|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Status Review of Bull Trout Completed
Species
still threatened in the
08-31
Contact:
Ted Koch, 208-378-5293
Joan Jewett, 503-231-6211
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed its 5-year status
review
of the bull trout with two recommendations: Retain threatened status for
the species as currently listed throughout its range in the coterminous
United States for the time being and evaluate whether distinct
population
segments (DPSs) exist and merit the Endangered Species Act’s
protection.
Bull trout are found in
1998, the Service identified five separate DPSs in the lower 48 states
warranting protection under the Act and began listing these population
units. In 1999, the five population units were listed as one
threatened
DPS. This review reaffirms threatened status for bull trout
throughout the
coterminous
multiple distinct populations of bull trout exist and that the Service
should evaluate whether these distinct population segments need the
protections of the Act.
“This status review considered information that has become available
since
the time of listing and included a rigorous analysis by independent
scientists and Fish and Wildlife Service managers,” said Ren
Lohoefener,
Director of the Service’s Pacific Region. “The health of bull trout
populations varies by location but overall, the species in the
States
Evaluating the status of multiple distinct populations may help the
Service
account for the variable health of bull trout populations and focus the
recovery efforts of states, Native American tribes and others on
populations that need recovery.
There are many advantages of evaluating whether individual DPSs of bull
trout in the
Species Act, Lohoefener said. “We can focus regulatory protection and
recovery resources to bull trout populations in trouble, we can remove
the
regulatory burden of the ESA where its protections are not needed, we
can
provide more incentives locally to implement recovery actions, and we
can
analyze effects of projects over a more discrete and biologically
relevant
area.”
The 5-year review considered information that has become available since
the original listing of the bull trout, such as: population and
demographic
trend data; genetics; species competition; habitat condition; adequacy
of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and management and conservation planning
information. The review assessed whether new information suggests that
the
species’ population is increasing, declining or stable; whether
existing
threats are increasing, stable, reduced or eliminated; if there are any
new
threats; and if new information or analysis calls into question any of
the
conclusions in the original listing determination as to the species’
status.
The Service used a structured decision-making process comprised of two
panels. The first panel included seven scientists from outside the
Service
who brought academic and scientific expertise to discussions about the
scientific aspects of risk affecting bull trout. A panel of seven
Service
managers observed these proceedings and asked questions. In a separate
session, the Service managers discussed policy, weighed all of the new
information and deliberated on their recommendations concerning the
appropriate listing status of the species. A panel of peer reviewers
then
looked at the managers’ findings and recommendations.
Bull trout are a member of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Their
habitat requirements include the “Four Cs”: cold water, clean
streambed
gravel, complex stream habitat features and connected habitats for
migration across the landscape. Bull trout are primarily threatened by
poor
water quality (warm water and streambed sediment loads), habitat
degradation (loss of pool habitats and large wood cover in streams),
degradation of migratory corridors (dams and stream dewatering blocking
spawning migrations), and past fisheries management actions
(introductions
of non-native, competing species such as brown, lake and brook trout).
With the completion of the 5-year status review, the Service will
implement
the recommendation to evaluate whether distinct population segments
exist
and then evaluate whether any of these populations merit protection
under
the ESA. Any proposed change in DPSs or listing status would be subject
to
a separate rulemaking process that would include public review and
comment
before being finalized.
The 5-year status review and other related information can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others
to
conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their
habitats
for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader
and
trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our
scientific
excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated
professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on
our
work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
Bull Trout 5-year Review
Questions and Answers
What action is the Fish and Wildlife Service taking?
The agency is taking no formal action, but has completed an internal
review
of bull trout status under the Endangered Species Act (Act), as required
every five years. During this 5-year Review, the Service assessed the
appropriate level of protection for bull trout in the lower 48
What is the Service’s recommendation?
The agency is making two recommendations: Maintain “threatened”
status for
bull trout as currently listed throughout its range in the coterminous
segments (DPSs) exist and merit the Endangered Species Act’s
protection.
Why is the Service going to evaluate whether multiple distinct
population
segments should be designated?
We listed all bull trout in the lower 48 U.S. states as one distinct
population segment in 1999 in part because we determined that all five
previously identified DPSs warranted the same "threatened"
status. After
eight years of experience and additional study we’ve learned there may
be
policy and management benefits to listing multiple DPSs, we know
scientists
continue to refine our understanding of genetic and ecological
differences
among geographically separate groups of bull trout, and we better
understand how the status of and threats to bull trout varies across
their
range.
Would there be benefits to designating multiple DPSs?
