[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2270-2431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-176]
[[Page 2269]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2270]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085]
[[MO 92210-0-0009]
[RIN 1018-AW88]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous
United States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule, announcement of public hearing, and announcement
of availability of draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise the designation of critical habitat for the bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. In total, approximately 36,498 kilometers (km) (22,679 miles
(mi)) of streams (which includes 1,585.7 km (985.30 mi) of marine
shoreline area in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound), and 215,870
hectares (ha) (533,426 acres (ac)) of reservoirs or lakes are being
proposed for the revised critical habitat designation. The revised
proposed critical habitat is located in Adams, Benewah, Blaine, Boise,
Bonner, Boundary, Butte, Camas, Canyon, Clearwater, Custer, Elmore,
Gem, Idaho, Kootenai, Lemhi, Lewis, Nez Perce, Owyhee, Shoshone,
Valley, and Washington counties in Idaho; Deer Lodge, Flathead,
Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula,
Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders counties in Montana; Baker, Clatsop,
Columbia, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson,
Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah, Sherman,
Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler counties in Oregon;
Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas,
Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King,
Kittitas, Klickitat, Mason, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Pierce, Skagit,
Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom,
Whitman, and Yakima counties in Washington; and Elko county, Nevada.
DATES: Written Comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked
on or before March 15, 2010. Because of the anticipated interest in
this proposed designation, we are planning on holding a public hearing
and several public meetings.
Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing in Boise, Idaho on
February 25, 2010, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.; and public meetings in:
Bend, Oregon on February 2, 2010, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.;
Chiloquin, Oregon on February 3, 2010, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.;
LaGrande, Oregon on February 4, 2010, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30
p.m.;
Post Falls, Idaho on February 11, 2010, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.;
Missoula, Montana on February 16, 2010, 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.;
Elko, Nevada on February 17, 2010, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.;
Wenatchee, Washington on February 23, 2010, 6 p.m. to 8
p.m.; and
Boise, Idaho on February 25, 2010, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085 and then follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2009-0085; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
Public Hearing: We will hold the public hearing at Boise
Centre on the Grove, 850 W. Front Street, Boise, Idaho.
Public Meetings: We will hold the public meetings at:
o Hollingshead Barn, 1235 NE Jones Road, Bend Oregon;
o Chiloquin Community Center, 140 S. 1st Street, Chiloquin, Oregon;
o Blue Mountain Conference Center, 404 12th Street, la Grande,
Oregon;
o Red Lion Templins Inn, 414 East 1st Avenue, Post Falls, Idaho;
o Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Headquarters, 3201 Spurgin
Road, Missoula, Montana;
o Elko Convention Center, Gold Room, 700 Moren Way, Elko, Nevada;
o Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forest Headquarters, 215 Melody Lane,
Wenatchee, Washington; and
o Boise Centre on the Grove, 850 W. Front Street, Boise, Idaho.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Foss, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South
Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83702; telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-
378-5262. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned government
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested
parties concerning this proposed rule. Verbal testimony or written
comments may also be presented during the public hearing (see the
Public Hearing section below for more information). We will consider
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree to
which threats can be expected to increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation;
(2) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of bull trout habitat,
What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain
features essential to the conservation of the species should be
included in the designation and why,
Special management considerations or protections that the
features essential to the conservation of the bull trout that have been
identified in this proposal may require, including managing for the
potential effects of climate change, and
What areas not occupied at the time of listing are
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit
these impacts;
(5) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from
critical habitat
[[Page 2271]]
outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering the potential impacts and
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation. Under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including that particular area as critical habitat, unless failure to
designate that specific area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. We request specific information on:
The benefits of including specific areas in the final
designation and supporting rationale,
The benefits of excluding specific areas from the final
designation and supporting rationale, and
Whether any specific exclusions may result in the
extinction of the species and why (see Exclusions section below).
(6) Whether our exemptions under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of
the lands on Department of Defense (DOD) land at the Bayview Acoustic
Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface Warfare Center, Bayview Idaho;
Naval Radio Station Jim Creek in western Washington; Naval Station
Everett in western Washington; Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in
western Washington, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation in western
Washington, are or are not appropriate, and why;
(7) Specific information on the following areas considered to be
essential to the conservation of the species:
Mainstem and tributary habitats within the White Salmon
River Critical Habitat Subunit (CHSU) that are believed to be
unoccupied, but which are considered essential for providing foraging,
migration, and overwintering (FMO) habitat or spawning and rearing
areas to reestablish a population within this system;
Unoccupied tributaries within the Lake Pend Oreille, Pend
Oreille River, and lower Priest River CHSU that are considered
essential for providing spawning and rearing areas to reestablish a
population within the Pend Oreille River; and
Areas of mainstem habitat in the Yakima River (Yakima
River Critical Habitat Unit (CHU)) and Touchet River (Walla Walla River
Basin CHU) for which we have limited or no documented evidence of
occupancy, but which are currently believed to be essential for
providing connectivity to the mainstem Columbia River and Walla Walla
River, respectively, for the fluvial life-history form;
(8) Specific information on areas of habitat that were historically
occupied, or areas for which we have limited evidence of occupancy,
which we do not consider to be essential to the conservation of the
species in this proposed rule. These areas include Okanogan River; Lake
Chelan and Stehekin River; west side tributaries to Hood Canal (e.g.,
Dosewallips River, Duckabush River, Quilcene River); and Willapa River;
(9) Specific information on areas believed to be unoccupied in the
Klamath River basin, but essential for FMO habitat;
(10) Specific information as to whether the six recovery units
identified in the ``Critical Habitat Background'' section accurately
reflect the conservation needs of bull trout;
(11) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on bull trout, and any special management needs or
protections that may be needed in the critical habitat areas we are
proposing.
(12) Information on the extent to which the description of
potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate, and
specifically:
Whether regulatory protections and conservation activities
already being implemented for salmon, steelhead, bull trout , other
species, or other concerns (e.g., water quality) in areas proposed as
critical habitat are appropriate to include as baseline costs (e.g.,
costs that would occur regardless of critical habitat designation for
bull trout) for purposes of our economic analysis, and if not, why not;
Whether there are incremental costs of critical habitat
designation (e.g., costs attributable solely to critical habiatat
designation) that have not been appropriately identified or considered
in our economic analysis, including costs associated with future
administrative costs or project modifications that may be required by
Federal agencies related to section 7 consultation under the Act;
Whether there are incremental economic benefits of
critical habitat designation that have not been appropriately
identified or considered in our economic analysis.
(13) Information on whether existing special management
considerations or protections being implemented in areas designated as
critical habitat for salmon by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries) are adequate for conserving essential bull trout
habitat where proposed bull trout critical habitat overlaps, and if
not, why not.
(14) We have organized the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of
bull trout critical habitat based on the life-history needs of the
species. We are considering reorganizing the PCEs in order to improve
clarity, into broad habitat attributes (water bodies and migratory
corridors), and identify specific needs of bull trout within these
broad categories. This approach would likely require repetition of
specific features, but may be more understandable by making clear the
relationships between the needs of the species and the specific
locations where those needs are provided. We request comments on
whether this reorganization would improve clarity of the PCEs.
(15) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments; and
(16) Specific information on ways to improve the clarity of this
rule as it pertains to completion of consultations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, in addition to the required items
specified in the previous paragraphs, such as your street address,
phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
We are holding a public hearing on the date listed in the DATES
section at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. We are holding
this public hearing to provide interested parties an opportunity to
present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) or written comments
regarding the proposed critical habitat designation and the associated
Draft Economic Analysis. An informational session will precede the
hearing from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. During
[[Page 2272]]
this session, Service biologists will be available to provide
information and address questions on the proposed rule in advance of
the formal hearing.
People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and
participate in the public hearings should contact Jeff Foss, Idaho Fish
and Wildlife Office, at 208-378-5243 as soon as possible (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). In order to allow sufficient time
to process requests, please call no later than one week before the
hearing date.
We are also holding public meetings on the dates listed in the
DATES section at the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section. During
the public meetings, Service biologists will be available to provide
information and address questions on the proposed rule. However, we
will not accept verbal testimony at these public meetings.
Information regarding this notice is available in alternative
formats upon request.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For further
information on the bull trout biology and habitat, population abundance
and trend, distribution, demographic features, habitat use and
conditions, threats, and conservation measures, please see the Bull
Trout 5-year Review Summary and Evaluation, completed April 25, 2008.
This document is available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office web
site at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1907.pdf.
Description, Distribution, Habitat and Recovery
Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other
salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 4). Habitat components that
particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water
temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing
substrate conditions, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989,
p. 138; Goetz 1989, p. 19; Watson and Hillman 1997, p. 247). This
proposed rule identifies those physical and biological features
essential to bull trout conservation.
Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the family
Salmonidae and are native to waters of western North America. Bull
trout range throughout the Columbia River and Snake River basins,
extending east to headwater streams in Montana and Idaho, into Canada,
and in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. The
distribution of populations, however, is scattered and patchy (Goetz
1989, p. 4; Ziller 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 3; Light et
al. 1996, p. 44; Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1176).
Bull trout exhibit a number of life-history strategies. Stream-
resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary
streams where they spawn and rear. Most bull trout are migratory,
spawning in tributary streams where juvenile fish usually rear from one
to four 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, p. 133). Resident
and migratory forms may be found together, and either form can produce
resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2).
Bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki),
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and some other species are commonly
referred to as anadromous (fish that can migrate from saltwater to
freshwater to reproduce). However, bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout,
and some other species that enter the marine environment are more
properly termed amphidromous. Unlike strictly anadromous species, such
as Pacific salmon, amphidromous species often return seasonally to
fresh water as subadults, sometimes for several years, before returning
to spawn (Wilson 1997, p. 5). The amphidromous life-history form of
bull trout is unique to the Coastal-Puget Sound population (64 FR
58921; November 1, 1999). For additional information on the biology of
this life form, see our June 25, 2004, proposed critical habitat
designation for the Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint
Mary-Belly River populations of bull trout (69 FR 35767).
The decline of bull trout is primarily due to habitat degradation
and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality,
past fisheries management practices, impoundments, dams, water
diversions, and the introduction of nonnative species (63 FR 31647;
June 10, 1998; 64 FR 17112; April 8, 1999). Finalization of the 2002
draft recovery plan was held in abeyance pending completion of the 5-
year review process, and was also affected by resource demands
associated with the litigation discussed below. The bull trout 5-year
review (Service 2008, p. 45) recommended that the recovery units
identified in the 2002 draft recovery plan be updated throughout their
range based on assemblages of bull trout core areas (metapopulations or
interacting breeding populations) that retain genetic and ecological
integrity and are significant to the distribution of bull trout
throughout the conterminous United States. After consulting with
biologists from states, Federal agencies, and Native American tribes,
and applying the best scientific information available, we identified
six recovery units for bull trout in the conterminous United States.
Please refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section below for additional
information on this topic.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 29, 2002, we proposed to designate critical habitat for
the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations (67 FR
71235). On October 6, 2004, we finalized the critical habitat
designation for the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout
populations (69 FR 59995). On June 25, 2004, we proposed to designate
critical habitat for the Jarbidge, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-
Belly River bull trout populations (69 FR 35767). On September 26,
2005, we designated critical habitat for the Klamath River, Columbia
River, Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River
populations of bull trout (70 FR 56212). Please refer to the above-
mentioned rules for a detailed summary of previous Federal actions
completed prior to publication of this proposed rule.
On January 5, 2006, a complaint was filed in Federal district court
by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc. and Friends of the Wild
Swan, alleging the Service failed to designate adequate critical
habitat, failed to rely on the best scientific and commercial data
available, failed to consider the relevant factors that led to listing,
and failed to properly assess the economic benefits and costs of
critical habitat designation. Other allegations included an inadequate
analysis and the unlawful use of exclusions. On March 23, 2009, the
Service provided notice to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon that we would seek remand of the final critical habitat rule for
bull trout based on the findings of an Investigative Report by the
Department of the Interior Inspector General (USDI 2008, pp. 10-38). On
July 1, 2009, the court granted our request for a voluntary remand of
the 2005 final rule and directed the Service to submit a new proposed
rule to the Federal Register by December 31, 2009, and to submit a
final decision on that proposed rule to the Federal Register by
September 30, 2010 (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Allen, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 63122 (D. Or., July 1, 2009)). The court directed that the
existing critical habitat rule shall remain in effect until completion
of the remanded decision.
[[Page 2273]]
Summary of Changes from Previously Designated Critical Habitat
Approximately 36,498 km (22,679 mi) of streams (which includes
1,585.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine shoreline area, and 215,870 ha (533,426
ac) of reservoirs or lakes) are being proposed as revised critical
habitat in this rule. Areas that were proposed as critical habitat in
the November 29, 2002, proposed designation for the Klamath River and
Columbia River bull trout populations (67 FR 71235) and the June 25,
2004, proposed designation for the Jarbidge, Coastal-Puget Sound, and
Saint Mary-Belly River bull trout populations (69 FR 35767) are
identified in Table 1 below. Based on better occupancy data and refined
information on the importance of certain habitats, we are proposing to
designate 3 percent more critical habitat in streams (measured on a
linear basis) and 10 percent less critical habitat in lakes and
reservoirs (measured by area) than were proposed in the combined 2002
and 2004 proposed rules.
Table 1.--Extent of Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat In The Combined 2002 and 2004 Proposed Rules (67 FR 71235; 69 FR 35767)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream length Lakes, Reservoirs and Marshes Marine shoreline
Bull Trout Population ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ States
km mi ha ac km mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath DPS................................ 476 296 13,735 33,939 ........... ........... OR
Columbia River DPS (CDPS).................. 14,416 8,958 83,219 205,639 ........... ........... ID
CDPS....................................... 5,341 3,319 88,051 217,577 ........... ........... MT
CDPS....................................... 5,460 3,391 18,077 44,670 ........... ........... OR
CDPS....................................... 4,034 2,507 12,503 30,897 ........... ........... WA
Jarbidge................................... 211 131 .............. .............. ........... ........... ID/NV
Coastal-Puget Sound........................ 3,685 2,290 21,262 52,540 1,585 985 WA
St. Mary-Belly............................. 142 88 2,548 6,295 ........... ........... MT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 33,765 20,980 239,395 591,577 1,585 985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule differs from the September 26, 2005, final
critical habitat designation for bull trout (70 FR 56212) in the
following ways:
In the 2005 final rule, we designated approximately 6,161 km (3,828
mi) of streams and 57,9578 ha (143,218 ac) of lakes in Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington; and 1,585 km (985 mi) of shoreline paralleling
marine habitat in Washington as critical habitat (70 FR 56212). No
critical habitat was designated in the Jarbidge River basin (70 FR
56249-56251). In this rule, we are proposing to designate 36,498 km
(22,679 mi) of streams (which includes 1,585.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine
shoreline area in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound), and 215,870
ha (533,426 ac) of lakes and reservoirs as critical habitat, which
includes 266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams in the Jarbidge River basin.
In the 2005 final rule, we did not designate any unoccupied
critical habitat because the Secretary concluded that it was not
possible to make a determination that such lands were essential to the
conservation of the species (70 FR 56232). In this rule, we are
proposing to designate 1,495 km (929 mi) of streams (four percent of
the total) that are outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed that have been determined to be
essential for the conservation of the species.
In the 2005 rule, a variety of areas were exempted from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act or excluded from
designation as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (70 FR
56232). These areas included several DOD facilities; certain Tribal
lands; Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge lands; lands subject to
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs); lands subject to Federal or State
management plans (including PACFISH, INFISH, Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project, Northwest Forest Plan, Southwest Idaho
Land and Resource Management Plan, Southeast Oregon Resource Management
Plan, Federal Columbia River Power System, Snake River Basin
Adjudication); waters impounded behind dams; and all lands that were
proposed as critical habitat in the Jarbidge River in Nevada.
Federal agencies have an independent responsibility under section
7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance of the Act and
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation
of endangered and threatened species. We consider the development and
implementation of land management plans by Federal agencies to be
consistent with this statutory obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the
Act. For this reason, Federal land management plans, in and of
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for excluding
essential habitat, thus this rule does not propose to exclude any
Federal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. However, in some areas,
Federal land management agencies actively manage for bull trout and its
habitat and conduct specific conservation actions for the species.
Therefore, in this proposed rule, we are asking for specific
information regarding whether the effects of these actions are such
that the benefits of excluding these particular areas from critical
habitat outweigh the benefits of including these area as critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' below).
In addition, we are exempting several DOD facilities under section
4(a)(3) of the Act based on existing Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans that provide a benefit to bull trout, and we are
considering excluding certain non-Federal lands under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act based on other conservation management considerations (see
``Exemptions under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act'' and ``Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below). We are also proposing to designate
266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams in the Jarbidge River basin.
Two economic analyses related to previous bull trout critical
habitat proposed rules were prepared in 2004 and 2005, which followed a
co-extensive analytical approach, consistent with recent court rulings.
Those analyses considered conservation and protection activities for
bull trout, without distinguishing between impacts associated with
listing the species and those associated with the designation of
critical habitat. The economic analysis prepared for this proposed rule
does not follow the coextensive analytical approach, and differentiates
between
[[Page 2274]]
baseline and incremental economic impacts. Under this approach, because
of the conservation measures already in place for salmon, steelhead,
the Klamath suckers, and other protected fish species, our analysis
indicates that the incremental economic impact in areas occupied by
bull trout will be small, and the most significant incremental effect
will be in those areas not currently occupied (less than four percent
of the areas being proposed as critical habitat). The majority of
forecast incremental costs are associated with unoccupied critical
habitat in the Upper Willamette River Basin and are associated with
conservation efforts undertaken at flood control facilities. The
discussion under ``Draft Economic Analysis'' below provides additional
information in this regard.
The PCEs in this rule are similar to those described in the 2005
final designation (70 FR 56236); however, we are proposing an
additional PCE related to the presence of nonnative fish that may prey
on, compete with, or inbreed with, bull trout. In addition, we are
considering reorganizing the PCEs, as noted above, into broad habitat
attributes (water bodies and migratory corridors), and identify
specific needs of bull trout within these broad categories. This
reorganization would keep all of the PCEs presented in this proposal
intact, but organizing them in such a way as to show the most important
broad categories first, and then breaking them down into specific
descriptions.
A small proportion of critical habitat designated in the 2005 final
rule is not being proposed as critical habitat in this revision. These
areas include streams and lakes determined either not to include bull
trout or any of their PCEs, or not to be essential to their
conservation. For example, Sycan Marsh in the Klamath River basin no
longer holds enough water to support bull trout, so we propose the
stream channels through the marsh as critical habitat, allowing
connectivity among populations, instead of the entire marsh. The
remainder of the areas designated in the 2005 final rule would remain
designated as critical habitat if this proposed revision is finalized.
A similarly small proportion of habitat proposed in this rule was not
designated in the 2005 final rule. These areas include streams and
lakes since determined to be occupied by bull trout, to provide one or
more PCEs, or as essential to their conservation. For example, the
mainstem Columbia River and the lower portions of connecting
tributaries such as the John Day River have been found to be more
important for FMO habitat for bull trout than was previously
understood. All areas known to contain the most important bull trout
habitat and PCEs, or that may be unoccupied but essential to their
conservation, are proposed in this rule.
