability in body size and form, foraging efficiency, and timing of migrations, spawning, and maturation) is achieved by conserving populations, their habitats, and opportunities for the species to take advantage of habitat diversity (Hard 1995; Healey and Prince 1995).

The ramifications and effects of isolation and habitat fragmentation on various aspects of the life cycle bull trout are highlighted in much of the scientific literature on this species. Isolation of populations and habitat fragmentation resulting from barriers to migration have negatively impacted affected bull trout in several ways that have important implications for the conservation of the species. These include: (1) Reducing geographical distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998); (2) increasing the probability of losing individual local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Rieman et al. 1995; MBTSG 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Nelson et al. 2002); (3) increasing the probability of hybridization with introduced brook trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993); (4) reducing the potential for movements that are necessary to meet developmental, foraging, and seasonal habitat requirements (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998); and (5) reducing reproductive capability by eliminating the larger, more fecund migratory form of bull trout from many subpopulations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; MBTSG 1998).

Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through competition, hybridization, and possibly predation (Leary et al. 1993). Brook trout appear to be better adapted to degraded habitat than bull trout, and brook trout are more tolerant of high water temperatures. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout has been reported in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. In addition, brook trout mature at an earlier age and have a higher reproductive rate than bull trout. This difference appears to favor brook trout over bull trout when they occur together, often leading to the decline or extirpation of bull trout (Leary et al. 1993; MBTSG 1998). Nonnative lake trout also negatively affect bull trout. A study of 34 lakes in Montana, Alberta, and British Columbia found that lake trout reduce the distribution and abundance of migratory bull trout in mountain lakes and concluded that lacustrine populations of bull trout usually cannot be maintained if lake trout are introduced (Donald and Alger 1993).

The effects of pollutant discharges on water quality and bull trout range from benign to extreme, depending upon the type and concentration of material delivered (MBTSG 1998). NMFS has studied the effects of contaminated sediments on salmon populations and noted reduced growth and disease resistance of juvenile chinook salmon when exposed to environmentally relevant levels of compounds like PCBs and PAHs (Varanasi et al. 1993a, Arkoosh et al. 1991, 1998). Similar effects are likely to occur in bull trout.

Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known physical and biological features, i.e., primary constituent elements, essential to the conservation of bull trout, together with a description of any critical habitat that is proposed. In identifying the primary constituent elements, we used the best available scientific and commercial data available. The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout are: (1) Water temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 [deg]F (2 to 15 [deg]C), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence; (2) Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures;
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and youngoftheyear and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions;
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and daytoday fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation; (5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity;
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows;
(7) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; (8) Few or no nonnative predatory, interbreeding, or competitive species present; and
(9) Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited.

The bull trout critical habitat for the Jarbidge River, Coastal Puget Sound, and Saint MaryBelly River populations are designed to incorporate what is essential for their conservation. All lands identified as essential and proposed as critical habitat contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for bull trout.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

As we undertake the process of designating critical habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands defined by those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species for inclusion in the designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we then evaluate lands defined by those features to assess whether they may require special management considerations or protection. As discussed throughout this proposed rule, in the previous proposal of critical habitat for the Klamath and Columbia River segments of bull trout (67 FR 71236, November 29, 2002), in the draft Recovery Plan for the Klamath, Columbia, and St. MaryBelly River segments of bull trout, and in the various proposed and final listing rules for bull trout (62 FR 32268, June 13, 1997; 64 FR 17110, April 8, 1999; 63 FR 31647, June 10, 1998; 63 FR 31693, June 10, 1998; and 64 FR 58910, November 1, 1999), bull trout and its habitat are threatened by a multitude of factors. Threats to those features that define essential habitat (primary constituent elements) are caused by negative changes in water quality, stream complexity, quality and quantity of stream substrate, stream hydrology, migratory corridors, food sources, and nonnative competitors and predators. It is essential for the survival of this species to protect those features that define the remaining essential habitat, through purchase or special management plans, from irreversible threats and habitat conversion. These impacts can be ameliorated by educating landowners and managers
[[Page 35777]]
about the location and value of these resources and requesting that they protect these resources.

Threats to the features that define habitat essential to the conservation of the bull trout should be assessed for each site. Sites should be protected from activities that negatively alter or destroy bull trout aquatic habitat. An appropriate management and monitoring plan should address these threats. As such, we believe that within each area proposed for designation as critical habitat the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of the bull trout may require some level of management and/or protection to address the current and future threats to the bull trout and habitat essential to its conservation to ensure the overall recovery of the species.

Relatively cold water temperatures are characteristic of bull trout habitat. Water temperatures above 15 [deg]Celsius (C) (59
[deg]Fahrenheit (F)) are believed to limit their distribution (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Although adults have been observed in large rivers throughout the Columbia River basin in water temperatures up to 20 [deg]C (68 EF), Gamett (1999) documented steady and substantial declines in abundance in stream reaches where water temperature ranged from 15 to 20 [deg]C (59 to 68 [deg]F). Thus, water temperature may partially explain the g

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT John Young, Bull Trout Coordinator, at the above address, (telephone 503/2316194; facsimile 503/2316243).