Evaluating the status of the multiple distinct populations may help the
Service account for the variable health of bull trout populations and
focus
the recovery efforts of states, Native American tribes and others on
populations that need recovery. There are four main advantages of
designating multiple DPSs of bull trout: (1) We can focus regulatory
protection and recovery resources to bull trout populations in trouble;
(2)
We can remove the regulatory burden of the ESA where its protections are
not needed; 3) We can provide more incentives locally to implement
recovery
actions; and (4) We can analyze effects of projects over a more discrete
and biologically relevant area.
What is a 5-year Review?
A 5-year Review is an assessment of a listed species to ensure that it
has
the appropriate level of protection under the Endangered Species Act. A
5-year Review considers all new available information concerning the
population status of the species and the threats it faces. The
review
considers the best scientific and commercial information that has become
available since the original listing determination, such as:
• Species biology, including but not limited to population trends,
distribution, abundance, demographics and genetics;
• Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount,
distribution and
suitability;
• Conservation measures that have been implemented and benefit the
species;
• Threat status and trends;
• Other new information, data or corrections, including but not
limited to
changes in taxonomy or nomenclature, identification of erroneous
information contained in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and
Plants, and improved analytical methods.
Does the 5-year Review change protections for bull trout?
No. All of the existing protections for bull trout remain in
place.
With the recommendation to evaluate whether to designate multiple bull
trout DPSs, the Service will evaluate whether multiple DPSs would be
most
consistent with the Service’s DPS policy (
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/policy/Pol005.html).
If the Service determines that multiple DPSs are warranted, it will
prepare
a proposal to change the single DPS to more than one DPS and will then
will
determine the status of each DPS (i.e., whether a DPS should be listed
as
threatened or endangered or whether it should be delisted). Any proposal
to
chance the DPS designation and listing status would undergo a rulemaking
process that would include public review.
What does a 5-year Review entail?
A 5-year Review considers information that has become available since
the
original listing determinations, such as population and demographic
trend
data; studies of dispersal and habitat use; genetics and species
competition investigations; surveys of habitat amount, quality and
distribution; adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and management
and conservation planning information.
The review also assesses:
a) If any new information or analysis call into question any of the
conclusions in the original listing determination as to the species’
classification;
b) Whether new information suggests that the species’ population is
increasing, declining, or stable;
c) Whether existing threats are increasing, the same, reduced or
eliminated; and
d) If there are any new threats.
In addition, the bull trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
determination
will be re-evaluated in accordance with the 1996 DPS policy and the
5-year
Review will make a recommendation on this aspect of the listing.
Who is responsible for doing a 5-year Review?
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are
ultimately
responsible for conducting 5-year Reviews of listed species. For
bull
trout, this responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service, with the Snake River Fish & Wildlife Office in
office.
What steps have been completed on the bull trout 5-year Review?
The Fish and Wildlife Service initiated the 5-year Review on the status
of
bull trout in April 2004. The Service solicited information through an
assist with this review. The Service also met with state fish and
wildlife
agencies to identify information the states could provide for use in the
5-year Review. Information from various federal agencies also was
integrated into the analysis.
The States of Idaho,
status of bull trout. The state of
viability analysis that applied only to bull trout within
and wildlife agencies of
also received comments from the public. The information contained within
the various state reports, assessments, and the public comments were
provided to the structured decision-making panelists (described below).
The Service also developed its own assessment of the current status of
bull
trout using a model that ranked risk to bull trout in each of the 121
core
areas relative to their vulnerability to extirpation. This assessment
provided information that complemented the information provided by the
state agencies, public and other interested entities.
The 5-year Review culminated in a report that was completed in August
2006.
Pacific Regional Director, Ren Lohoefener reviewed the report and
identified two additional needs before he released the final report:
(1) The 5-year Review document needed to make a recommendation relative
to
the Service’s Distinct Population Segment policy;
(2) Some affected states had outstanding questions and concerns
regarding
the status review process and how information they provided was used.
What decision-making process was used?
In a meeting on
decision-making model to assess the available information using two
panels.
The first panel was made up of seven scientists from outside the Service
with expertise in different academic disciplines relevant to the 5-year
Review. The Science Panel discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the
various data, hypotheses and opinions relative to the current status of
bull trout, including the various state reports and the status
assessment
developed by Service staff. This panel addressed only the scientific
aspects related to bull trout status and threats to evaluate the risk of
extinction to bull trout. A second panel made up of seven Service
managers
observed and asked questions of the Science Panel. The Managers Panel
also
participated in policy discussions and considered what should be the
appropriate 5-year Review recommendation.