Copies of the previous proposed and final bull trout critical
habitat rules and a map showing the relationship of the 2005 final rule
and this proposed rule are available on the Idaho Fish and Wildlife
Office web site at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered
or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action
that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal action
agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the physical and
biological features (PBFs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species), based on the
best scientific data available. Under the regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed only
when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation
of the species and that designation limited to those areas occupied at
the time of listing would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of
the species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An
area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the
time of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria,
[[Page 2275]]
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species, based on scientific data not now available to
the Service. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may
not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions Federal agencies implement under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support populations are also
subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available
scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally
funded or permitted 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 (HCPs), or other species conservation
planning efforts if new information available at the time of these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Planning
In developing this proposed rule, we considered the conservation
relationship between the proposed critical habitat designation and
recovery planning. Although recovery plans formulate the recovery
strategy for a species, they are not regulatory documents, and there
are no specific protections, prohibitions, or requirements afforded a
species based solely on a recovery plan. Furthermore, although critical
habitat designation can contribute to the overall recovery strategy for
a species, it does not, by itself, achieve recovery plan goals. The Act
states in section 3(5)(C), ``except in those circumstances determined
by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire
geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered
species.'' In most cases, it is not the intent of the Act to designate
critical habitat for every population and every documented historical
location of a species. Instead, the focus of critical habitat
designation is on habitat that contains the physical and biological
features essential to conservation of the species.
The 5-year review (Service 2008, p. 45) recommended, in part, that
we update recovery units from the 2002 draft recovery plan for bull
trout throughout their range (Service 2002), based on assemblages of
bull trout core areas (metapopulations or interacting breeding
populations) that retain genetic and ecological integrity and are
significant to the distribution of bull trout throughout the
conterminous United States. To complete the recovery unit update, we
consulted with biologists from States, Federal agencies, and Native
American tribes, using the best scientific information available.
Factors that were considered in determining the geographic arrangement
of the updated recovery units included ensuring (1) resiliency by
protecting large areas of high-quality habitat; (2) redundancy by
protecting multiple populations; and (3) representation by protecting
diverse genetic and life-history aspects of bull trout populations
distributed throughout the range of the listed entity (Tear et al.
2005, p. 841).
Bull trout are listed under the Act as ``Threatened'' throughout
the coterminous United States primarily due to habitat threats. In 2008
the Service completed a 5-year review of bull trout status and
concluded in part that it should reevaluate the number of bull trout
Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), and consider reclassifying bull
trout into separate DPSs. The Service subsequently recommended not
immediately pursuing reclassification due to time and cost constraints,
but applied relevant factors in its 1996 DPS policy. As a result, six
draft recovery units (RUs) were identified. Subsequent to identifying
these six RUs, we evaluated each RU and determined that they were
needed to ensure a resilient, redundant, and representative
distribution of bull trout populations throughout the range of the
listed entity. To accomplish these goals, we need to protect large
areas of high-quality habitat, protect multiple populations, and
protect diverse genetic and life-history aspects.
The six draft recovery units identified for bull trout in the
conterminous United States include: Mid-Columbia recovery unit; Saint
Mary recovery unit; Columbia Headwaters recovery unit; Coastal recovery
unit; Klamath recovery unit; and Upper Snake recovery unit (Figure 1).
Conserving each RU is essential to conserving the listed entity as a
whole. These six new biologically based recovery units will be proposed
to replace the 27 recovery units previously identified in the bull
trout draft recovery plan (Service 2002, Chapter 1, p. 3).
Figure 1. Map of bull trout draft recovery units
[[Page 2276]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 2277]]
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, may continue to be subject to conservation actions
we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also subject to
the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or
permitted 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, HCPs, 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)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the
features that are essential to the conservation of bull trout. Data
sources include research published in peer-reviewed journals and
previous Service documents on the species, including the final listing
determination (FR 64 58909-58933; November 1, 1999), the bull trout
draft recovery plan (Service 2002), and the bull trout 5-year review
(Service 2008). Additionally, we utilized regional Geographic
Information System (GIS) shape files for area calculations and mapping.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied at the time of
listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. These features are the PCEs laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
As discussed in greater detail below, we derived nine specific PCEs
required for bull trout from the biological needs of the species as
described or referred to in the Background section of this proposed
rule and the following information. The nine PCEs relate to (1) water
quality; (2) migration corridors; (3) food availability; (4) instream
habitat; (5) water temperature; (6) substrate characteristics; (7)
stream flow; (8) water quantity; and (9) nonnative species.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Streams and groundwater sources with high water quality and cold
temperatures, complex habitat, and migratory corridors provide space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior for bull
trout.
Bull trout exhibit a number of life-history strategies. Stream-
resident 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 one
to four years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial form)
or lake (adfluvial form) where they spend their adult life, returning
to the tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133).
These migratory forms occur in areas where conditions allow for
movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream
waters that contain greater foraging opportunities (Dunham and Rieman
1999, p. 646). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and
either form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993, p. 2). Where ocean environments are accessible to bull
trout they may also migrate to and from salt water (amphidromy).
The ability to migrate is important to the persistence of bull
trout local populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2; Gilpin 1997,
p. 4; Rieman and Clayton 1997, p 6; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1121). 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. Stream resident populations are associated with headwater
streams in mountainous regions where cold water and velocity barriers
are common. Typically, these streams are smaller and have higher
gradients than those occupied by adfluvial and fluvial populations. In
these headwater streams, resident bull trout are associated with deep
pools and in-stream cover, and most stream-resident populations are
dwarfed (McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 12). The use of migratory
corridors by bull trout also results in increased dispersion,
facilitating gene flow among local populations (interbreeding groups)
when individuals from different local populations interbreed, stray, or
return to non-natal streams. Also, local populations that have been
extirpated by catastrophic events may become reestablished because of
movements by bull trout through migratory corridors (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993, p. 7; MBTSG 1998, p. 45).
Lakes and reservoirs also figure prominently in meeting the life-
cycle requirements of bull trout. For adfluvial (migrating between
lakes and rivers or streams) bull trout populations, lakes and
reservoirs provide an important component of the core FMO 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 its headwaters, they enter a more productive lentic (still or slow-
moving water) environment that allows them to achieve rapid growth and
energy storage.
Some reservoirs may have adversely affected bull trout, while
others have provided benefits. For example, the basin of Hungry Horse
Reservoir has functioned adequately for 50 years as a surrogate home
for stranded Flathead Lake bull trout trapped upstream of the dam when
it was completed. While this is an artificial impoundment, the habitat
the reservoir provides and the presence of an enhanced prey base of
native minnows, suckers, and whitefish within the reservoir sustain a
large adfluvial bull trout population. Additionally, while barriers to
migration are often viewed as a negative consequence of dams, the
connectivity barrier at Hungry Horse Dam has served an important,
albeit unintended, function in restricting the proliferation of
nonnative Salvelinus species (including brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)) from downstream
areas upstream above the dam.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Bull trout are opportunistic feeders that prey upon other
organisms. Prey selection is primarily a function of size
[[Page 2278]]
and life-history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout
prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro-zooplankton, and small
fish (Donald and Alger 1993, p. 244; McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 15).
Adult migratory bull trout feed almost exclusively on other fish
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 3). Habitats must provide the necessary
aquatic and adjacent terrestrial conditions to harbor prey species in
sufficient quantity and diversity to meet the physiological
requirements necessary to maintain bull trout populations. An abundant
food base, including a broad array of terrestrial organisms of riparian
origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish, supports
individual and population growth and allows for normal bull trout
behavior.
Cover or Shelter
At all life stages, bull trout require complex forms of cover,
including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools
(Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 137-138; Watson and Hillman 1997, p.
249). Juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream
margins, and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997, p.
368). McPhail and Baxter (1996, p. 11) reported that newly emerged fry
are secretive and hide in gravel along stream edges and side channels.
They also reported that juveniles are found mainly in pools but also in
riffles and runs, maintain focal sites near the bottom, and are
strongly associated with instream cover, particularly overhead cover
such as woody debris or riparian vegetation. Bull trout have been
observed overwintering in deep beaver ponds or pools containing large
woody debris (Jakober 1995, p. 90). Adult bull trout migrating to
spawning areas have been recorded as staying two to four weeks at the
mouths of spawning tributaries in deeper holes or near logs or cover
debris (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 137). Bull trout may also use lotic
(swift-flowing water) and in some cases saltwater environments
seasonally for reasons that include use as cover. Riparian vegetation;
large wood; variable stream channel morphology including deep pools,
side-channels, undercut banks and substrates; and in some cases access
to downstream environments provide cover and shelter, which support
individual and population growth and allow for normal bull trout
behavior.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other
salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 4). Habitat components that
particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water
temperature, cover, channel form and stability, spawning and rearing
substrate conditions, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989,
p. 138; Goetz 1989, p. 19; Watson and Hillman 1997, p. 247).
Watson and Hillman (1997, p. 248) concluded 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 low-gradient stream reaches with loose, clean
gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 133). Bull trout typically spawn
from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures
(Swanberg 1997, p. 735). However, migratory forms are known to begin
spawning migrations as early as April and to move upstream as much as
250 km (155 mi) to spawning areas (Fraley and Shepard 1989 p. 138;
Swanberg 1997, p. 735).
Fraley and Shepard (1989, p. 137) 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 10 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C) (50
[deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F)). Goetz (1989, pp. 22-32) reported a
temperature range from 4 to 10 [deg]C (39 to 50 [deg]F). Such areas
often are associated with cold-water springs or groundwater upwelling
(Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1121; Baxter et al. 1999, p. 137). Fraley and
Shepard (1989, p. 137) also found that groundwater influence and
proximity to cover are important factors influencing spawning site
selection. They reported the combination of relatively specific
requirements resulted in a restricted spawning distribution in relation
to available stream habitat.
Depending on water temperature, egg incubation is normally 100 to
145 days (Pratt 1992, p. 5). Water temperatures of 1.2 to 5.4 [deg]C
(34.2 to 41.7 [deg]F) have been reported for incubation, with an
optimum (best embryo survivorship) temperature reported to be from 2 to
4 [deg]C (36 to 39 [deg]F) (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 138; McPhail
and Baxter 1996, p. 10). 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, p. 141).
Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence
(Pratt 1992, p. 6). Juveniles are likely also affected. 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, p.
6). Habitats with cold water temperature, appropriately-sized stream
substrate, and stream substrate with a low level of fine material
(i.e., less than 12 percent of fine substrate less than 0.85 millimeter
(mm) (0.03 inch (in.)) in diameter) are necessary factors for egg
incubation and juvenile rearing that supports individual and population
growth (WFPB 1997, pp. 98, F-25).
Habitats Protected from Disturbance or Representative of the Historic,
Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
There are some habitats throughout the range of the species that
are well protected from disturbance and representative of ideal
ecological conditions of the species. These areas mainly include
wilderness, national parks, and other public lands specifically
protected from most human disturbance (e.g., State parks), and often
constitute bull trout ``strongholds'' with robust, well-distributed
populations. Some populations outside of these areas may still be well
protected for other reasons (e.g., conservation easements, Habitat
Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements), but many other populations
are threatened by human actions.
Water diversion and reservoir development can reduce stream flow,
reduce the amount of water available in a stream channel, change water
quality, and alter groundwater regimes. These changes may collectively
impact habitat and passage for bull trout and can cause increases in
water temperatures.
Impoundments may also increase nonnative species predation and
competition, which can significantly affect bull trout populations.
Some nonnative fish species that prey on bull trout include lake trout,
walleye (Sander vitreum), northern pike (Esox lucius), smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Brown trout or
other introduced salmonids such as rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss),
as well as smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye, and other species
also compete with bull trout for limited resources. Brook trout
commonly hybridize with bull trout (Ratliff and Howell 1992, p. 16;
Leary et al. 1993, p. 857).
[[Page 2279]]
The stability of stream channels and stream flows are important
habitat characteristics for bull trout populations (Rieman and McIntyre
1993, p. 5). 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, p. 141; Pratt 1992, p. 6;
Pratt and Huston 1993, p. 70). Streams with a natural hydrograph (those
with normal discharge variations over time as a response to seasonal
precipitation); permanent water; and an absence of nonnative species
are representative of the highest quality ecological habitat of the
species. Streams with these characteristics provide space for
individual and population growth.
We propose bull trout habitats of two primary use types: spawning
and rearing (SR), and foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO). All
nine PCEs listed below may be found in, or be essential to, bull trout
in each of these two habitat use types. This proposed rule identifies
over 3,500 water body segments as either SR or FMO habitat. Due to a
lack of sufficiently detailed data, we do not identify the specific
PCEs present for each water body segment. Future consultations with the
Service on specific agency actions will help identify those PCEs that
are most important in a specific water body segment. Factors such as
time of year, seasonal precipitation, drought conditions, and other
phenomenon can influence the essential physical and biological features
present at any particular location at any particular time across its
range given the variability of habitats used by bull trout. In
addition, attributes such as stream flow and substrate size and
composition are influenced by stream order and gradient. Accordingly,
establishing an upper and lower range of conditions for specific
attributes in some cases may be impracticable.
Primary Constituent Elements for Bull Trout
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life-
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the characteristics of
the habitat necessary to sustain the essential life-history functions
of the species, we have identified the following PCEs for bull trout
critical habitat.
(1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water
connectivity (hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and
quantity and provide thermal refugia.
(2) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water
quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and
freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to
permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
(3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of
riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
(4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline
aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood,
side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a
variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
(5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 [deg]C (36 to 59
[deg]F), 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.
(6) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to
ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence,
and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g.,
less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in
diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates
are characteristic of these conditions.
(7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base
flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled,
they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.
(8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal
reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.
(9) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye,
northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or
competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of bull
trout that may require special management considerations or protection,
and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing that are essential for bull trout conservation (Service 2009;
also see ``Previous Federal Actions'' section). The steps we followed
in identifying critical habitat were:
(1) Our initial step in identifying critical habitat was to
determine, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological habitat
features essential to the conservation of the species, as explained in
the previous section. We reviewed the best available scientific data
pertaining to the habitat requirements of this species, including
consulting with biologists from partner agencies and entities including
Federal, State, tribal, and private biologists; 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 and recovery. We also reviewed available
data concerning bull trout habitat use and preferences, habitat
conditions, threats, limiting factors, population demographics, and
known locations, distribution, and abundances of bull trout.
(2) We then identified the geographical areas occupied by bull
trout at the time of listing and areas not occupied that may be
essential for the conservation of bull trout. We used data gathered
during the bull trout recovery planning process and the bull trout
draft recovery plan (Service 2002), and supplemented that data with
recent data developed by State agencies, tribes, the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), and other entities. This data was used to update bull
trout status and distribution data for purposes of the proposed
critical habitat designation. For areas where we had data gaps, we
solicited expert opinions from knowledgeable fisheries biologists in
the local area. Material reviewed included data in reports submitted
during section 7 consultations, reports from biologists holding section
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, research published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals, academic theses, State and Federal government
agency reports, and regional GIS overlays.
(3) We identified specific areas within each of the six new draft
recovery units described above that contain the physical and biological
features essential to bull trout conservation, considering
distribution, abundance, trend, and connectivity needs. The objective
was to ensure the areas proposed for designation as critical
[[Page 2280]]
habitat would effectively serve the goals we believe are important for
recovery: (a) conserve the opportunity for diverse life-history
expression; (b) conserve the opportunity for genetic diversity; (c)
ensure that bull trout are distributed across representative habitats;
(d) ensure sufficient connectivity among populations; (e) ensure
sufficient habitat to support population viability (e.g., abundance,
trend indices); (f) address threats (see ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' below), including climate change (see
below); and (g) ensure sufficient redundancy in conserving population
units. The above recovery goals take into account the threats and
physical and biological needs of the species throughout its range, and
focus on its range-wide recovery needs.
All critical habitat areas being proposed occur within the six new
draft recovery units described above. Some areas contained the physical
and biological features, but did not meet one or more of the above
recovery goals because those features were not present in an
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement. Accordingly, we
determined that such areas are not essential to bull trout
conservation. For example, some areas contained spawning habitat (PCEs
5 and 6), but are disconnected from other populations and not large
enough to support viable bull trout populations. Other areas were not
included in this proposal because of limited habitat, marginal habitat,
low bull trout density, or only sporadic presence of bull trout
recorded.
Predicted global climate change appears likely to pose additional
threats to bull trout in many parts of their range in the coterminous
United States; downscaled regional climate models for the Columbia
River basin predict a general air temperature warming of 1.0 to 2.5
[deg]C (33.8 to 36.5 [deg]F) or more by 2050 (Reiman et al. 2007, p.
1,552). This predicted temperature trend will have important effects on
the regional distribution and local extent of habitats available to
salmonids (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,552). The optimal water
temperatures for bull trout appear to be substantially lower than those
for other salmonids (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,553). Coldwater fish do
not physically adapt well to thermal increases (McCullough et al. 2009,
pp. 96-101). Instead, they are more likely to change their behavior,
alter the timing of certain behaviors, experience increased physical
and biochemical stress, and exhibit reduced growth and survival
(McCullough et al. 2009, pp. 98-100). Bull trout spawning and initial
rearing areas are currently largely constrained by low fall and winter
water temperatures, and existing thermally suitable habitat patches are
often isolated from one another (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1,553). With a
warming climate, thermally suitable bull trout spawning and rearing
areas are predicted to shrink during warm seasons, in some cases very
dramatically, becoming even more isolated from one another under
moderate climate change scenarios (Rieman et al. 2007, pp. 1,558-1,562;
Porter and Nelitz 2009, pp. 5-7).
Climate change will likely interact with other stressors, such as
habitat loss and fragmentation (Rieman et al. 2007, pp. 1,558-1,560;
Porter and Nelitz 2009, p. 3); invasions of nonnative fish (Rahel et
al. 2008, pp. 552-553); diseases and parasites (McCullough et al 2009,
p. 104); predators and competitors (McMahon et al. 2007, pp. 1,313-
1,323; Rahel et al. 2008, pp. 552-553); and flow alteration (McCullough
et al. 2009, pp. 106-108), to render some current spawning, rearing,
and migratory habitats marginal or wholly unsuitable. For example,
introduced congeneric populations of brook trout are widely distributed
throughout the range of bull trout. McMahon et al. (2007, p. 1,320)
demonstrated the presence of brook trout has a marked negative effect
on bull trout, an effect that is magnified at higher water temperatures
(16-20 [deg]C (60-68 [deg]F)). Changes and complex interactions are
difficult to predict at a spatial scale relevant to bull trout
conservation efforts, and key gaps exist in our understanding of
whether bull trout (and other coldwater fishes) can behaviorally adapt
to climate change.
