Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States, 2270-2431 [2010-176]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2270-2431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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'' sect