The "best available science" about bull
trout populations is resulting is two very different opinions about whether the
native fish should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Two Montana environmental groups, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of
the Wild Swan, say the science clearly states that bull trout numbers in their
recovery area, which includes Western Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and
parts of Nevada, are still declining.
"The numbers, if anything, are down from when they were listed," said
Michael Garrity, director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
But Ken McDonald, fisheries management bureau chief with the Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, sees the numbers differently. In fact, in Montana at least,
bull trout are not in danger of extinction, he said.
"We didn't feel that they meet the definition
of threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act," he said.
The fish were listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 1998. Since then
the two environmental groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over
designating critical habitat for the fish.
The service designated critical habitat for the fish last fall, but it didn't
include any water in Montana. As a result the environmental groups filed a
lawsuit again in December.
Last spring the Fish and Wildlife Service also initiated its five-year review of
the bull trout's listing under the ESA, at the request of Idaho Gov. Dirk
Kempthorne.
The public comment period was initially going to end July 1, 2004, but Idaho,
Montana and Washington were trying to work together to assess the bull trout
populations in their states. Oregon was also busy doing the same.
The states requested the service extend the public comment period. It agreed and
the public comment period came to a close Jan. 3.
The majority of the comments came from the five states and the two environmental
groups, said Wade Fredenberg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's lead biologist
for the bull trout recovery program in Montana.
There were a few other comments, but they were mostly about specific populations
or water bodies. The states and the two environmental groups both addressed the
broader bull trout recovery area in their comments, he said.
Idaho and Montana have been working closely together to develop a data base of
bull trout information, said Steve Yundt, with Idaho's office of species
conservation.
The data accumulated by the two states was submitted to the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Each state also submitted a separate letter stating its views on the
listing.
"We don't see that there is an extinction risk in the bull trout population
segment as it's currently listed," said Yundt.
The population segment he is referring to is the Columbia River basin population
segment, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon and
Washington.
There may be some local streams within the population segment with problems, but
as a whole, bull trout are doing fine, he said.
If you look at bull trout populations in smaller chunks, then it is obvious
they're stable and deserve de-listing, said McDonald.
The Columbia River basin is a huge area, he said, and total recovery across that
region may be difficult.
"As it sits right now we could do everything under the sun and never
de-list bull trout in Montana because we're lumped into the whole basin-wide or
range-wide entity," he said.
Montana is asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to look specifically at the
populations in the Kootenai and Clark Fork River basins. If the service is
willing to break the larger Columbia River basin down into smaller population
segments, McDonald believes they should de-list the bull trout in Montana.
"Bull trout are not threatened with going extinct in the foreseeable
future," he said.
Garrity believes the decision to do the five-year review is so the Bush
administration can get the bull trout de-listed and open more country for
logging.
In their comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service groups pointed to increase
logging activity in the national forests as serious threats to bull trout
populations.
"What I think they (Fish and Wildlife Service) need to do is to say, as
quickly as possible, that bull trout are not warranted for de-listing,"
said Garrity.
The science is clear, said Mike Bader, the conservation consultant who put
together the environmental groups' comments.
"In looking at just the pure scientific information there's no doubt that
bull trout are in really serious trouble in a lot of places in western
Montana," Bader said.
Just how the states and the environmental groups can look at the "best
available science," and see different results is confusing, said Fredenberg.
"If you're trying to make an argument, you're going to try and find the
best information that supports your arguments," he said.
But it's the Fish and Wildlife Service's job to look at all the public comment
and then make a decision about what the status of the trout should be.
"We have to look at not only the status and trends of the population, but
we're also looking at the threats that caused the fish to get listed in the
first place," he said.
The states' comments really focused on population trends, said Fredenberg, while
the environmental groups focused more on existing threats to the fish.
Determining what the science says about bull trout is difficult, he said,
because there are so many factors to consider.
For instance, a population in a given river may have been strong in the 1980s,
but declined in the 1990s, only to begin rebounding since the fish were listed
under the ESA, said Fredenberg.
Someone might look at the numbers from the last six years and determine the
trout is doing really well. But if you look at the numbers for the last 20
years, it might show an overall decline.
"It's almost an art as much as it is science to try and interpret this
information," said Fredenberg. "That's why it's so difficult."
The Fish and Wildlife Service is currently going over the comments received and
will meet for a two-day workshop sometime in March, said Fredenberg. After that,
there should be some sort of decision on what direction the service wants to go,
he said.
"We really need to consider where we were when we listed (bull trout) and
where we're at now," said Fredenberg. "The input that we received was
generally high quality stuff."
If the decision is to change the listing of bull trout, then there will be a
whole other process initiated under the ESA, which will include more opportunity
for public involvement, he said.
And regardless of the result, it is good to evaluate where bull trout are at
after six years of protection.
"I think it's appropriate that we're taking a look right now, but I can't
predict what we're going to find," he said.
Reporter Greg Lemon can be reached at 363-3300 or at glemon@ravallirepublic.com