We considered probable effects of climate change on bull trout by
first qualitatively screening core areas to assess those which might be
most vulnerable to climate change effects, and highlighting them in our
2008 update of status and threats data in the core area template
documents (Service 2008, p. 15). For example, in many locations we
prioritized cold water spring habitats for conservation because they
may be among the most resistant habitats to climate change effects. In
other locations we deemphasized protection of some already low-
elevation, warmer, marginal bull trout habitats, anticipating that they
would become even less valuable for the future conservation of bull
trout. Over a period of decades, climate change may directly threaten
the integrity of the essential physical and biological features
described in PCEs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Protecting bull trout
strongholds and cold water refugia from disturbance and ensuring
connectivity among populations were important considerations in
addressing this potential impact.
Over 30 years of research into wildlife population sizes required
for long-term viability (avoiding extinction) suggests that a minimum
number of 5,000 individuals may be needed in light of rapidly changing
environmental conditions such as accelerated climate change (Traill et
al. 2009, p. 3). Although the minimum number of individuals may vary
depending on the species involved, for bull trout, we have included
additional unoccupied habitats in those areas where occupied habitats
currently support far less than this number of individuals, so there
are adequate PCEs for those small populations to recover. For example,
in the Klamath basin where bull trout status is weak and threats are
high (that is, where there are low number of individuals or
populations, and poor habitat quality), we are proposing to designate
all occupied habitat and some unoccupied habitat to ensure sufficient
connectivity among existing bull trout populations. Unoccupied habitat
proposed for protection is in FMO habitat, and is intended to ensure
connectivity among existing, currently isolated bull trout populations.
Conversely, examples of occupied areas that are not proposed as
critical habitat include those where bull trout occur in low densities
in very isolated or tenuous populations, areas where bull trout are
heavily compromised by nonnative species, or areas where available
habitat is restricted.
(4) In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, we
considered factors specific to each river system, such as size (i.e.,
stream order), gradient, channel morphology, connectivity to other
aquatic habitats, and habitat complexity and diversity, as well as
range-wide recovery considerations. We took into account the fact that
bull trout habitat preference ranges from small headwater streams used
largely for spawning and rearing, to downstream mainstem portions of
river networks used for rearing, foraging, migration, or overwintering.
To help determine which of these specific areas are essential to
bull trout conservation, we considered the species' status in each
recovery unit by evaluating whether: (a) bull trout are rare and
exposed to threats, such that recovery needs include removing threats
from essentially all existing occurrences and restoring bull trout to
portions of their historic range, or (b) bull trout are declining and
exposed to threats, such that recovery needs include stopping the
decline and eliminating threats
[[Page 2281]]
across key portions of their range, such as currently occupied
strongholds.
NatureServe is a nonprofit conservation organization whose mission
is to provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action.
The NatureServe database is sometimes used as one of several factors in
identifying species which may warrant listing under the Act, but in
other cases the information in the NatureServe database is limited in
its usefulness for that purpose. Additionally, NatureServe has
developed a computer spreadsheet tool used world-wide for evaluating a
suite of factors related to rarity, trends, and threats to assess the
extinction or extirpation risk of species and ecosystems. We did use
this spreadsheet tool in analyzing the data we have for the bull trout.
The protocol for assigning a conservation status rank to a species or
population of a species is based on using biological data to derive a
score for each of ten conservation status factors, which are grouped
into three categories based on the characteristic of the factor: rarity
(six factors such as population size or habitat area), trends (two
factors), and threats (two factors) (Master et al. 2007, pp. 6-11). By
inserting extensive biological data for bull trout collected by the
Service and its partners through 2007 into the NatureServe status
assessment ranking tool spreadsheet for each of 118 bull trout core
areas or watersheds throughout their range, we were able to determine
the relative status and threats within each of the 118 bull trout core
areas or watersheds and each of the 6 draft recovery units.
The proposed critical habitat designation identifies specific areas
essential to the conservation of the bull trout local populations and
spawning and rearing streams of highest conservation value. Factors
taken into account at the smaller local population scale included the
largest areas or populations, most highly connected populations, and
areas with the highest conservation potential (i.e., the quantity and
quality of physical and biological features present). At the larger
core area scale, the proposed designation also focuses on areas having
the highest conservation value by applying the factors that were
applied at the local population scale. At both the local population and
core area scales, the proposed designation emphasizes essential FMO
habitats of highest conservation value, such as habitats that connect
local populations and core areas and provide required space for life-
history functions. In some areas, specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by bull trout at the time of listing have
been determined to be essential for the conservation of the species and
are being proposed as critical habitat. In those areas, bull trout
habitat and population loss over time necessitates reestablishing bull
trout in currently unoccupied habitat areas to achieve recovery.
Based on the considerations described above, we propose a greater
proportion of occupied habitat and more unoccupied habitat for
protection in areas where bull trout demonstrate less resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, and less critical habitat elsewhere. We
find that areas occupied at the time of listing are inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are proposing
additional areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it is listed. For example, in the Klamath Basin Recovery
Unit where threats to bull trout are greatest, we are proposing to
designate all habitat known to be occupied at the time of listing that
contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection, and we propose designating a substantial
proportion of unoccupied habitat outside of the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing that has been determined
to be essential for bull trout conservation. Our primary consideration
in proposing critical habitat for occupied areas is to protect species
strongholds for spawning and rearing and FMO habitats. Our primary
consideration for most unoccupied areas is restoring connectivity among
populations by protecting FMO habitats.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries within this
proposed rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures
because such lands lack physical and biological features essential for
bull trout. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features
in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient PBFs to support life-history functions essential for the
conservation of the species and lands outside of the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing that we have determined are essential
for the conservation of bull trout.
We are proposing to designate 32 critical habitat units (CHUs)
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing. These units have an appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement of physical and biological features present that supports
bull trout metapopulations, life processes, and overall species
conservation. Twenty-nine of the units contain all of the physical and
biological features identified in this proposed rule, supporting
multiple life-history requirements. Three of the mainstem river units
in the Columbia and Snake River basins contain most of the physical and
biological features necessary to support the bull trout's particular
use of that habitat, other than those associated with PCEs 5 and 6,
which relate to breeding habitat. Lakes and reservoirs within these
units also contain most of the physical and biological features
necessary to support bull trout, other than those associated with PCEs
1, 4, and 6. Marine nearshore habitats within the Olympic Peninsula and
Puget Sound CHUs contain only a subset of the identified physical and
biological features for bull trout (PCEs 2, 3, 5, and 8). However,
these habitats are important to conserving a diverse life-history
expression and representative habitats.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
The term critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act,
in part, as geographical areas on which are found those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protections.
Accordingly, when designating critical habitat, we assess whether the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing contain features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection. Although the determination that special
management considerations or protection may be required is not a
prerequisite to designating critical
[[Page 2282]]
habitat in areas essential to the conservation of the species that were
unoccupied at the time of listing, all areas being proposed as critical
habitat require some level of management to address current and future
threats to bull trout, to maintain or enhance the physical and
biological features essential to its conservation, and to ensure the
recovery of the species.
The primary land and water management activities impacting the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of bull
trout which may require special management considerations within the
proposed critical habitat units include timber harvest and road
building (forest management practices), agriculture and agricultural
diversions, livestock grazing, dams, mining, and nonnative species
presence or introduction (Beschta et al. 1987, p. 194; Chamberlin et
al. 1991, p. 194; Furniss et al. 1991, p. 297; Meehan 1991, pp. 6-10;
Nehlsen et al. 1991, p. 4; Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 6; Craig and
Wissmar 1993, p. 18; Frissell 1993, p. 350; Henjum et al. 1994, p. 6;
McIntosh et al. 1994, p. 37; Wissmar et al. 1994, p. 28; MBTSG 1995a,
p. i; MBTSG 1995b, p. i; MBTSG 1995c, p. i; MBTSG 1995d, p. 1; USDA and
USDI 1995, p. 8, 1997, pp. 132-144; Light et al. 1996, p. 6; MBTSG
1996a, p. ii; MBTSG 1996b, p. 1; MBTSG 1996c, p. i; MBTSG 1996d, p. i;
MBTSG 1996e, p. i; MBTSG 1996f, p. 1; MBTSG 1996g, p. 7; MBTSG 1996h,
p. 7). Urbanization and residential development may also impact the
physical and biological features, and these features may require
special management considerations or protections due to these
development impacts.
Timber harvest and road building in, or close to, riparian areas
can immediately reduce stream shading and cover, channel stability, and
large woody debris recruitment, and it can increase sedimentation and
peak stream flows (Chamberlin et al. 1991, p. 180). These activities
can subsequently lead to increased stream temperatures and bank erosion
and decreased long-term stream productivity. The effects of road
construction and associated maintenance account for a majority of
sediment loads to streams in forested areas. In addition, stream
crossings also can impede fish passage (Shepard et al. 1984, p. 1;
Cederholm and Reid 1987, p. 392; Furniss et al. 1991, p. 301).
Sedimentation affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering
substrate composition, reducing interstitial space, and causing
braiding of channels (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 6), which reduce
carrying capacity. Sedimentation negatively affects bull trout embryo
survival and juvenile bull trout rearing densities (Shepard et al.
1984, p. 6; Pratt 1992, p. 6). An assessment of the interior Columbia
Basin ecosystem revealed that increasing road densities were associated
with declines in four nonanadromous salmonid species (bull trout;
Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki bouvieri); westslope
cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi); and redband trout (O. mykiss ssp.))
within the Columbia River basin, likely through a variety of factors
associated with roads. Bull trout were less likely to use highly roaded
basins for spawning and rearing and, if present, were likely to be at
lower population levels (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, p. 1183). These
activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the
essential physical and biological features described in PCEs 1-6.
Special management considerations or protections that may be needed for
the essential features include the implementation of best management
practices that could result in project modifications specifically
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout,
particularly in spawning and rearing habitat. Such best management
practices could result in project modifications that require measures
to ensure that road stream crossings do not impede fish migration or
occur in or near spawning/rearing areas, or increase road surface
drainage.
Agricultural practices and associated activities adjacent to
streams and in upland portions of watersheds also can adversely affect
the physical and biological features essential to bull trout
conservation. Irrigation withdrawals, including diversions, can dewater
spawning and rearing streams, impede fish passage and migration, and
entrain fish into the irrigation ditch from the river. Discharging
pollutants such as nutrients, agricultural chemicals, animal waste, and
sediment into spawning and rearing waters is also detrimental (Spence
et al. 1996, p. 128). Agricultural practices regularly include stream
channelization and diking, large woody debris and riparian vegetation
removal, and bank armoring (Spence et al. 1996, p. 127). Improper
livestock grazing can promote streambank erosion and sedimentation and
limit the growth of riparian vegetation important for temperature
control, streambank stability, fish cover, and detrital input (Platts
1991, pp. 397-399). In addition, grazing often results in increased
organic nutrient input in streams (Platts 1991, p. 423). These
activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the
essential physical and biological features described in PCEs 1-8.
Special management for the essential features could include best
management practices that could include project modifications
specifically designed to reduce these types of impacts in streams with
bull trout, such as fencing livestock from streamsides, moving animal
feeding operations away from surface waters, using riparian buffer
strips near crop fields, minimizing water withdrawal from streams,
avoiding stream channel and spring head manipulation, and avoiding
stream dewatering.
Dams constructed without fish passage features, or with poorly
designed fish passage features, create barriers to migratory bull
trout, precluding access to suitable spawning, rearing, and migration
habitats. Dams disrupt the connectivity within and between watersheds
essential for maintaining aquatic ecosystem function (Naiman et al.
1992, p. 127; Spence et al. 1996, p. 141) and bull trout subpopulation
interaction (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 15). Natural recolonization
of historically occupied sites can be precluded by migration barriers
(e.g., McCloud Dam in California). These activities can directly and
immediately threaten the integrity of the essential physical and
biological features described in PCEs 2-7 and 9. Special management
considerations that may be needed for the essential features include
the implementation of best management practices that could result in
project modifications, such as providing fish passage, specifically
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout.
Mining can degrade aquatic systems by generating sediment and heavy
metals pollution, altering water pH levels, and changing stream
channels and flow (Martin and Platts 1981, p. 2). These activities can
directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the essential
physical and biological features described in PCEs 1, 6, 7, and 8, even
if they occur some distance upstream from critical habitat. Special
management for these essential features could require best management
practices that could result in project modifications specifically
designed to reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout, such as
avoiding surface water impacts from mining activities and neutralizing
or containing toxic materials generated.
Introductions of nonnative species by the Federal Government, State
fish and game departments, and unauthorized private parties across the
range of bull trout have resulted in predation,
[[Page 2283]]
declines in abundance, local extirpations, and hybridization of bull
trout (Bond 1992, p. 3; Howell and Buchanan 1992, p. viii; Donald and
Alger 1993, p. 245; Leary et al. 1993, p. 857; Pratt and Huston 1993,
p. 75; MBTSG 1995b, p. 10; MBTSG 1995d, p. 21; Platts et al. 1995, p.
9; MBTSG 1996g, p. 7; Palmisano and Kaczynski, in litt.1997, p. 29).
Nonnative species may exacerbate stresses on bull trout from habitat
degradation, fragmentation, isolation, and species interactions (Rieman
and McIntyre 1993, p. 3). These activities can, over time, directly
threaten the integrity of the essential physical and biological
features described in PCE 9. Special management needs and
considerations for this essential feature could require the
implementation of best management practices that could result in
project modifications specifically designed to reduce these impacts in
streams with bull trout, such as avoiding future introductions,
eradicating or controlling introduced species, and managing habitat to
favor bull trout over other species.
Urbanization and residential development in watersheds has led to
decreased habitat complexity (uniform stream channels and simple
nonfunctional riparian areas), impediments and blockages to fish
passage, increased surface runoff (more frequent and severe flooding),
and decreased water quality and quantity (Spence et al. 1996, pp. 130-
134). In nearshore marine areas, urbanization and residential
development has led to significant loss or physical alteration of
intertidal and shoreline habitats, as well as led to the contamination
of many estuarine and nearshore areas (PSWQAT 2000, p. 47; BMSL et al.
2001, ch. 10, pp. 1-27 ; Fresh et al. 2004, p. 1). Activities
associated with urbanization and residential development can
incrementally threaten the integrity of the essential physical and
biological features described in PCEs 1-5, 7, and 8. Special management
for these essential features could require best management practices
that could result in project modifications specifically designed to
reduce these impacts in streams with bull trout, such as setting back
developments from riparian areas, minimizing water runoff from urban
areas directly to streams, minimizing hard surfaces such as pavement in
watersheds, and minimizing impacts related to fertilizer application.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 32 critical habitat units in 6 recovery units for
bull trout. Each CHU is comprised of a number of specific streams or
reservoir/lake areas, which are identified as subunits in this proposed
rule.
In freshwater areas, critical habitat includes the stream channels
within the designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by
the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the
opposite bank. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the
ordinary high-water line determines the lateral extent of critical
habitat. The lateral extent of critical habitat in lakes is defined by
the perimeter of the water body as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps. In marine nearshore areas, the inshore extent of
critical habitat is the mean higher high-water (MHHW) line, including
tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. Critical habitat
extends offshore to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 feet (ft)) relative
to the mean low low-water (MLLW) line.
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for bull trout. A total of 36,497.70 km (22,678.5 mi) of streams (which
includes 1,587.7 km (985.3 mi) of marine shoreline area (Table 2), and
215,870.1 ha (533,426.4 ac) of reservoir and lake surface area (Table
3) are proposed as bull trout critical habitat. A total of 1,495 km
(929 mi; four percent) of stream and marine shoreline distance was
unoccupied at the time of listing, with the remainder occupied. A total
of 17,422 km (10,825 mi; 48 percent) of stream habitat is used for
spawning and rearing, with the remainder--and all reservoirs and
lakes--used for FMO. Tables 4 and 5 present total stream shoreline
distance and reservoir and lake surface area proposed in each state.
Table 6 presents the ownership for all stream shoreline distances
proposed as critical habitat.
Table 2.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by Critical Habitat Unit and Referencing Recovery
Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat
Recovery Unit unit Kilometers Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal....................... 1.Olympic 1,292.9 803.4
Peninsula.
1.Olympic 673.8 418.7
Peninsula
(Marine).
2.Puget Sound.... 2,737.3 1,700.8
2.Puget Sound 911.9 566.6
(Marine).
3.Lower Columbia 360.9 224.3
River Basins.
4.Upper 304.9 189.5
Willamette River.
5.Hood River..... 113.1 70.3
6.Lower Deschutes 463.2 287.8
River.
7.Odell Lake..... 27.4 17.0
8.Mainstem Lower 342.2 212.6
Columbia River.
Klamath....................... 9.Klamath River 440.0 273.4
Basin.
Mid-Columbia.................. 10.Upper Columbia 1,125.9 699.6
River Basins.
11.Yakima River.. 1,191.4 740.3
12.John Day River 1,176.4 731.0
13.Umatilla River 211.8 131.6
14.Walla Walla 452.7 281.3
River Basin.
15.Lower Snake 284.2 176.6
River Basins.
16.Grande Ronde 1,057.7 657.2
River.
17.Imnaha River.. 285.7 177.5
18.Sheep and 47.9 29.7
Granite Creeks.
19.Hells Canyon 399.3 248.1
Complex.
20.Powder River 404.3 251.2
Basin.
21.Clearwater 2,702.1 1,679.0
River.
22.Mainstem Upper 522.7 324.8
Columbia River.
23.Mainstem Snake 552.2 343.1
River.
[[Page 2284]]
Upper Snake................... 24. Malheur River 250.7 155.8
Basin.
25.Jarbidge River 266.9 165.9
26.Southwest 2,716.7 1,688.1
Idaho River
Basins.
27.Salmon River 8,119.4 5,045.1
Basin.
28.Little Lost 206.6 128.4
River.
Columbia Headwaters........... 29.Coeur d'Alene 819.6 509.3
River Basin.
30.Kootenai River 587.0 364.7
Basin.
31.Clark Fork 5,332.1 3,313.2
River Basin.
Saint Mary.................... 32.Saint Mary 116.8 72.6
River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............ 36,497.7 22,678.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Area of Reservoirs or Lakes Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by Critical Habitat Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Hectares Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Olympic Peninsula........................... 3,366.2 8,318.1
2.Puget Sound................................. 17,890.5 44,208.3
3.Lower Columbia River Basins................. 4,856.1 11,999.7
4.Upper Willamette River...................... 3,601.5 8,899.6
5.Hood River.................................. 36.9 91.1
6.Lower Deschutes River....................... 1,670.2 4,127.3
7.Odell Lake.................................. 1,387.1 3,427.6
9.Klamath River Basin......................... 3,775.5 9,329.5
10.Upper Columbia River Basins................ 1,033.2 2,553.1
11.Yakima River............................... 6,285.2 15,531.0
16.Grande Ronde River......................... 605.2 1,495.5
21.Clearwater River........................... 6,721.9 16,610.2
24.Malheur River Basin........................ 715.9 1,768.9
26.Southwest Idaho River Basins............... 15,540.2 38,400.6
27.Salmon River Basin......................... 1,659.5 4,100.6
29.Coeur d'Alene River Basin.................. 12,606.9 31,152.2
30.Kootenai River Basin....................... 12,089.2 29,873.1
31.Clark Fork River Basin..................... 119,473.5 295,225.5
32.Saint Mary River Basin..................... 2,555.4 6,314.5
Total................................. 215,870.1 533,426.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Kilometers Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho......................................... 15,563.4 9,670.6
Montana....................................... 4,978.8 3,093.7
Nevada........................................ 137.3 85.3
Oregon........................................ 4,988.3 3,099.6
Oregon/Idaho.................................. 273.8 170.1
Washington.................................... 8,421.1 5,232.6
Washington Marine............................. 1,585.7 985.3
Washington/Idaho.............................. 59.9 37.2
Washington/Oregon............................. 489.0 303.9
Total................................. 36,497.30 22,678.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Area of Reservoirs or Lakes Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Hectares Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho......................................... 80,093.2 19,7914.7
Montana....................................... 90,553.3 22,3762.2
Oregon........................................ 11,792.3 29,139.5
Washington.................................... 33,431.2 82,610.3
Total................................. 215,870.1 533,426.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2285]]
Table 6.--Stream/Shoreline Distance Proposed for Designation as Bull
Trout Critical Habitat by Ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership Kilometers Miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal....................................... 21,276 13,220
Federal/Private............................... 422 262
Federal/State................................. 4 2
State......................................... 889 552
Tribal........................................ 683 424
Private....................................... 13,223 8,216
Total................................. 36,497 22,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present a brief description of all critical habitat designated
in each of 32 units below, organized by recovery unit. Maps depicting
the units and subunits are included with the proposed amendatory
language below. For a more detailed textual and graphic description of
all units and subunits, please see our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout, or contact the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). The areas being proposed as
critical habitat below satisfy each of the above ``Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat'' considerations, and will conserve the
opportunity for diverse life-history expression and genetic diversity;
ensure that bull trout are distributed across representative habitats;
ensure sufficient connectivity among populations; ensure sufficient
habitat to support population viability; address threats; and ensure
sufficient redundancy in conserving population units. The
characteristics of each Critical Habitat Unit, Subunit, and in some
cases water body segment that establish why a specific area is
essential to the conservation of bull trout are identified in the
reference (Service 2009). Examples of attributes that were considered
include habitat use (FMO, spawning and rearing), occupancy data,
geographic limits, accessibility, presence or absence of barriers,
genetic analysis (used in metapopulation context), population data,
habitat condition, and presence of anadromous salmonids.
Coastal Recovery Unit
Unit 1: Olympic Peninsula Unit
The Olympic Peninsula CHU is located in northwestern Washington.
Bull trout populations inhabiting the Olympic Peninsula comprise the
coastal component of the Coastal-Puget Sound population. The unit
includes approximately 1,292.9 km (803.4 mi) of stream, 3,366.2 ha
(8,318.1 ac) of lake surface area, and 673.8 km (418.7 mi) of marine
shoreline proposed as critical habitat. This CHU is bordered by Hood
Canal to the east, Strait of Juan de Fuca to the north, the Pacific
Ocean to the west, and the Lower Columbia River Basins and Puget Sound
CHUs to the south. It extends across portions of Grays Harbor, Clallam,
Mason, Pacific, and Jefferson Counties. All of the major river basins
initiate from the Olympic Mountains. The Olympic Peninsula CHU is
divided into 10 CHSUs. Although delta areas and small islands are
difficult to map and may not be specifically identified by name,
included within the critical habitat proposal are delta areas where
streams form sloughs and braids and the nearshore of small islands
found within the proposed marine areas. The State of Washington has
assigned most streams a stream catalog number. Typically, if an unnamed
stream or stream with no official U.S. Geological Survey name is
proposed for critical habitat within the Puget Sound CHU, the stream
catalog number is provided for reference. In those cases where
tributary streams do not have a catalog number, they are referred to as
``unnamed'' or a locally accepted name is used. The subunits within
this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting,
and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and
subunits, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some
cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 9-11),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 2: Puget Sound Unit
The Puget Sound CHU includes approximately 2,737.3 km (1,700.8 mi)
of streams; 17,890.5 ha (44,208.3 ac) of lake surface area; and 911.9
km (566.6 mi) of marine shoreline proposed as critical habitat. The CHU
is bordered by the Cascade Range to the east, Puget Sound to the west,
Lower Columbia River Basins and Olympic Peninsula CHUs to the south,
and the U.S.-Canada border to the north. The CHU extends across
Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Island Counties
in Washington. The major river basins initiate from the Cascade Range
and flow west, discharging into Puget Sound, with the exception of the
Chilliwack River system, which flows northwest into British Columbia,
discharging into the Fraser River. The Puget Sound CHU is divided into
13 CHSUs. The subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing,
foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a
detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification of
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 11-13), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 3: Lower Columbia River Basins Unit
The Lower Columbia River Basins CHU consists of portions of the
Lewis, White Salmon, and Klickitat Rivers and associated tributaries in
southwestern and south-central Washington. The CHU extends across
Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Skamania, and Yakima Counties. Approximately
360.9 km (224.3 mi) of stream and 4,856.1 ha (11,999.7 ac) of reservoir
surface area are proposed as critical habitat. There are three bull
trout local populations in the Lewis River watershed and one in the
Klickitat River watershed. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 14), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 4: Upper Willamette River Unit
The Upper Willamette River CHU includes 304.9 km (189.5 mi) of
streams and 3,601.5 ha (8,899.6 ac) of lake surface area is proposed as
critical
[[Page 2286]]
habitat in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River
subbasins of western Oregon. This unit is located primarily within Lane
County, but also extends into Linn County.
There are three known bull trout local populations in the McKenzie
River subbasin and one bull trout local population in the Middle Fork
Willamette River subbasin. With the exception of a short reach of the
mainstem Willamette River and the mainstem Middle Fork Willamette River
(including reservoirs) below Hills Creek Dam, segments proposed as
critical habitat are occupied by bull trout. The stream segments that
make up the Willamette River Unit are described below. This unit
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 14-15),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 5: Hood River Unit
The Hood River CHU includes the mainstem Hood River and three major
tributaries: Clear Branch Hood River, West Fork Hood River, and East
Fork Hood River. A total of 113.1 km (70.3 mi) of stream and 36.9 ha
(91.1 ac) of lake surface is proposed as critical habitat. Portions of
the mainstem Columbia River utilized as FMO by Hood River bull trout
are discussed in the Lower Mainstem Columbia River section of this
document.
The Hood River CHU, located on the western slopes of the Cascades
Mountains in northwest Oregon, lies entirely within Hood River County,
Oregon. There are two local populations identified as essential: (1)
Clear Branch Hood River above Clear Branch Dam and (2) Hood River and
tributaries below Clear Branch Dam. This unit provides spawning and
rearing habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 15), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 6: Lower Deschutes River Unit
The Lower Deschutes River CHU is located in Wasco, Sherman,
Jefferson, Deschutes, and Crook Counties in central Oregon. There are
five known local population in the lower Deschutes River basin: (1)
Warm Springs River; (2) Shitike Creek; (3) Whitewater River; (4)
Jefferson Creek-Candle Creek Complex; and (5) Jack Creek-Canyon Creek-
Heising Spring Complex.
The Lower Deschutes River CHU includes (1) the Metolius River
basin, consisting of Canyon Creek, Jack Creek, Heising Spring, Candle
Creek, Jefferson Creek, Whitewater River, the mainstem Metolius River,
and Lake Billy Chinook; (2) the mainstem Deschutes River from Lake
Billy Chinook to Big Falls; (3) Whychus Creek upstream to the USFS 6360
Road crossing; (4) Crooked River from its confluence with Lake Billy
Chinook upstream to Highway 97; (5) Shitike Creek; (6) Warm Springs
River; and (7) mainstem Deschutes River from the Pelton Regulating Dam
downstream to the Columbia River.
Approximately 463.2 km (287.8 mi) of streams and 1,670.2 ha
(4,127.3 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area in the lower Deschutes
River basin are proposed as critical habitat. A portion of the reaches
occur on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs lands. The following
stream segments are included in the Lower Deschutes River CHU. This
unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 15), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 7: Odell Lake Unit
The Odell Lake CHU lies entirely within the Deschutes National
Forest in Deschutes and Klamath Counties, Oregon. Total proposed
critical habitat in this unit includes 27.4 km (17.0 mi) of streams and
1,387.1 ha (3,427.6 ac) of lake surface area. The single Odell Lake
bull trout population has been isolated from the Deschutes River
population by a lava flow that impounded Odell Creek and formed Davis
Lake approximately 5,500 years ago. Odell Lake is the only remaining
natural adfluvial population of bull trout in Oregon. The following
lake area and stream segments are included in this CHU. This unit
provides spawning and rearing habitat. For a detailed description of
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat,
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p.
16), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 8: Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit
The Mainstem Lower Columbia River CHU extends from the mouth of the
Columbia River to John Day Dam and is located in the states of Oregon
and Washington. It includes Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Hood River,
Wasco, and Sherman Counties in Oregon and Pacific, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz,
Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat Counties in Washington. A total of 342.2
km (212.6 mi) of stream are being proposed as critical habitat. This
unit provides connecting habitat. For a detailed description of this
unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some
cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 16), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 9: Klamath River Basin Unit (Klamath Recovery Unit)
The Klamath River Basin CHU is located in south-central Oregon and
includes three CHSUs: (1) Upper Klamath Lake CHSU; (2) Sycan River
CHSU; and (3) Upper Sprague River CHSU. It includes portions of Klamath
and Lake Counties in Oregon. Total proposed critical habitat in this
unit includes 440.0 km (273.4 mi) of streams and 3,775.5 ha (9,329.5
ac) of lake surface area. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 16-18),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 10: Upper Columbia River Basins Unit (Mid-Columbia Recovery
Unit)
The Upper Columbia River Basins CHU includes the entire drainages
of three CHSUs in central and north-central Washington on the east
slopes of the Cascade Range and east of the Columbia River between
Wenatchee, Washington, and the Okanogan River drainage: (1) Wenatchee
River CHSU in Chelan County; (2) Entiat River CHSU in Chelan County;
and (3) Methow River CHSU in Okanogan County. The Upper Columbia River
Basins CHU also includes the Lake Chelan basin (with some proposed
critical habitat and Okanogan River basin) which historically provided
spawning and rearing and FMO habitat. But it is unclear what role these
drainages may play in recovery. A total of 1,125.9 km
[[Page 2287]]
(699.6 mi) of streams and 1,033.2 ha (2,553.1 ac) of lake surface area
in this CHU are proposed as critical habitat to provide for spawning
and rearing, FMO habitat to support three core areas essential for
conservation and recovery. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 18-19),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 11: Yakima River Unit
The Yakima River CHU supports adfluvial, fluvial, and resident
life-history forms of bull trout. This CHU includes the mainstem Yakima
River and tributaries from its confluence with the Columbia River
upstream from the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to its
headwaters at the crest of the Cascade Range. The Yakima River CHU is
located on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range in south-central
Washington and encompasses the entire Yakima River basin located
between the Klickitat and Wenatchee Basins. The Yakima River basin is
one of the largest basins in the State of Washington; it drains
southeast into the Columbia River near the town of Richland,
Washington. The basin occupies most of Yakima and Kittitas Counties,
about half of Benton County, and a small portion of Klickitat County.
This CHU does not contain any subunits because it supports one core
area. A total of 1,191.4 km (740.3 mi) of stream habitat and 6,285.2 ha
(15,531.0 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area in this CHU are
proposed as critical habitat. One of the largest populations of bull
trout (South Fork Tieton River population) in central Washington is
located above the Tieton Dam and supports the core area. This CHU
supports two potential resident local populations identified in the
U.S. Fish and Service's 2008 five year review (Service 2008, p. 6).
This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting,
and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 19-20),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 12: John Day River Unit
The John Day River CHU in the John Day River basin in eastern
Oregon includes portions of the mainstem John Day River, North Fork
John Day River, Middle Fork John Day River, and their tributary streams
within Wheeler, Grant, and Umatilla Counties in Oregon. A total of
1,176.4 km (731.0 mi) of streams are proposed as critical habitat.
Four CHSUs are defined for the John Day River CHU: Lower Mainstem
John Day River, Upper Mainstem John Day River, North Fork John Day
River, and Middle Fork John Day River. The latter three generally
correspond to core areas. All proposed critical habitat designations
are essential to the long-term conservation of the species. The
subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging,
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed
description of this unit and subunits, for justification of why this
CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 20), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 13: Umatilla River Unit
The Umatilla River CHU is located in northeastern Oregon in
Umatilla and Union Counties. There are two local populations in this
unit: one in the North Fork Umatilla River and one in North Fork
Meacham Creek. Bull trout in this basin are primarily fluvial migrants
that overwinter in middle and lower sections of the mainstem Umatilla
River.
Approximately 211.8 km (131.8 mi) of stream is proposed as critical
habitat for bull trout in the Umatilla River basin. Approximately 48.7
km (30.3 mi) of stream within the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation lands is being proposed as critical habitat. The
stream segments that make up the Umatilla River CHU are described
below. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory,
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat,
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p.
21), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 14: Walla Walla River Basin Unit
The Walla Walla River Basin CHU straddles the Oregon-Washington
State line in the eastern part of both States and includes two CHSUs.
The unit includes 452.7 km (281.3 mi) of stream, extending across
portions of Umatilla and Wallowa Counties in Oregon and Walla Walla and
Columbia Counties in Washington. There are five known bull trout local
populations in this unit: two in the Walla Walla River basin and three
in the Touchet River basin. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 21), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 15: Lower Snake River Basins Unit
The Lower Snake River Basins CHU is located in southeast Washington
and contains two CHSUs: (1) Tucannon River basin CHSU located in
Columbia and Garfield Counties and (2) Asotin Creek basin CHSU within
Garfield and Asotin Counties. Approximately 284.2 km (176.6 mi) of
stream are proposed as critical habitat for bull trout within this
unit. The subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing,
foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a
detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification of
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 21-22), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 16: Grande Ronde River Unit
The Grande Ronde River CHU is located in northeast Oregon and
southeast Washington and includes the Grande Ronde core area and the
Little Minam core area. The Grande Ronde core area includes large
portions of Union and Wallowa Counties and a small portion of Umatilla
County in Oregon and about one-third of Asotin County and small
portions of Columbia and Garfield Counties in Washington. The Little
Minam core area is located entirely within the Eagle Cap Wilderness on
the western edge of the Wallowa subbasin in both Union and Wallowa
Counties in Oregon.
The Grande Ronde River CHU contains at least ten local populations
in the Grande Ronde River basin: (1) Upper Grande Ronde; (2) Catherine;
(3) Indian; (4) Minam/Deer; (5) Lostine/Bear; (6) Upper Hurricane; (7)
North Fork Wenaha; (8) South Fork Wenaha; (9) Butte and West Fork
Butte; and (10) Lookingglass. The Little Minam River, a separate core
area and a tributary to the Minam River, encompasses tributaries
containing one local population located above a barrier falls at
approximately
[[Page 2288]]
9.0 km (5.6 mi) upstream, as well as the Little Minam River below the
barrier to its confluence with the Minam River. The Grande Ronde River
CHU includes 1,057.7 km (657.2 mi) of streams and 605.2 ha (1,495.5 ac)
of lakes and reservoirs proposed as critical habitat. This unit
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 22-23),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 17: Imnaha River Unit
The Imnaha River CHU extends across Wallowa, Baker, and Union
Counties in northeastern Oregon. The CHU contains approximately 285.7
km (177.5 mi) of river proposed as critical habitat and four local
populations: (1) Mainstem Imnaha River; (2) Big Sheep Creek and
tributary streams (Big Sheep Creek is considered to be one local
population above and below the Wallowa Valley Irrigation Canal); (3)
Little Sheep Creek and tributary streams; and (4) McCully Creek, which
could be considered one or two local populations depending if Big Sheep
Creek above and below the diversion are separated. This unit provides
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 23), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 18: Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit
This CHU is located within Adams and Idaho Counties in Idaho,
approximately 21.0 km (13.0 mi) east of Riggins, Idaho. In the Sheep
and Granite Creeks CHU, 47.9 km (29.7 mi) of streams are proposed as
critical habitat. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging,
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see
Service (2009 p. 23), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 19: Hells Canyon Complex Unit
The Hells Canyon Complex is located in Adams County, Idaho, and
Baker County, Oregon. This CHU contains 399.3 km (248.1 mi) of streams
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 23-24),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 20: Powder River Basin Unit
The Powder River Basin CHU includes approximately 404.3 km (251.2
mi) of stream proposed as critical habitat and is located within Baker,
Union, and Wallowa Counties in northeastern Oregon. This unit is
thought to contain 10 local populations of bull trout and 1 potential
local population. Several unoccupied sections of the Powder River
mainstem have been proposed to provide connectivity and recovery
opportunities for local populations. The stream segments that make up
the Powder River Basin CHU are described below. This unit provides
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 24), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 21: Clearwater River Unit
The Clearwater River CHU is located east of Lewiston, Idaho, and
extends from the Snake River confluence at Lewiston on the west to
headwaters in the Bitterroot Mountains along the Idaho-Montana border
on the east in Nez Perce, Latah, Lewis, Clearwater, Idaho, and Shoshone
Counties. This unit includes five CHSUs: Lower/Middle Fork Clearwater
River; North Fork Clearwater River (and Fish Lake); South Fork
Clearwater River; Lochsa River (and Fish Lake); and the Selway River.
In the Clearwater River CHU, 2,702.1 km (1,679.0 mi) of streams and
6,721.9 ha (16,610.2 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area are
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 24-26),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 22: Mainstem Upper Columbia River Unit
The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU includes the Columbia River
from John Day Dam upstream 522.7 km (324.8 mi) to Chief Joseph Dam. The
Columbia River generally flows south from Canada, southwest through
Washington, and west through Oregon. The Columbia River drains from its
headwaters in Alberta, Canada, and the west slopes of the Rocky
Mountains in Montana. This reach of river is heavily influenced by
Grand Coulee Dam operations, which provide hydroelectricity and
irrigation water. The Mainstem Upper Columbia River CHU supports FMO
habitat for fluvial bull trout; several accounts exist of bull trout in
the Columbia River between the Yakima and John Day Rivers. The Mainstem
Upper Columbia River CHU provides connectivity to the Mainstem Lower
Columbia River CHU and 13 additional CHUs (Clearwater River, Powder
River Basin, Imnaha River, Grande Ronde River, Walla Walla River Basin,
Umatilla River, John Day River, Yakima River, Mainstem Snake River,
Lower Snake River Basins, Hells Canyon Complex, Sheep and Granite
Creeks, and Upper Columbia River Basins). The Mainstem Upper Columbia
River CHU is located in north-central, central, and south-central
Washington and north-central and northeast Oregon. This CHU is within
Klickitat, Franklin, Benton, Grant, Yakima, Kittitas, Chelan, Douglas,
and Okanogan Counties in Washington and Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and
Umatilla Counties in Oregon. Several dams, all of which have reports of
bull trout using their ladders, are located throughout this portion of
the Columbia River, including John Day, McNary, Priest Rapids, Wanapum,
Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and Wells Dams. For a justification of why
this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 26), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 23: Mainstem Snake River Unit
The Mainstem Snake River CHU is located from the confluence with
the Columbia River upstream to the head of Brownlee Reservoir. The
Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbia River and forms
the border between Washington and Idaho from Clarkston/Lewiston
upstream to Oregon. The Snake River also forms the boundary between
Idaho and Oregon, and at that
[[Page 2289]]
point upstream to the upper limit of Brownlee Reservoir, forms this
CHU. The Snake River is within Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia,
Whitman, and Asotin Counties in Washington; Wallowa, Whitman, Baker,
and Malheur Counties in Oregon; and Nez Perce, Idaho, Adams, and
Washington Counties in Idaho.
In the lower section of the Snake River are a series of dams and
locks built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Lower
Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor Dams generate
hydroelectric power and provide barge traffic navigation to Lewiston,
Idaho. The major features in the Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex
reach of the Snake River are Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee Dams and
their reservoirs. These projects are owned and operated by the Idaho
Power Company to produce electrical power. The Mainstem Snake River CHU
includes 552.2 km (343.1 mi) of streams proposed as critical habitat.
This unit provides foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for justification of
why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies
are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 26), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 24: Malheur River Basin Unit (Upper Snake Recovery Unit)
The Malheur River Basin CHU is in eastern Oregon within Grant,
Baker, Harney, and Malheur Counties. A total of 250.7 km (155.8 mi) of
streams and 715.9 ha (1,768.9 ac) of reservoir surface area are
proposed as critical habitat. There are two local bull trout
populations (Upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur Rivers (Service 2002,
pp. 34-35)). The Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan also identified several
streams, including Bosonberg Creek, McCoy Creek, and Corral Basin
Creek, for expansion of bull trout range within the upper Malheur River
local population (Service 2002, pp. 34-35). Summit Creek is considered
potential suitable bull trout habitat and is included in the proposed
designation. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory,
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of
this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in
some cases individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat,
and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p.
27), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 25: Jarbidge River Unit
The Jarbidge River CHU encompasses the Jarbidge and Bruneau River
basins, which drain into the Snake River within C.J. Strike Reservoir
upstream of Grand View, Idaho. The Jarbidge River CHU is located
approximately 70 miles north of Elko within Owyhee County in
southwestern Idaho and Elko County in northeastern Nevada.
The Jarbidge River CHU includes 266.9 km (165.9 mi) of streams
proposed as critical habitat. The Jarbidge River CHU contains six local
populations of resident and migratory bull trout and the stream
segments in the Jarbidge River CHU provide either FMO or spawning and
rearing habitat. These habitats maintain the population and the
migratory life-history form essential to the species' long-term
conservation and provide habitat necessary for the recovered
distribution of bull trout (Service 2004b, pp. 7-9). The stream
segments that make up the Jarbidge Unit are described below. This unit
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 27), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 26: Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit
The Southwest Idaho River Basins CHU is located in southwest Idaho
in the following counties: Adams, Boise, Camas, Canyon, Elmore, Gem,
Valley, and Washington. This unit includes eight CHSUs: Anderson Ranch,
Arrowrock Reservoir, South Fork Payette River, Deadwood River, Middle
Fork Payette River, North Fork Payette River, Squaw Creek, and Weiser
River. The Southwest Idaho River Basins CHU includes approximately
2,716.7 km (1,688.1 mi) of streams and 15,540.2 ha (38,400.6 ac) of
lake and reservoir surface area proposed as critical habitat. The
subunits within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging,
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed
description of this unit and subunits, for justification of why this
CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are
proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by
bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 27-28), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 27: Salmon River Basin Unit
The Salmon River basin extends across central Idaho from the Snake
River to the Montana-Idaho border. The Salmon River Basin CHU extends
across portions of Adams, Blaine, Custer, Idaho, Lemhi, Nez Perce, and
Valley Counties in Idaho. There are 10 CHSUs: Little-Lower Salmon
River, Opal Lake, Lake Creek, South Fork Salmon River, Middle Salmon-
Panther River, Middle Fork Salmon River, Middle Salmon Chamberlain
River, Upper Salmon River, Lemhi River, and Pahsimeroi River. The
Salmon River Basin CHU includes 8,119.4 km (5,045.1 mi) of stream and
1,659.5 ha (4,100.6 ac) of lake and reservoir surface area proposed as
critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide spawning,
rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat.
For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for justification
of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases individual water
bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for documentation of
occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 29-30), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 28: Little Lost River Unit
Located within Butte, Custer, and Lemhi Counties in east-central
Idaho, near the town of Arco, Idaho, designated critical habitat in the
Little Lost River CHU includes 206.6 km (128.4 mi) of streams proposed
as critical habitat. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging,
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see
Service (2009 p. 30), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 29: Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit (Columbia Headwaters Recovery
Unit)
Located in Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah, Bonner, and Latah Counties
in Idaho, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin CHU includes the entire Coeur
d'Alene Lake basin in northern Idaho. A total of 819.6 km (509.3 mi) of
streams and 12,606.9 ha (31,152.2 ac) of lake surface area are proposed
as critical habitat. There are no subunits within the Coeur d'Alene
River Basin CHU. This unit provides spawning, rearing, foraging,
migratory, connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed
description of this unit, for justification of why this CHU, included
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as
critical habitat, and for
[[Page 2290]]
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 31), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 30: Kootenai River Basin Unit
The Kootenai River Basin CHU is located in the northwestern corner
of Montana and the northeastern tip of the Idaho panhandle and includes
the Kootenai River watershed upstream and downstream of Libby Dam. The
Kootenai River flows in a unique horseshoe configuration, entering the
United States from British Columbia, Canada, and then traversing across
northwest Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle before returning to
British Columbia from Idaho where it eventually joins the upper
Columbia River drainage. The Kootenai River Basin CHU includes two
CHSUs: the downstream Kootenai River CHSU in Boundary County, Idaho,
and Lincoln County, Montana, and the upstream Lake Koocanusa CHSU in
Lincoln County, Montana. The entire Kootenai River Basin CHU includes
587.0 km (364.7 mi) of streams and 12,089.2 ha (29,873.1 ac) of lake
and reservoir surface area proposed as critical habitat. The subunits
within this unit provide spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory,
connecting, and overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of
this unit and subunits, for justification of why this CHU, included
CHSUs, or in some cases individual water bodies are proposed as
critical habitat, and for documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see
Service (2009 pp. 31-32), or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 31: Clark Fork River Basin Unit
The Clark Fork River Basin CHU includes the northeastern corner of
Washington (Pend Oreille County), the panhandle portion of northern
Idaho (Boundary, Bonner, and Kootenai Counties), and most of western
Montana (Lincoln, Flathead, Sanders, Lake, Mineral, Missoula, Powell,
Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, Granite, and Deer Lodge Counties). This unit
includes 12 CHSUs, organized primarily on the basis of major
watersheds: Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest
River (Lake Pend Oreille); Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest
Lakes); Lower Clark Fork River; Middle Clark Fork River; Upper Clark
Fork River; Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes
(Flathead); Swan River and Lakes (Swan); Hungry Horse Reservoir, South
Fork Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead);
Bitterroot River; Blackfoot River; Clearwater River and Lakes; and Rock
Creek. The Clark Fork River Basin CHU includes 5,332.1 km (3,313.2 mi)
of streams and 119,473.5 ha (295,225.5 ac) of 45 lakes and reservoirs
proposed as critical habitat. The subunits within this unit provide
spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and overwintering
habitat. For a detailed description of this unit and subunits, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 pp. 32-36),
or http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Unit 32: Saint Mary River Basin Unit (Saint Mary Recovery Unit)
We are proposing to designate critical habitat for bull trout in
identified stream segments and lakes in the Saint Mary River Basin CHU
in Montana. The entire U.S. portion of the Saint Mary River drainage,
which forms the Saint Mary River Basin CHU, is located in Glacier
County, Montana. The total stream distance proposed for designation as
critical habitat in Montana is about 116.8 km (72.6 mi), and the five
lakes have a surface area of about 2,555.4 ha (6,314.5 ac).
Most high-elevation waters in Glacier National Park were
historically fishless. Due to natural migration barriers, bull trout
occupancy in the headwaters of the Belly River drainage (directly west
of and adjacent to the Saint Mary River drainage) was confined to only
a very minor portion of the U.S habitat near the international border.
Due to this restricted U.S. distribution and the fact that all FMO
habitat for these populations is in Alberta, Canada, the Belly River
headwaters in unroaded backcountry of Glacier National Park are not
included in this proposed critical habitat designation. This unit
provides spawning, rearing, foraging, migratory, connecting, and
overwintering habitat. For a detailed description of this unit, for
justification of why this CHU, included CHSUs, or in some cases
individual water bodies are proposed as critical habitat, and for
documentation of occupancy by bull trout, see Service (2009 p. 36), or
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions
by the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have
invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification''
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9\th\ Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5\th\ Cir.
2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or retain those physical or biological
features that relate to the ability of the area to periodically support
the species) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
Federal activities that may affect bull trout or its designated
critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act.
Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands that are
not federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7
consultation.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure the activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or
its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely
[[Page 2291]]
modify critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative
actions identified during consultation that:
Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action;
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
Are economically and technologically feasible; and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which consultation has been completed, if those
actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Jeopardy'' and ``Adverse Modification'' Standards
Jeopardy Standard
Currently, the Service applies an analytical framework for bull
trout jeopardy analysis that relies heavily on the importance of known
core area populations to the survival and recovery of bull trout. The
section 7(a)(2) of the Act analysis is focused not only on these
populations, but also on the habitat conditions that support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of bull trout in a qualitative fashion without making
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery. Generally, the jeopardy analysis focuses on the
range-wide status of bull trout, the factors responsible for that
condition, and what is necessary for this species to survive and
recover. An emphasis is also placed on characterizing the condition of
bull trout in the area affected by the proposed Federal action and the
role of affected populations in the survival and recovery of bull
trout. That context is then used to determine the significance of
adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed Federal action and any
cumulative effects for purposes of making the jeopardy determination.
Core areas form the building blocks that provide for conserving the
bull trout's evolutionary legacy as represented by major genetic
groups. The jeopardy analysis also considers any conservation measures
that may be proposed by a Federal action agency to minimize or
compensate for adverse project effects to the bull trout or to promote
its recovery.
If a proposed Federal action is incompatible with the viability of
the affected core area population(s), inclusive of associated habitat
conditions, a jeopardy finding may be warranted, because of the
relationship of each core area population to the survival and recovery
of the species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for
Federal actions affecting bull trout critical habitat. The key factor
related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the
species, or retain those physical and biological features that relate
to the ability of the area to periodically support the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for bull
trout. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support
the life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation
of the species. Generally, the conservation role of bull trout critical
habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
Since the primary threat to bull trout is habitat loss or
degredation, the jeopardy analysis under section 7 of the Act for a
project with a Federal nexus will most likely evaluate the effects of
the action on the conservation or functionality of the habitat for the
bull trout. Because of this, we believe that in many cases the analysis
of the project to address designated critical habitat will be
comparable. As such, we do not anticipate, for many circumstances, that
the outcome of the consultation to address critical habitat will result
in any significant additional project modifications or measures.
When consulting under section 7(a)(2) in designated critical
habitat, independent analyses are conducted for jeopardy to the species
and adverse modification of critical habitat. In occupied bull trout
habitat, any adverse modification determination would likely also
result in a jeopardy determination for the same action. As such,
project modifications that may be needed to minimize impacts to the
species would coincidentally minimize impacts to critical habitat.
Accordingly, in occupied critical habitat it is unlikely that an
analysis would identify a difference between measures needed to avoid
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat from
measures needed to avoid jeopardizing the species. Alternatively, in
unoccupied critical habitat, we would not conduct a jeopardy analysis,
however, measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification may
be necessary to ensure that the affected critical habitat area can
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species, or
retain the physical and biological features related to the ability of
the area to periodically support the species.
The adverse modification analysis focuses on the range-wide status
of critical habitat, the factors responsible for that condition, and
what is necessary for critical habitat to provide the necessary
conservation value to the bull trout. An emphasis is placed on
characterizing the functional condition of critical habitat PCEs in the
area affected by the proposed Federal action. This analysis then
addresses how the critical habitat PCEs will be affected, and in turn,
how this will influence the conservation role of critical habitat units
in support of viable core area populations. That context is then used
to determine the significance of adverse and beneficial effects of the
proposed Federal action and any cumulative effects for purposes of
making the adverse modification determination at the range-wide scale.
If a proposed Federal action would alter the physical or biological
features of critical habitat to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation function of critical habitat for the bull trout, an
adverse modification finding for the proposed action is considered to
be warranted. The intended purpose of critical habitat to support
viable core areas establishes a sensitive scale for relating effects of
an
[[Page 2292]]
action on CHUs or subunits to the conservation function of the entire
designated critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized
by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, result
in consultation for the bull trout include, but are not limited to:
(1) Detrimental alteration of the minimum flow or the natural flow
regime of any of the designated stream segments. Possible actions would
include groundwater pumping, impoundment, water diversion, and
hydropower generation. We note that such flow alterations resulting
from actions affecting tributaries of the designated stream reaches may
also destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
(2) Alterations to the designated stream segments that could
indirectly cause significant and detrimental effects to bull trout
habitat. Possible actions include vegetation manipulation, timber
harvest, road construction and maintenance, prescribed fire, livestock
grazing, off-road vehicle use, powerline or pipeline construction and
repair, mining, and development. Riparian vegetation profoundly
influences instream habitat conditions by providing shade, organic
matter, root strength, bank stability, and large woody debris inputs to
streams. These characteristics influence water temperature, structure
and physical attributes (useable habitat space, depth, width, channel
roughness, cover complexity), and food supply.
(3) Detrimental alteration of the channel morphology of any of the
designated stream segments. Possible actions would include
channelization; impoundment; road and bridge construction; deprivation
of substrate source; destruction and alteration of aquatic or riparian
vegetation; reduction of available floodplain; removal of gravel or
floodplain terrace materials; and excessive sedimentation from mining,
livestock grazing, road construction, timber harvest, off-road vehicle
use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. We note that such
actions in the upper watershed (beyond the riparian area) may also
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. For example, timber
harvest activities and associated road construction in upland areas can
lead to changes in channel morphology by altering sediment production,
debris loading, and peak flows.
(4) Detrimental alterations to the water chemistry in any of the
designated stream segments. Possible actions would include release of
chemical or biological pollutants into the surface water or connected
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed releases (nonpoint).
(5) Proposed activities that are likely to result in the
introduction, spread, or augmentation of nonnative species in any of
the designated stream segments. Possible actions would include fish
stocking, use of live bait fish, aquaculture, improper construction and
operation of canals, and interbasin water transfers.
(6) Proposed activities that are likely to create significant
instream barriers to bull trout movement. Possible actions would
include water diversions, impoundments, and hydropower generation where
effective fish passage facilities, mechanisms, or procedures are not
provided.
We consider all 32 CHUs to contain features essential to the
conservation of the bull trout. All units are within the geographic
range of the species, and portions of all units were occupied by the
species at the time of listing (based on observations made within the
last 20 years). All units are likely to be used by the bull trout for
foraging, migrating, overwintering, spawning, or rearing.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
currently occupied by the bull trout to ensure that their actions do
not jeopardize the continued existence of the bull trout. These
agencies may need to request reinitiation on some of their existing
activities if the agency has continued discretional involvement or
control and if the activity may affect designated critical habitat.
However, we anticipate the burden of reinitiation will be minor because
of the aforementioned similarity between measures needed to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and measures
needed to avoid jeopardizing the species. In addition, consultation
tools such as streamlining and programmatic consultations are commonly
implemented to minimize the administrative costs associated with
consultation within the range of the bull trout. We expect these tools
will continue be used for any reinitiations of consultation for bull
trout critical habitat, thereby minimizing any additional
administrative costs associated with designating the critical habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. Sec.
670a) required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Publ.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation of
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides, ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.
670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
Columbia and Coastal-Puget Sound populations of bull trout and which
contain those features essential to the species' conservation, to
determine if these installations may warrant consideration for
exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Each of the
[[Page 2293]]
Department of Defense (DOD) installations identified below has been
conducting surveys and habitat management to benefit the bull trout,
and reporting the results of their efforts to the Service. Cooperation
between the DOD installations and the Service on specific conservation
measures continues.
Approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
We have examined the INRMPs for each of these military
installations to determine whether they provide benefits to bull trout.
Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface Warfare Center
The Bayview Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Bayview, Idaho, has an approved INRMP. This property
includes approximately 9.0 ha (22.0 ac) of developed land on the shore
of Lake Pend Oreille and 7.0 ha (17.3 ac) of lake area. There are no
tributary streams within this area utilized by bull trout for spawning
or early life rearing, but the lake area does contain important FMO
habitat for bull trout.
Bayview ARD's INRMP outlines protection and management strategies
for natural resources on the center, including fish species and their
habitats. The plan benefits bull trout through the protection of
kokanee salmon spawning habitat, a primary food source for bull trout.
The Bayview ARD property in Scenic Bay hosts from 40 to 70 percent of
the kokanee spawning activity in Lake Pend Oreille, depending on the
year. The INRMP includes measures to minimize impacts to kokanee
habitat by limiting facility boat traffic during spawning periods
(November-December) and implementing sediment control measures.
Furthermore, interpretive signs have been placed throughout the
property to educate employees and the public regarding various aspects
of the region's natural resources, threatened or endangered species
(including bull trout), and geological history. The INRMP requires the
natural resource manager to provide ARD INRMP awareness training to
facilitate INRMP implementation.
Based on the above considerations and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Bayview ARD INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to bull trout occurring
in habitats within or adjacent to Bayview ARD. Therefore, lands within
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 7 ha (16
ac) of habitat in this proposed critical habitat designation because of
this exemption.
Naval Radio Station Jim Creek, Naval Station Everett, Naval Air Station
Whidbey Island, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation
Naval Radio Station Jim Creek in western Washington has an approved
INRMP. The Naval Radio Station Jim Creek occurs in the Jim Creek
watershed. The lower reaches of Jim Creek provide foraging habitat for
subadult and adult bull trout. The Naval Radio Station Jim Creek INRMP
provides benefits to bull trout through (1) restoration of riparian
buffers along Jim Creek, (2) protection of Jim Creek from erosion and
sedimentation, and (3) protection of Jim Creek from contaminants and
herbicides.
Naval Station Everett in western Washington has an approved INRMP.
The Naval Station Everett property includes land on or near the shores
of Puget Sound that contain important foraging and migration habitat
for amphidromous (fish that move between fresh and salt water but not
to breed) bull trout. The Naval Station Everett's INRMP benefits bull
trout by providing (1) protection to bull trout in the marine
environment from oil spills around berthing naval vessels; (2)
bioswales to prevent the release of toxins, contaminants, and oils from
reaching the water column through storm drains; and (3) restoration of
riparian habitat on Navy lands located along the Middle Fork Quilceda
Creek.
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in western Washington has an
approved INRMP. The Naval Station Whidbey Island property includes land
on or near the shores of Puget Sound that contain important foraging
and migration habitat for amphidromous bull trout. Naval Aviation
Station Whidbey Island's INRMP benefits bull trout through (1)
monitoring and managing livestock grazing, (2) managing road building
and maintenance to prevent erosion and sedimentation of bull trout
habitat, (3) assuring proper disposal of hazardous materials, and (4)
implementation of their Integrated Pest Management Plan's best
management practices to protect aquatic environments.
The U.S. Army Fort Lewis Installation (Fort Lewis) located in
western Washington has an approved INRMP. Fort Lewis borders the
Nisqually River and Puget Sound near important foraging and migration
habitat for amphidromous bull trout. The INRMP for Fort Lewis benefits
bull trout through (1) protecting and enhancing wetlands (e.g., all
wetlands-marshes, lakes, rivers, and streams are protected with 300-
foot-wide riparian buffers to maintain cold water temperatures, prevent
sediment from entering the streams, and to provide for woody debris);
(2) controlling invasive plant species that often diminish water
quality and impact native plants and animals; and (3) restoring salmon
spawning habitat and access to increase salmon productivity, which
contributes to and enhances the bull trout prey base.
Habitat features essential to bull trout conservation are present
within or immediately adjacent to each of these DOD installations, and
each installation has an approved INRMP. Activities occurring on these
installations are being conducted in a manner that provides a benefit
to bull trout. In addition, these installations already consult with us
under section 7 of the Act on their actions (including those occurring
in the open water training and testing areas) that may adversely affect
bull trout and their habitat.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Naval Radio Station Jim Creek, Naval Station
Everett, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and U.S. Army Fort Lewis
Installation INRMPs and that conservation efforts identified in the
INRMPs will provide a benefit to bull trout occurring in habitats
within or adjacent to DOD installations. Therefore, lands within these
installations are exempt from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately a total
of 40 km (24.9 mi) of habitat determined to contain features essential
to the conservation of the bull trout in this proposed critical habitat
designation because of these exemptions.
.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific
[[Page 2294]]
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts to
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in the overall conservation of the bull trout through the continuation,
strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships and the implementation
of management plans or programs that provide equal to or more
conservation for the bull trout than could be achieved through a
designation of critical habitat.
In the case of bull trout, where there may be little additional
regulatory effects in areas occupied by the species resulting from the
designation, the benefits of critical habitat include educational
benefits resulting from identification of the features essential to the
conservation of bull trout and the delineation of the areas important
for its recovery. Further, there may be additional benefits realized by
providing landowners, stakeholders, and project proponents greater
certainty about which specific areas are important for bull trout that
should be effectively addressed through coordination and consultation
of activities that may affect those areas or essential features
contained therein. Thus, critical habitat designation increases public
awareness of bull trout presence and the importance of habitat
protection and, in cases where a Federal nexus exists, increases
habitat protection for bull trout due to the protection from adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of factors
including, but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it
provides for the conservation of the essential physical and biological
features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be
adapted in the future in response to new information.
The Secretary can consider the existence of conservation agreements
and other land management plans with Federal, private, State, and
Tribal entities when making decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The Secretary may also consider voluntary partnerships and conservation
plans, and weigh the implementation and effectiveness of these against
that of designation. Consideration of relevant impacts of designation
or exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited to,
any of the following factors: (1) whether the plan provides specific
information on how it protects the species and the physical and
biological features, and whether the plan is at a geographic scope
commensurate with the species; (2) whether the plan is complete and
will be effective at conserving and protecting of the physical and
biological features; (3) whether a reasonable expectation exists that
conservation management strategies and actions will be implemented,
that those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of
achieving the objectives, that an implementation schedule exists, and
that adequate funding exists; (4) whether the plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e.,
identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and
is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan); (5) whether the
plan has a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective; (6) the degree to which the record
supports a conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair
the benefits of the plan; (7) the extent of public participation; (8)
demonstrated track record of implementation success; (9) level of
public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative efforts and
encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and (10) the effect
designation would have on partnerships.
After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the
benefits of excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its
inclusion in critical habitat. If we determine that the benefits of
excluding a particular area outweigh the benefits of its inclusion,
then the Secretary can exercise his discretion to exclude the area,
provided that the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the
species.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat may be appropriate
for exclusion from the final designation. If our analysis results in a
determination that the benefits of excluding particular areas from the
final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those areas as
critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the particular areas from the final designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant
impacts, including economic impacts. In addition to economic impacts
(discussed in Economics Analysis section below), we consider a number
of factors in a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we consider
whether there are lands owned by the DOD where a national security
impact might exist. We also consider whether Federal or private
landowners or other public agencies have developed management plans or
HCPs for the area or whether there are conservation partnerships that
would be encouraged or discouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat in an area. In addition, we look at the presence
of tribal lands or Tribal trust resources that might be affected, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with the tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation. To ensure that our final
determination is based on the best available information, we are
inviting comments on any foreseeable economic, national security, or
other potential impacts resulting from this proposed designation
[[Page 2295]]
of critical habitat from governmental, business, or private interests
and, in particular, any potential impacts on small businesses.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. The Navy conducts essential training and
testing within the marine waters of Crescent Harbor and Dabob Bay in
western Washington. These activities are conducted in open marine
waters not controlled by the military and are not included in adjacent
military INRMPs. However, because these training and testing activities
may be essential for national security, we are evaluating whether it
may be appropriate to consider the particular areas where these
activities occur for exclusion from the final designation of critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Most federally-listed species in the United States will not recover
without cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of
the United States is privately owned (Lubowski et al. 2006, p. 35), and
at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur either
partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al.2002, p. 720). Stein
et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 percent of listed
species were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 100
percent of their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and
that 50 percent of federally-listed species are not known to occur on
Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to
landownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the
United States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide
variety of entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal
landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al.2002, p. 720;
James 2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of
species on non-Federal lands and necessary to implement recovery
actions, such as the reintroduction of listed species, habitat
restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing
to endangered species recovery. Conservation agreements with non-
Federal landowners, safe harbor agreements, other conservation
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations enhance species
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available
through section 7 consultations. We encourage non-Federal landowners to
enter into conservation agreements based on a view that we can achieve
greater species conservation on non-Federal land through such
partnerships than we can through regulatory methods (61 FR 63854).
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible
consequences of attracting endangered species to their property.
Mounting evidence suggests that some regulatory actions by the
government, while well intentioned and required by law, can (under
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al.1996, pp. 5-6;
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp.
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al.2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic
opportunities (Main et al.1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al.2003, pp.
1644-1648).
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al.1999, p.
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al.2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management,
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe the judicious exclusion of specific
areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations
can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of
conservation than critical habitat alone.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus,
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or
voluntary conservation efforts can, in specific circumstances, be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands with Habitat Conservation Plans
The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation include relieving landowners, communities, and
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a
result of the critical habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many
conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from
critical habitat designation is that it can make it easier for us to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range
of species, including species that are not State and federally-listed
and would otherwise receive little protection from development. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of
[[Page 2296]]
``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat
designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may affect the
listed species would still require consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act, and we would review these actions for possible significant
habitat modification in accordance with the definition of harm
referenced above.
For the reasons discussed under the ``Application of Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this rule, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
identified certain areas that we are considering excluding from the
final revised critical habitat designation for bull trout. However, we
solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such particular areas
(see Public Comments section). During the development of the final
revised designation, we will consider economic impacts, public
comments, and other new information. As a result, additional particular
areas, in addition to those identified below for potential exclusion in
this proposed rule, may be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We consider a current plan to be appropriate for consideration for
exclusion from a final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act if:
(1) It provides for the conservation of the essential physical and
biological features;
(2) there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future; and
(3) the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be
effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or
adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are
effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new
information.
Below is a brief description of each plan and the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by each plan that we are considering for
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat occurring
on lands managed under the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation
Plan in the Kootenai and Clark Fork CHUs in the Columbia Headwaters
draft recovery unit in Montana. Plum Creek Timber Company initiated an
effort in 1997 to develop a conservation strategy for native salmonids
(including bull trout) occurring on 647,500 ha (1.6 million ac) of Plum
Creek's timberlands in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. The stated
purpose of the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan (NFHCP)
was to help conserve native salmonids and their ecosystems while
allowing Plum Creek to continue to conduct commercial timber harvest
within a framework of long-term regulatory certainty and flexibility.
The NFHCP was permitted in 2000; Plum Creek no longer owns any of the
lands that were covered under that HCP in the States of Idaho and
Washington.
Currently, there are 392,393 ha (969,624 ac) of remaining Plum
Creek land in Montana that are still covered by the original permit
under the NFHCP. The NFHCP provisions cover approximately 550,700 ha
(1.4 million ac) in western Montana and within its headwaters of the
Columbia River basin (Clark Fork and Kootenai River watersheds). In
2003-2004, when the Stimson Lumber Company (Stimson) acquired about
32,650 ha (80,681 ac) of lands previously owned by Plum Creek, Stimson
legally assumed all of the Plum Creek NFHCP commitments in that area by
executing an assignment and assumption agreement. In 2008, the Montana
Working Forests Project was initiated, which will result in the
transfer of over 125,580 ha (310,312 ac) of Plum Creek NFHCP lands to
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Funds for the acquisition were obtained
through a provision within the 2008 Farm Bill, and most of those lands
are destined to eventually be transferred to either the Service or the
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP). Phase III of the Montana
Working Forests Project is expected to close at the end of 2010 and
will include an additional 28,135 ha (69,522 ac). Similar to Stimson,
and through an agreement, TNC assumed the NFHCP commitments on
previously owned Plum Creek lands for the first two phases of the
Montana Working Forests Project and is anticipated to do the same for
Phase III.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Habitat
Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat occurring
on 175,263 ha (433,084 ac) of lakes managed under the proposed DNRC
Habitat Conservation Plan in the Kootenai, Clark Fork and Saint Mary
CHUs in the Columbia Headwaters draft recovery unit, contingent on the
compatibility of timing between the final HCP and the final bull trout
revised critical habitat rule. The DNRC is developing an HCP for forest
management activities on its forested State trust lands in Montana,
which are managed by the Trust Lands Management Division (TLMD). The
mission of the TLMD is to manage trust land resources to produce
revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental
factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the
land. Under its forest management program, the TLMD generates revenues
for trust beneficiaries through timber harvest on classified forest
trust lands. DNRC manages its forested trust lands in accordance with
the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP) (DNRC 1996) and the
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARMs) for Forest Management (ARMs
36.11.401-456) (Forest Management ARMs). DNRC's forested trust lands
also support Federally-listed threatened species. The ARMs direct DNRC
to confer with the Service to develop habitat mitigation measures to
address the needs of listed species.
This proposed HCP is a programmatic plan that identifies DNRC's
proposal for managing federally-listed species on DNRC's forested trust
lands. Species covered under the HCP include bull trout, westslope
cutthroat trout, Columbia redband trout, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos),
and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). DNRC has proposed that a permit be
issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act by the Service for a period
of 50 years, and views the HCP as a long-term program for addressing
and improving habitat needs across the landscape. DNRC evaluated which
trust lands to include in the HCP by assessing where species overlapped
with trust lands containing appreciable amounts of manageable forest
area. This approach was adopted to ensure those lands facing the
greatest risk of impacts from forest management actions were included
in the plan so risks could be mitigated.
The HCP project area includes primarily forested trust lands, but
it contains other non-forested trust lands that are portions of, or are
needed to access, forested parcels included in the HCP project area.
The DNRC HCP would cover forest management activities on forested trust
lands that provide habitat for the HCP species and include timber
harvest (commercial timber, salvage harvest, and silvicultural
treatments such as thinning); other forest management activities (slash
disposal, prescribed burning, site preparation, reforestation,
fertilization, forest inventory, and access to forested lands for weed
control); roads (forest management road construction,
[[Page 2297]]
reconstruction, maintenance, use, and associated gravel quarrying for
forest road surface materials, as well as installation, removal, and
replacement of stream crossing structures); and livestock grazing
(grazing licenses on classified forest trust lands).
The public comment period for the DNRC HCP closed October 6, 2009;
the current schedule calls for publishing the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) in October 2010. The Record of Decision (ROD)
would be finalized 30 days after publication of the FEIS, and a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit could be issued at that time, if the Service
determines that issuance of a permit is appropriate. To be considered
for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat for the
bull trout, the DNRC HCP will need to be completed and finalized prior
to the finalization of critical habitat, which is due by September 30,
2010.
Washington Department of Natural Resources Habitat Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding lands managed under the
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) HCP in the Coastal
Recovery Unit: Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and Lower Columbia CHUs.
The WDNR HCP covers State forest trust lands within the range of the
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the State of
Washington. The majority of the lands covered by the HCP (approximately
526,100 ha (1.3 million ac) is west of the Cascade Crest and includes
the Olympic Peninsula and southwest Washington. The remainder of the
lands are on the east side of the Cascade Range within the range of the
northern spotted owl. The HCP covers activities primarily associated
with commercial forest management. West of the Cascade Crest, the HCP
covers all species, including bull trout and other salmonids. On the
east side of the Cascade Crest, bull trout and other aquatic species
are not covered under the HCP, and DNR follows State forest practice
rules for riparian management and other forestry activities. The DNR
HCP lands on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula are managed as the
Olympic Experimental State Forest. The multispecies portion of the HCP
depends upon several broad-scale conservation approaches: spotted owl
conservation, marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) conservation,
riparian conservation, certain species-specific protection measures,
protection of uncommon habitats, and provisions to maintain a range of
forest types across the HCP landscape.
Green Diamond Habitat Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands
managed under the Green Diamond Habitat Conservation Plan in Coastal
Recovery Unit, Olympic Peninsula CHU. In October 2000, Simpson Timber
Company (now Green Diamond), completed an HCP, and we issued a permit
authorizing incidental take associated with forestry operations on the
company's Washington timberlands located on or adjacent to the Olympic
Peninsula in Mason, Thurston, and Grays Harbor Counties. The HCP is
designed to conserve riparian forests, improve water quality, prevent
management-related hill-slope instability, and address hydrological
maturity of small subbasins. The HCP addresses five listed species,
including bull trout, and 46 non-listed species. The HCP covers the
land owned by Green Diamond along the lower reaches of the North and
South Fork Skokomish Rivers, the upper South Fork Skokomish River, West
Fork Satsop River, and Canyon River.
City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands
managed under the City of Seattle Cedar River Watershed HCP in the
Coastal Recovery Unit, Puget Sound CHU. In April 2000, the City of
Seattle completed an HCP, and we issued an incidental take permit
authorizing water withdrawal and water supply activities affecting
flows in the lower Cedar River and reservoir levels in Chester Morse
Lake. The plan provides for forestry restoration activities, including
riparian thinning, road abandonment, and timber stand improvement in
the upper Cedar River Watershed in King County. The HCP is designed to
provide adequate fish flows in the lower Cedar River for the spawning
and rearing of several salmonid species, manage water levels in Chester
Morse Lake and Masonry Dam Reservoir to benefit instream flows in the
lower Cedar River and bull trout spawning access to lake tributaries,
and manage these lands in the upper Cedar River as an ecological
reserve. Several research actions are directed at understanding how all
life stages of bull trout use Chester Morse Lake and Masonry Pool and
how adult bull trout use tributaries to the lake for spawning. The HCP
covers 83 species of fish and wildlife, including bull trout and 6
other listed species.
Tacoma Water Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed
Protection Habitat Conservation Plan
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on lands
managed under the Tacoma Green River Water Supply Operations and
Watershed Protection HCP in the Coastal Recovery Unit, Puget Sound CHU.
The Tacoma Water Green River Water Supply Operations and Watershed
Protection HCP was completed in July 2001, addressing upstream and
downstream fish passage issues, flows in the Middle and lower Green
River, and timber and watershed management activities on Tacoma-owned
land in the upper Green River Watershed. The HCP covers 32 species
(including bull trout), and includes an upstream fish passage facility
that will open up 57,000 ha (140,800 ac) of previously blocked fish
habitat, sponsorship and funding for a downstream fish-passage facility
at the Corps of Engineers' Howard Hanson Dam, water-flow improvements,
improved riparian forest management on Tacoma's lands, and several
major habitat restoration projects.
Washington State Forest Practices Rules and Forest Practices
Regulations
The Service is considering excluding all public and private lands
in the State of Washington that would be managed under the Washington
forest practice rules. These lands occur in the Coastal Recovery Unit
(Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and Lower Columbia CHUs), Mid-Columbia
Recovery Unit (Snake River Basin, Walla Walla River Basins, Yakima
River, and Upper Columbia River CHUs), and the Columbia Headwaters
Recovery Unit (Clark Fork River Basin CHU). Beginning in late 1996,
faced with the imminent listing of several salmonid species under the
Act, including bull trout, a diverse group of stakeholders in
Washington State agreed to address emerging riparian habitat issues.
The effort resulted in the Forests and Fish Report (FFR) in April 1999.
Later that year, the Washington State Legislature passed the Forest
Practices Salmon Recovery Act (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2091),
which directed the Washington Forest Practices Board to adopt new
rules, encouraging the Forest Practices Board to follow the
recommendations of the FFR. To further the purpose of regulatory
stability, the Forest Practices Salmon Recovery Act also limited future
changes to the new rules so that, outside of a court order or
legislative directive, new rules could be adopted by the Forest
Practices Board only if the changes or new rules are consistent with
[[Page 2298]]
the recommendations resulting from the scientifically based adaptive
management process included in the FFR. The language further solidified
the adaptive management process as a key component of the FFR
conservation program.
Following the passage in 1999 of emergency forest practices rules
based on the FFR, the Washington Forest Practices Board adopted new
permanent rules in May 2001. Effective July 2001, these rules cover a
wide variety of forest practices and include (1) a new, more
functional, classification of rivers and streams on non-Federal and
non-tribal forestland; (2) improved plans for properly designing,
maintaining, and upgrading existing and new forest roads; (3)
additional protections for unstable slopes; and (4) greater protections
for riparian areas intended to restore or maintain properly functioning
aquatic and riparian habitat conditions. In addition to these
substantive provisions, the rules adopted the procedural
recommendations of the FFR that address adaptive management, training,
and other features. The Washington State Legislature and the U.S.
Congress continued to support the collaboration with significant
funding for the research, monitoring, and adaptive management
activities called for in the FFR. In May 2006, the State forest
practice rules were formally incorporated into the Washington State
Forest Practices HCP.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Lewis River Hydroelectric Project Conservation Easements
The Service is considering excluding 48 km (30 mi) of bull trout
habitat associated with the Lewis River Hydroelectric Project
Conservation Easements in the Coastal Recovery Unit, Columbia River
Basin CHU. PacifiCorp manages four projects and three dams impounding
river habitat on the Lewis River in Washington, located in portions of
Clark, Cowlitz, and Skamania Counties. Bull trout are present in all of
the reservoirs; the upper two reservoirs are used by the majority of
individuals within the spawning populations. A settlement agreement
(Agreement) for the relicensing of the Yale, Merwin, Swift No. 1, and
Swift No. 2 Hydroelectric Projects was signed on November 30, 2004.
Conservation measures are incorporated in the Agreement to minimize or
compensate for the effects of the projects on listed species, including
bull trout. Conservation measures for bull trout include: perpetual
conservation covenants on PacifiCorp's lands in the Cougar/Panamaker
Creek area and PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD's lands along the Swift Creek
arm of Swift Creek Reservoir, upstream and downstream fish passage
improvements at all reservoirs, limiting factors analysis for bull
trout to determine additional enhancement measures, public information
program to protect bull trout, and monitoring and evaluation efforts
for bull trout conservation measures. This agreement will also restore
anadromous salmon to the upper Lewis River system, restoring a
significant part of the historic forage base for bull trout.
Snake River Basin Adjudication
The Service is considering excluding bull trout habitat on
18,615,000 ha (46 million ac) of lands managed under the Snake River
Basin Adjudication agreement in central Idaho. The stream flows in the
basin were subject to litigation for 21 years. Litigants were the
Federal Government, Nez Perce Tribe, and State of Idaho. In 2004, a
settlement was reached by the parties in the proceeding. A Mediator's
Term Sheet was developed to guide the settlement of the case, which
identifies the responsibilities of the parties over the 30-year term of
the agreement. The settlement was announced on May 15, 2004, by the
Secretary of the Interior, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Chairman, and Governor of Idaho.
As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to establish a
habitat fund under two separate accounts, one for the Nez Perce Tribe
and one for the State. The State account is managed through cooperative
agreements under section 6 of the Act, and addresses off-reservation
stream flow and forestry programs. The funds will be used to conduct
habitat protection and restoration projects in the Salmon and
Clearwater River basins (tributaries to the Snake River), including
programs intended to protect and restore listed fish and their habitat.
The United States will contribute $38 million to these accounts
according to a schedule determined by Congress in the enacting
legislation. To date, the State has received $5 million per year for 3
years and is expected to receive an additional $5 million for the next
2 years. Most of the funds have been used to acquire conservation
easements on lands with anadromous habitat and some limited habitat
restoration.
On December 8, 2004, the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004 was
enacted to resolve outstanding issues; reach a final settlement of
tribal claims; authorize, ratify, and confirm the Agreement among the
parties; direct Federal agencies to execute and perform necessary
actions to carry out the agreement; and authorize actions and
appropriations under the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) and the
Act for the United States to meet its obligations. On March 31, 2005, a
Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the State of Idaho, Nez
Perce Tribe, Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
establish a process for using the habitat trust fund accounts for
habitat protection and restoration projects in the Salmon and
Clearwater River basins in Idaho.
In a March 2005 letter, in response to a request from the State of
Idaho, the Service and NMFS provided specific information as to the
standard that would be the basis for the cooperative agreement under
section 6 of the Act to implement the term sheet. In that letter, the
two agencies indicated that meeting the express statutory requirements
in section 6 of the Act for an adequate and active program for the
conservation of the species, in this case, bull trout and salmon, would
be required.
The Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the
State are in the process of developing a Draft EIS for entering into a
Cooperative Agreement on the Idaho Forestry Program. This Program would
apply to private and State lands in the Clearwater and Salmon River
basins. The Service will evaluate whether the Idaho Forestry Program
will meet the requirements of section 6 and section 7 of the Act.
At the time the negotiations on the adjudication were completed,
the bull trout was a listed species, but critical habitat had not been
designated. The negotiations culminating in the final term sheet were
completed prior to designation of critical habitat.
Tribal Lands-Exclusions under Section 4(B)(2) of the Act
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of
the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources on tribal lands may be better managed under tribal
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
where tribal management addresses the conservation needs of listed
species. Based on this
[[Page 2299]]
philosophy, we believe that, in many cases, designation of tribal lands
as critical habitat may provide little additional benefit to threatened
and endangered species. In addition, such designation may be viewed by
tribes as unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into tribal self-
governance, thus compromising the government-to-government relationship
essential to achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy
ecosystems upon which the viability of threatened and endangered
species populations depend.
We will take into consideration our partnerships and existing
conservation actions that tribes have or are currently implementing
when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final critical habitat
designation. If the Secretary decides to exercise his discretion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering lands covered by the
tribes identified below for possible exclusion from final critical
habitat. We are requesting comments regarding these areas and will
continue to investigate whether any Indian lands overlap, and may
warrant exclusion from, critical habitat for bull trout. We also
request comments and information concerning other tribal activities
that may be affected in areas proposed as critical habitat on lands
other than tribal lands.
For this proposed critical habitat designation for bull trout, we
reviewed maps indicating that some areas under consideration as
critical habitat overlap with Indian lands. Indian lands are those
defined in the Secretarial Order ``American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act''
(June 5, 1997), including: (1) lands held in trust by the United States
for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) lands held in trust by the
United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to
restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands,
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the
tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries
owned by individual Indians.
Our preliminary assessment indicates that the federally-recognized
tribes in Table 7 have lands that may include or be adjacent to
waterbodies under consideration for designation as critical habitat for
bull trout. Based on the best available information, there are
approximately 683 kilometers (424 miles) of streams and shoreline areas
in or adjacent to Tribal lands being proposed as critical habitat for
bull trout (Table 6).
Tribes have played a significant role in the development of HCPs,
local watershed plans, or other habitat plans and have conducted
numerous habitat restoration and research projects designed to protect
or improve habitat for listed species. If such lands are identified,
the benefits of exclusion could include: (1) the furtherance of
established national policies, our Federal trust obligations and our
deference to management of natural resources on their lands; (2) the
maintenance of effective long-term working relationships to promote
species conservation on an ecosystem-wide basis; (3) the allowance for
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for tribal sovereignty
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through
established tribal natural resource programs. A list of tribal lands
meeting the criteria of a tribal management or conservation plan, with
proposed critical habitat unit and water body name, follows in Table 7.
Table 7.--Tribal Lands Meeting the Criteria of a Tribal Management or
Conservation Plan and the Proposed Critical Habitat Unit and Water Body
Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Stream/water body
Tribal Nation unit name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of Warm Deschutes River Deschutes River,
Springs Basin Shitike Creek,
Jefferson Creek,
Warm Springs River,
Metolius River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla River Umatilla River, South
Umatilla and Walla Walla Fork Touchet River,
River Basin Meacham Creek, Squaw
Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burns Paiute Tribe Malheur River Malheur River
Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater River Mainstem, North Fork,
Middle Fork, and
South Fork
Clearwater River,
Lolo Creek, Clear
Creek, and Dworshak
Reservoir
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coeur d'Alene Tribe Coeur d'Alene Lake Coeur d'Alene
River Basin and tributaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Nation Saint Mary River Saint Mary River
Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Salish and Clark Fork River Flathead Lake, Lower
Kootenai Tribes Basin Flathead River,
Jocko River, Mission
Creek, Post Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalispel Tribe Clark Fork River Pend Oreille River
Basin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakama Nation Yakima and Lower Yakima River, Ahtanum
Columbia River Creek, and South
Basins Fork Ahtanum Creek,
West Fork Klikitat
River, Little Muddy
Creek, Crawford
Creek, Clearwater
Creek, Trappers
Creek, Fish Lake
Stream, unnamed
tributary that meets
Fish Lake Stream,
and Two Lakes Stream
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confederated Tribes of the Olympic Peninsula Chehalis River
Chehalis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoh Tribe Olympic Peninsula Hoh River and Pacific
Coast nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Olympic Peninsula Dungeness River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Olympic Peninsula Elwha River and
Strait of Juan De
Fuca Nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2300]]
Quileute Tribe Olympic Peninsula Pacific Coast
Nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quinault Nation Olympic Peninsula Quinault River, Lake
Quinault, Pacific
Coast
nearshore, Raft
River, Queets River,
Salmon River,
Moclips River, and
Cook Creek
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skokomish Tribe Olympic Peninsula Skokomish River,
Nalley Slough,
Skobob Creek, and
Hood Canal nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lummi Nation Puget Sound Nooksack River and
Puget Sound
nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muckleshoot Tribe Puget Sound White River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nisqually Tribe Puget Sound Nisqually River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nooksack Tribe Puget Sound Nooksack River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puyallup Tribe Puget Sound Puyallup River and
Puget Sound
nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Puget Sound Sauk River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinomish Tribe Puget Sound Swinomish Channel and
Puget Sound
nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulalip Tribes Puget Sound Puget Sound nearshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Lands-Exclusions under Section 4(B)(2) of the Act
As noted above, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance
of the Act and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. We consider the
development and implementation of land management plans by Federal
agencies to be consistent with this statutory obligation under section
7(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, Federal land management plans, in and of
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for excluding
essential habitat. Some broad-scale Federal resource management plans
(e.g., INFISH, PACFISH, and the Northwest Forest Plan) may provide
conservation benefits to bull trout as well as all other aquatic
species within the plan boundaries. In addition, in some places,
Federal land management agencies may actively manage for bull trout and
conduct specific conservation actions for the species. We are therefore
requesting comments regarding existing specific conservation actions
that Federal land management agencies have or are currently
implementing on their lands, and will take this information into
account when conducting our exclusion analysis in the final critical
habitat designation.
Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
We have prepared a Draft Economic Analysis (DEA), which identifies
and analyzes the potential economic impacts associated with the
proposed designation of critical habitat for bull trout. The DEA
quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts
for bull trout; some of these costs would likely be incurred regardless
of whether or not we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of
the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing
scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical
habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State,
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species
was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely
to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.
The DEA estimates impacts based on activities that are reasonably
foreseeable, including, but not limited to, activities that are
currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans
are currently available to the public. The DEA provides estimated costs
of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical
habitat designation for bull trout over the next 20 years, which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information was available for most activities to reasonably
forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The
DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed
critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to
critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to
listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of conservation efforts
for bull trout associated with the following categories of activity:
(1) forest management practices (timber sales, fuel reduction, salvage
logging); (2) residential and commercial development; (3) dams
(hydropower and others); (4) agriculture
[[Page 2301]]
and agricultural diversions; (5) roads; (6) mining; (7) livestock
grazing; and (8) other activities (utilities, restoration, nonnative
species management, recreation, other instream activities).
Of the currently proposed critical habitat areas, nearly 31,865 km
(19,800 mi), or 87 percent, were previously proposed as bull trout
critical habitat. Two detailed economic analyses of those past
proposals were conducted in 2004 and 2005. Both of these analyses were
made available for, and received, public comment. Due to extensive
overlap between the current proposed critical habitat and the past
proposals, the economic analysis prepared for this proposal draws
heavily on still-valid data contained within the two prior economic
analyses. Costs associated with bull trout conservation efforts
estimated in the earlier economic analyses have been updated to current
dollars, adjusted to reflect the currently proposed unit boundaries,
and reported to provide context for the reported incremental costs
associated with the currently proposed critical habitat designation.
Total future (2012-2032) baseline impacts are estimated to be $96.3
million to $103.0 million annually (assuming a 7 percent discount
rate); discount rates express future costs and benefits at today's
equivalent value. This estimate includes not only conservation activity
costs resulting from the bull trout being listed under the Act, but
also estimated costs of related conservation activities for salmon,
steelhead, and other fish species, along with water quality and habitat
protection, in overlapping areas where other protected species occur
with bull trout. Under the baseline scenario, nearly half of all
estimated costs are due to conservation efforts imposed on forest
management activities. Costs imposed on development activities and dam
operations make up most of the remaining estimated costs. Costs
associated with project modifications to forest management activities
account for nearly 44 percent of estimated baseline impacts. These
costs are expected to be associated with conservation measures imposed
on timber harvest activities, including efforts to reduce sedimentation
timing restrictions, elimination of fish barriers, and changes to
harvest methods. Under the high cost scenario, costs associated with
project modifications imposed on development activities account for 25
percent of projected baseline impacts. These costs result from
implementation of stormwater control requirements. Costs associated
with project modifications imposed on dam operations account for 18
percent of estimated baseline impacts under the high cost scenario.
These costs result from projected conservation efforts, including
providing fish passage (fish ladder or trap and haul operations),
temperature control projects, habitat acquisition, and seasonal
adjustments of flow.
Because of all conservation measures in place for salmon,
steelhead, the Klamath suckers, and other protected fish species, we
believe the incremental regulatory and economic effect of critical
habitat designation in areas occupied by bull trout will be small, and
the most significant incremental effect will be in those areas not
currently occupied (less than 4 percent of the proposed critical
habitat) by the species. As a result, the DEA estimates that total
potential incremental economic impacts in areas proposed as critical
habitat over the next 20 years will be $4.97 million to $7.13 million
annually (assuming a 7 percent discount rate); the range of costs
represents uncertainty in the types and costs of project modifications.
The majority of forecast incremental costs are associated with
unoccupied critical habitat in the Upper Willamette River Basin, and
are associated with conservation efforts undertaken at flood control
facilities. For unoccupied areas overlapping with previous bull trout
critical habitat proposals, cost estimates are drawn from the previous
economic analyses and assigned to the critical habitat units proposed
in this rule. For newly proposed unoccupied areas, the analysis focuses
on identifying additional conservation efforts that may be expected as
a result of critical habitat designation for bull trout. The 116 km (72
mi) of newly proposed unoccupied critical habitat that is already
designated as critical habitat for listed salmon were not included in
the incremental analysis. Existing (baseline) conservation efforts
required in designated salmon critical habitat areas would generally be
adequate to address bull trout conservation needs, and no significant
additional conservation efforts are expected to be necessary. Dam
operations are expected to incur the greatest incremental economic
impacts, followed by forest management and administrative costs.
Estimated incremental costs associated with dam project modifications
range from $2.12 million to $2.52 million annually, and are primarily
related to conservation efforts in the Upper Willamette River Basin.
Project modifications could include fish passage (such as fish ladders
and trap and haul operations), temperature control projects, and
seasonal changes to flow. Estimated incremental costs associated with
forest management projects range from $0.41 million to $1.65 million
annually, associated with efforts to reduce sedimentation, timing
restrictions, elimination of fish barriers (e.g., culverts), and
changes to harvest methods.
Estimated incremental costs associated with additional section 7
administrative efforts (Federal agency consultations) are expected to
be $1.99 million annually. Absent reasonably foreseeable economic
impacts that are distinctly attributable to the critical habitat
portion of the analysis, economic impacts from conservation efforts
that avoid adverse modification of critical habitat coincidental to
avoiding jeopardizing the species would be coextensive with the impacts
of bull trout listing and within the regulatory baseline.
Benefits, as well as costs, can result from critical habitat
designation. Bull trout conservation efforts for critical habitat may
lead to improved water quality, increased open space, flood control, or
aesthetic benefits. Indirect use benefits may also result (e.g.,
increased hiking or wildlife-viewing activities). Conservation efforts
for bull trout critical habitat have the potential to result in
increased bull trout populations, which in turn could result in
increases in recreational fishing opportunities over the long term. In
addition, increased bull trout population size could result in enhanced
non-use value by the public (e.g., existence value). Existing studies
support the conclusion that preservation of fish species in general is
likely to generate substantial benefits to the public. However, absent
information on the long term biological or physical changes expected to
occur in bull trout critical habitat areas as a result of critical
habitat designation, the DEA does not quantify these benefits.
The DEA is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. We
are seeking data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as
all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required
determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents
to incorporate or address information we receive during the public
comment period, including information received during, or in response
to, the public hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek
[[Page 2302]]
the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is
to ensure that our critical habitat designation is based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation
of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date
of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. Such
requests must be sent to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. In
anticipation of the interest in this proposed rule, we have already
scheduled the public hearing and several public meetings. See the DATES
and ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule for information regarding
the scheduled public hearing and public meetings.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is significant and has reviewed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB based its determination upon the
following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government;
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions;
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients; or
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine whether a designation of critical habitat could
significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we
consider the number of small entities affected within particular types
of economic activities (e.g., housing development, grazing, oil and gas
production, timber harvesting). We apply the ``substantial number''
test individually to each industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
would not result in any additional effects under the Act. However,
there are some state laws that limit activities in designated critical
habitat even where there is no federal nexus. If there is a Federal
nexus, Federal agencies will be required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or carry out that
may affect critical habitat. If we conclude, in a biological opinion,
that a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.''
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would avoid destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
A Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a
reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion
that has found adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives. We may also identify discretionary
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse
effects of a proposed action on critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Within the proposed critical habitat designation, the types of
actions or authorized activities that we have identified as potential
concerns and that may be subject to consultation under section 7 if
there is a Federal nexus are: operation of dams; forest management
practices; livestock grazing; agriculture and irrigation diversions;
management
[[Page 2303]]
of roads; mining; and management of nonnative species.
Any existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that
could affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal
involvement would not require section 7 consultation with the Service,
so they are not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Federal
agencies may need to reinitiate a previous consultation if
discretionary involvement or control over the Federal action has been
retained or is authorized by law and the activities may affect critical
habitat.
The DEA and its associated Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) estimate that total potential incremental economic impacts in
areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20 years will be $4.97
to $7.13 million annually, assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
Incremental impacts are expected to consist of: (1) project
modifications occurring within newly proposed unoccupied areas; and (2)
administrative costs associated with consultations under section 7 of
the Act. In total, third parties (some of which may be small entities)
may bear a total annual impact of up to $5.6 million in incremental
impacts. In unoccupied areas, project modifications may be associated
with dam modifications, bridge replacement, grazing lease modification,
road maintenance, and changes to timber harvest. In total, annual
incremental costs associated with project modifications are forecast at
$5.1 million (discounted at 7 percent). The DEA also forecasts the
number of additional section 7 consultations that may take place as a
result of critical habitat. Based on this forecast, annual incremental
consultation costs that may be borne by third parties are forecast at
$441,000 in total (discounted at 7 percent). Of the potentially
affected entities in the proposed critical habitat areas, 97 percent
are small entities, and depending on the unit, small entities may bear
between 93 and 100 percent of the estimated impacts. The Small Business
Size Standard for the industry sectors that could potentially be
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation are as follows:
Dams and Water Diversions Category: Electric Power
Generation, Transmission and Distribution-4 million megawatts for the
preceding year, and Water supply and Irrigation Systems-$7.0 million
average annual receipts.
Agriculture Category: Crop Production (Oilseed and Grain
Farming; Vegetable and Melon Farming; and Fruit and Tree Nut Farming-
$750,000 average annual receipts; and Food Manufacturing-500 employees.
Grazing Category: Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming-
$750,000 average annual receipts.
Roads Category: Highway, Street and Bridge Construction-
$33.5 million average annual receipts.
Development Category: New Single-Family Housing
Construction (except Operative Builders); New Multifamily Housing
Construction (except Operative Builders); New Housing Operative
Builders-$33.5 million average annual receipts; and Land Subdivision-
$7.0 million.
Forest Managent Category: Logging-500 employees; Timber
Tract Operations, and Support Activities for Forestry-$7.0 million
average annual receipts.
Mining Category: Mining (except Oil and Gas), and
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining-500 employees.
Other Activities Category: Oil and Gas Pipeline and
Related Structures Construction; Power and Communication Line and
Related Structures Construction; and Other Heavy and Civil Engineering
Construction-$33.5 million average annual receipts; Marinas-$7.0
million average annual receipts; Water and Sewer Line and Related
Structures Construction-$33.5 million average annual receipts; and
Sewage Treatment Facilities-$7.0 million average annual receipts.
If each of the 23,800 small entities located within the study area
were to share the annualized costs, they could bear from $0 up to
$60,300 per entity, depending on the affected industry. This would
translate into an annual average cost of $234 per entity. This in turn
translates into a projected range of impacts from 0.0007 to 0.03
percent, or in other words, less than 1 percent impact for all sectors.
The expected annual impacts to the affected industries are
significantly less than the annual revenues that could be garnered by a
single small operator in those industries, and as such, impacts are low
relative to potential revenues. We are seeking public comments
regarding the estimated incremental impacts of this critical habitat
designation on small entities. Specifically, we are interested in
whether there is evidence suggesting that the economic impact of
section 7(a)(2) consultations in areas currently occupied by the
species is expected to be larger or smaller than estimated in this
analysis.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the
[[Page 2304]]
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities
are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or
participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs
of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for bull trout, we do not believe that this rule would
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that
is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts may
occur due to project modifications occurring within newly proposed,
unoccupied areas and administrative costs associated with section 7
consultations. The DEA estimates that total potential incremental
economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat over the next 20
years will be $4.97 to $7.13 million annually, assuming a 7 percent
discount rate. Based on the range of potential incremental costs that
have been identified, we do not believe that this rule will
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 (Government Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for bull trout in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for bull trout does not pose
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, and Nevada. The designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical and biological features of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. We have proposed designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed
rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the physical
and biological features within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the bull trout.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical
habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).]
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ``ADDRESSES'' section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
Our preliminary assessment indicates that 24 Federally-recognized
Tribes in Table 7 have lands that may include or be adjacent to
waterbodies under consideration for designation as critical habitat for
bull trout. Based on the best available information, there are
approximately 683 kilometers (424 miles) of streams and shoreline areas
in or adjacent to Tribal lands being proposed as critical habitat for
bull trout (Table 6).
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species
Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
[[Page 2305]]
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to
the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
Maintaining an effective trust relationship between the Federal
government and Tribes promotes (1) the furtherance of established
national policies, our Federal trust obligations and our deference to
management of natural resources on their lands; (2) the maintenance of
effective long-term working relationships to promote species
conservation on an ecosystem-wide basis; (3) the allowance for
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in scientific work
to learn more about the conservation needs of the species on an
ecosystem-wide basis; and (4) continued respect for Tribal sovereignty
over management of natural resources on Indian lands through
established tribal natural resource programs. We have engaged in
preliminary discussions and coordination with our Tribal partners
during development of the proposed rule, and are soliciting specific
comments and information from tribes on areas being proposed as
critical habitat on tribal land and on lands other than Tribal lands.
The final rule will fully consider the Federal government's obligations
to Federally-recognized Tribes, and comments and information received
from the Tribes regarding the actions being implemented to conserve
bull trout on Tribal lands and lands other than Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order E.O. 13211 pertains to regulations that
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211
requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
provides guidance for implementing this Executive Order, outlining nine
outcomes (criteria) that may constitute ``a significant adverse
effect'' when compared with the regulatory action under consideration.
Two of these criteria are relevant to the bull trout economic analysis:
(1) reduction in electricity production in excess of one billion
kilowatts-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed
capacity and (2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess
of one percent. The two primary activities that might lead to reduced
energy generation are operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) and operation of FERC-licensed hydroelectric dams.
Incremental impacts to dam operations are expected to consist largely
of the costs of installing fish passage capabilities. Some dam
operators may also undertake relatively minor movements of peak energy
production during the year. This practice does not reduce average
energy production, but rather changes the temporal distribution of that
power. Therefore, no impacts to electricity production or installed
capacity are forecast. Given the high thresholds defined in the OMB
guidance (i.e., reduction in electricity production in excess of one
billion kilowatts-hours per year, increases in the cost of energy
production in excess of one percent) and the fact that bull trout is
unlikely to be the primary species leading to changes in flow regimes
(because of the presence of listed salmon), it is unlikely the
electricity industry will experience a ``significant adverse effect''
as a result of critical habitat designation for bull trout. The
protection of bull trout stream and lake habitats should not require
significant changes to energy management, and because bull trout have
been listed under the Endangered Species Act for the past 10 years,
with critical habitat designated over parts of its range for the past
four years, and there have been no actions that have significantly
affected energy supply, distribution or use over that time. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
following Fish and Wildlife Offices: Idaho, Montana, Washington,
Oregon, Nevada, and Klamath Falls.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17; subchapter B of Chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.95(e) by revising critical habitat for ``Bull
Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)'' as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
(1) Locations of critical habitat: Critical habitat units are
depicted in the following States and counties on the maps and as
described below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Idaho Adams, Benewah, Blaine, Boise,
Bonner, Boundary, Butte, Camas,
Canyon, Clearwater, Custer, Elmore,
Gem, Idaho, Kootenai, Lemhi, Lewis,
Nez Perce, Owyhee, Shoshone,
Valley, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Montana Deer, Lodge, Flathead, Glacier,
Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark,
Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Powell,
Ravalli, Sanders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Nevada Elko
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Oregon Baker, Clatsop, Columbia, Deschutes,
Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River,
Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Lane,
Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah,
Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa,
Wasco, Wheeler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Washington Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam,
Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas,
Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays
Harbor,
Island, Jefferson, King, Kittitas,
Klickitat, Mason, Okanogan, Pend
Oreille, Pierce, Skagit, Skamania,
Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum,
Walla Walla, Whatcom, Whitman,
Yakima
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2306]]
(2) Topographic features included in the critical habitat
designation. Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the
designated stream reaches; designated lakes and reservoirs; and inshore
portions of marine nearshore areas, including tidally influenced
freshwater heads of estuaries indicated on the maps beginning with
paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
(i) Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the
designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by the
bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the
opposite bank. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to
leave the channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a
discharge that generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on
the annual flood series. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either
bank, the ordinary high-water line must be used to determine the
lateral extent of critical habitat. The lateral extent of designated
lakes is defined by the perimeter of the water body as mapped on
standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
(ii) Critical habitat includes the inshore extent of critical
habitat for marine nearshore areas (the mean higher high-water (MHHW)
line), including tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries. The
MHHW line refers to the average of all the higher high-water heights of
the two daily tidal levels. Adjacent shoreline riparian areas, bluffs,
and uplands are not designated as critical habitat. However, it should
be recognized that the quality of marine habitat along shorelines is
intrinsically related to the character of these adjacent features, and
human activities that occur outside of the MHHW line can have major
effects on physical and biological features of the marine environment.
The offshore extent of critical habitat for marine nearshore areas is
based on the extent of the photic zone, which is the layer of water in
which organisms are exposed to light. Critical habitat extends offshore
to the depth of 10 meters (m) (33 feet (ft)) relative to the mean low
low-water (MLLW) line (average of all the lower low-water heights of
the two daily tidal levels). This equates to the average depth of the
photic zone and is consistent with the offshore extent of the nearshore
habitat identified National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
the National Tidal Datum 1983 Through 2001. This area between the MHHW
line and minus 10 MLLW line is considered the habitat most consistently
used by bull trout in marine waters based on known use, forage fish
availability, and ongoing migration studies and captures geological and
ecological processes important to maintaining these habitats. This area
contains essential foraging habitat and migration corridors such as
estuaries, bays, inlets, shallow subtidal areas, and intertidal flats.
(3) The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of critical habitat.
Within the critical habitat, the PCEs for bull trout are those habitat
components that are essential for the primary biological needs of
foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, dispersal, genetic exchange,
or sheltering. The PCEs are as follows:
(i) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water
connectivity (hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and
quantity and provide thermal refugia.
(ii) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or
water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and
freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to
permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers.
(iii) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of
riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
(iv) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline
aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood,
side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a
variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.
(v) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 [deg]C (36 to 59
[deg]F), 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.
(vi) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to
ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence,
and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g.,
less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in
diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates
are characteristic of these conditions.
(vii) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base
flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled,
they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.
(viii) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal
reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.
(ix) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye,
northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or
competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present.
(4) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(5) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units
were created using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code
maps (HUCs) at a scale of 1:250,000 down to the 4th level cataloging
unit. In some cases, 5th and 6th level HUCs were also used and some
finer scale watersheds developed using United States Geological Survey
10-meter Digital Elevation Model and 1:24,000 scale hydrography layers.
The marine boundaries for the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula
critical habitat unit (CHU) were based on Washington Department of
Natural Resources 1:24,000 scale county boundaries and HUCs.
(6) Index map of critical habitat units for bull trout follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[[Page 2307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.001
[[Page 2308]]
(7) Unit 1: Olympic Peninsula Unit, Washington.
(i) Dungeness River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Dungeness River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.002
[[Page 2309]]
(ii) Elwha River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Elwha River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.003
[[Page 2310]]
(iii) Hoh River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Hoh River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.004
[[Page 2311]]
(iv) Queets River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Queets River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.005
[[Page 2312]]
(v) Quinault River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Quinault River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.006
[[Page 2313]]
(vi) Skokomish River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Skokomish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.007
[[Page 2314]]
(vii) Hood Canal Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Hood Canal Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.008
[[Page 2315]]
(viii) Strait of Juan de Fuca Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Juan de Fuca Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.009
[[Page 2316]]
(ix) Pacific Coast Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Pacific Coast Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.010
[[Page 2317]]
(x) Chehalis River/Grays Harbor Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Chehalis River/Grays Harbor Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.011
[[Page 2318]]
(8) Unit 2: Puget Sound Unit, Washington.
(i) Chilliwack River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Chilliwack River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.012
[[Page 2319]]
(ii) Nooksack River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Nooksack River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.013
[[Page 2320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.014
[[Page 2321]]
(iii) Skagit River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Skagit River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.015
[[Page 2322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.016
[[Page 2323]]
(iv) Upper Skagit River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Skagit River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.017
[[Page 2324]]
(v) Stillaguamish River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Stillaguamish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.018
[[Page 2325]]
(vi) Samish River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Samish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.019
[[Page 2326]]
(vii) Snohomish-Skykomish River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Snohomish-Skykomish River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.020
[[Page 2327]]
(viii) Lake Washington Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lake Washington Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.021
[[Page 2328]]
(ix) Lower Green River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lower Green River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.022
[[Page 2329]]
(x) Lower Nisqually River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lower Nisqually River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.023
[[Page 2330]]
(xi) Chester Morse Lake Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Chester Morse Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.024
[[Page 2331]]
(xii) Puyallup River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Puyallup River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.025
[[Page 2332]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.026
[[Page 2333]]
(xiii) Puget Sound Marine Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Puget Sound Marine Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.027
[[Page 2334]]
(9) Unit 3: Lower Columbia River Basins Unit, Washington.
(i) Lewis River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lewis River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.028
[[Page 2335]]
(ii) Klickitat River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Klickitat River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.029
[[Page 2336]]
(iii) White Salmon River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), White Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.030
[[Page 2337]]
(10) Unit 4: Upper Willamette River Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Willamette Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.031
[[Page 2338]]
(11) Unit 5: Hood River Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Hood River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.032
[[Page 2339]]
(12) Unit 6: Lower Deschutes River Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lower Deschutes River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.033
[[Page 2340]]
(13) Unit 7: Odell Lake Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Odell Lake Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.034
[[Page 2341]]
(14) Unit 8: Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit, Oregon and
Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Mainstem Lower Columbia River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.035
[[Page 2342]]
(15) Unit 9: Klamath River Basin Unit, Oregon.
(i) Upper Klamath Lake Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Klamath Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.036
[[Page 2343]]
(ii) Sycan River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Sycan River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.037
[[Page 2344]]
(iii) Upper Sprague River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Sprague River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.038
[[Page 2345]]
(16) Unit 10: Upper Columbia River Basins Unit, Washington.
(i) Methow River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Methow River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.039
[[Page 2346]]
(ii) Chelan River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Chelan River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.040
[[Page 2347]]
(iii) Entiat River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Entiat River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.041
[[Page 2348]]
(iv) Wenatchee River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Wenatchee River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.042
[[Page 2349]]
(17) Unit 11: Yakima River Unit.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus),Yakima River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.043
[[Page 2350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.044
[[Page 2351]]
(18) Unit 12: John Day River Unit, Oregon.
(i) Lower Mainstem John Day River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lower Mainstem John Day River Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.045
[[Page 2352]]
(ii) Middle Fork John Day River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Fork John Day River Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.046
[[Page 2353]]
(iii) North Fork John Day River Subunit
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), North Fork John Day River Subunit, follows
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.047
[[Page 2354]]
(iv) Upper Mainstem John Day River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Mainstem John Day River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.048
[[Page 2355]]
(19) Unit 13: Umatilla River Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Umatilla River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.049
[[Page 2356]]
(20) Unit 14: Walla Walla River Basin Critical Habitat Unit,
Oregon and Washington.
(i) Walla Walla River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Walla Walla River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.050
[[Page 2357]]
(ii) Touchet River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Touchet River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.051
[[Page 2358]]
(21) Unit 15: Lower Snake River Basins Unit, Washington.
(i) Tucannon River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Tucannon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.052
[[Page 2359]]
(ii) Asotin Creek Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Asotin Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.053
[[Page 2360]]
(22) Unit 16: Grande Ronde River Unit, Oregon and Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus),
Grande Ronde River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.054
[[Page 2361]]
(23) Unit 17: Imnaha River Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Imnaha River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.055
[[Page 2362]]
(24) Unit 18: Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit, Idaho.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Sheep and Granite Creeks Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.056
[[Page 2363]]
(25) Unit 19: Hells Canyon Complex Unit, Oregon.
(i) Indian Creek Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Indian Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.057
[[Page 2364]]
(ii) Pine Creek Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Pine Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.058
[[Page 2365]]
(iii) Wildhorse River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Wildhorse River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.059
[[Page 2366]]
(26) Unit 20: Powder River Basin Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus),
Powder River Basin Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.060
[[Page 2367]]
(27) Unit 21: Clearwater River Unit, Idaho.
(i) Middle-Lower Fork Clearwater River Subunit
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle-Lower Fork Clearwater River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.061
[[Page 2368]]
(ii) South Fork Clearwater River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), South Fork Clearwater River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.062
[[Page 2369]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.063
[[Page 2370]]
(iii) Selway River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Selway River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.064
[[Page 2371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.065
[[Page 2372]]
(iv) Lochsa River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lochsa River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.066
[[Page 2373]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.067
[[Page 2374]]
(v) North Fork Clearwater River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), North Fork Clearwater Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.068
[[Page 2375]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.069
[[Page 2376]]
(28) Unit 22: Mainstem Upper Columbia River Unit, Oregon and
Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Columbia River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.070
[[Page 2377]]
(29) Unit 23: Mainstem Snake River Unit, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Mainstem Snake River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.071
[[Page 2378]]
(30) Unit 24: Malheur River Basin Unit, Oregon.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Malheur River Basin Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.072
[[Page 2379]]
(31) Unit 25: Jarbidge River Unit, Idaho and Nevada.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Jarbidge River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.073
[[Page 2380]]
(32) Unit 26: Southwest Idaho River Basins Unit, Idaho.
(i) Weiser River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Weiser River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.074
[[Page 2381]]
(ii) Squaw Creek Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Squaw Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.075
[[Page 2382]]
(iii) North Fork Payette River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), North Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.076
[[Page 2383]]
(iv) Middle Fork Payette River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.077
[[Page 2384]]
(v) Upper South Fork Payette River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper South Fork Payette River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.078
[[Page 2385]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.079
[[Page 2386]]
(vi) Deadwood River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Deadwood River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.080
[[Page 2387]]
(vii) Arrowrock Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Arrowrock Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.081
[[Page 2388]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.082
[[Page 2389]]
(viii) Anderson Ranch Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Anderson Ranch Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.083
[[Page 2390]]
(33) Unit 27: Salmon River Basin Unit, Idaho.
(i) Little-Lower Salmon Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Little-Lower Salmon Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.084
[[Page 2391]]
(ii) South Fork Salmon River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), South Fork Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.085
[[Page 2392]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.086
[[Page 2393]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.087
[[Page 2394]]
(iii) Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Salmon River-Chamberlain River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.088
[[Page 2395]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.089
[[Page 2396]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.090
[[Page 2397]]
(iv) Middle Fork Salmon River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Maps of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Fork Salmon River Subunit, follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.091
[[Page 2398]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.092
[[Page 2399]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.093
[[Page 2400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.094
[[Page 2401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.095
[[Page 2402]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.096
[[Page 2403]]
(v) Middle Salmon-Panther River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Salmon-Panther River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.097
[[Page 2404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.098
[[Page 2405]]
(vi) Lake Creek Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lake Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.099
[[Page 2406]]
(vii) Opal Lake Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Opal Lake Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.100
[[Page 2407]]
(viii) Lemhi River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lemhi River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.101
[[Page 2408]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.102
[[Page 2409]]
(ix) Pahsimeroi River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Pahsimeroi River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.103
[[Page 2410]]
(x) Upper Salmon River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Salmon River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.104
[[Page 2411]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.105
[[Page 2412]]
(34) Unit 28: Little Lost River Unit, Idaho.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Little Lost River Unit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.106
[[Page 2413]]
(35) Unit 29: Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit, Idaho.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Coeur d'Alene River Basin Unit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.107
[[Page 2414]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.108
[[Page 2415]]
(36) Unit 30: Kootenai River Basin Unit, Idaho and Montana.
(i) Kootenai River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Kootenai River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.109
[[Page 2416]]
(ii) Lake Koocanusa Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lake Koocanusa Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.110
[[Page 2417]]
(36) Unit 31: Clark Fork River Basin Unit, Idaho, Montana, and
Washington.
(i) Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest Lakes) Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Priest Lakes and Upper Priest River (Priest Lakes)
Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.111
[[Page 2418]]
(ii) Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest River
(Lake Pend Oreille) Subunit
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, and lower Priest
River (Lake Pend Oreille) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.112
[[Page 2419]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.113
[[Page 2420]]
(iii) Lower Clark Fork River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Lower Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.114
[[Page 2421]]
(iv) Middle Clark Fork River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Middle Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.115
[[Page 2422]]
(v) Upper Clark Fork River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Upper Clark Fork River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.116
[[Page 2423]]
(vi) Bitterroot River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Bitterroot River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.117
[[Page 2424]]
(vii) Rock Creek Subunit
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Rock Creek Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.118
[[Page 2425]]
(viii) Blackfoot River Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Blackfoot River Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.119
[[Page 2426]]
(ix) Clearwater River and Lakes Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Clearwater River and Lakes Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.120
[[Page 2427]]
(x) Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes (Flathead)
Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes
(Flathead) Subunit follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.121
[[Page 2428]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.122
[[Page 2429]]
(xi) Swan River and Lakes (Swan) Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Swan River and Lakes (Swan) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.123
[[Page 2430]]
(xii) Hungry Horse Reservoir, South Fork Flathead River and
Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead) Subunit.
(A) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(B) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Hungry Horse Reservoir, South Fork Flathead River and
Headwater Lakes (South Fork Flathead) Subunit, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.124
(37) Unit 32: Saint Mary River Basin Unit, Montana.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), Saint Mary River Basin Unit, follows:
[[Page 2431]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA10.125
* * * * *
Dated: December 31, 2009
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-176 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C