Based on comments received from both the Science and Manager panels
Service
biologists revised the Service’s assessment of bull trout status to
provide
clarification and include additional key information. The revised
version
was sent to the Science Panel for review; comments provided by the
Science
Panel and the revised status assessment were considered at a subsequent
expertise along with Service policies and the ESA to determine whether
new
information suggested a change in the listing status of bull trout was
warranted.
How was the 5-year Review completed?
Ted Koch, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
and Wildlife Office in
coordinator, beginning
field offices within the range of the bull trout and with affected
states,
tribes and federal agencies to proceed with the 5-year Review process.
Pacific Regional Director Ren Lohoefener sent a letter on
affected state and federal agencies within the range of the bull trout,
asking them to participate in a Bull Trout 5-year Review Collaboration
Team
to help with completion of the review. Participating agencies included:
• Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Office, Portland, Oregon
• U.S. Forest Service Regional Office, Portland, Oregon
• Bureau of Land Management state offices - Idaho, Nevada and Oregon
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Idaho Department of Fish and Game
• Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
• Nevada Department of Wildlife
• Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
• Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
With help from the Collaboration Team, the Service completed the 5-year
Review with support for the two recommendations.
How have Tribes been engaged in the bull trout 5-year Review process?
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is participating in the Collaboration Team.
Service Field Offices contacted all Tribes within the range of bull
trout.
All Tribes were invited to participate in the review process. The
Kalispell
Tribe is currently an active participant in the bull trout Collaboration
Team.
What is a Distinct Population Segment?
A Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a population that makes up a
portion
of a species’ or subspecies’ population or range. For a population
to be
listed under the ESA as a Distinct Population Segment, three elements
are
considered:
(1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to which
it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s conservation status in relation to the
ESA’s
standards for listing (i.e., is the population segment endangered or
threatened?).
How does the Service determine whether a species is endangered or
threatened?
Under the ESA, the term “endangered species” means any species that
is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
The term “threatened species” means any species that is at risk of
becoming
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA establishes that we determine whether a
species
is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the following five
factors:
(a) The present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment
of its habitat or range;
(b) Over-utilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
The Service’s assessment of these factors is required, under section
4(b)(1) of the ESA,
to be based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
What is the status of recovery planning for bull trout?
Draft recovery plans were published in November 2002 for bull trout in
the
2004 for bull trout in the Coastal/Puget Sound
watersheds of
Recovery plans and other information related to bull trout are available
at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/
Final recovery planning for bull trout has been on hold pending
completion
of the 5-year Review.
What is the status of the Service’s critical habitat designation for
bull
trout?
The Service’s critical habitat designation for bull trout was
published in
the Federal Register on
The designation is being challenged in a lawsuit filed by the
the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan. Oral arguments were made
the judge is pending.
How can I get more information about the bull trout 5-year Review?
For more information, please contact Ted Koch, Bull Trout Coordinator,
Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office
1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709, (208) 378-5293,
ted_koch@fws.gov
Bull Trout Chronology
October 30, 1992
The Service received a petition to list bull trout as an endangered
species
throughout its range from the Friends of the Wild Swan, Alliance for the
Wild Rockies, and the Swan View Coalition.
The Service received a second petition requesting the listing of bull
trout
in the
Fisheries Society.
The Service published in the Federal Register a 90-day petition finding
determining that the petitioners had provided substantial information
indicating that listing of bull trout may be warranted (58 FR 28849).
The Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month finding that
listing was warranted for bull trout within the coterminous
but precluded by other higher priority work. Due to the lack of
information, the Service found that listing bull trout in
was not warranted (59 FR 30254).
Two of the petitioners, Friends of the Wild Swan and
The Service published in the Federal Register the
that listing was still warranted but precluded (60 FR 30825).
The U.S. District Court of Oregon issued an order declaring the 1994
challenge to the original finding moot because the Service had issued a
1995 finding. The court instructed the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint
to challenge the 1995 finding if they so desired. The plaintiffs
declined
to amend their complaint and instead filed an appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the U.S. District
Court
in
proceedings.
The U.S. District Court of Oregon granted the plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment, directing the Service to reconsider the 1994 finding
and
respond to the court within four months. The ruling included
specific
direction to consider only the information in the Service record at the
time of the original 1994 finding.
In compliance with the District Court order, the Service issued a
reconsidered finding based solely on the 1994 record, which concluded
that
two population segments of bull trout warranted listing (
Plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel the Service to issue a
proposed
rule within 30 days to list the Klamath and
populations based on the 1994 record.
The Service and the plaintiffs signed an agreement stipulating that
within
60 days the Service would complete a proposed rule to list the
River
segment as threatened.
June 13, 1997
A proposed rule to list the Klamath River basin bull trout population
segment as endangered and the Columbia River population segment as
threatened was published in the Federal Register by the Service
(62 FR 32268).
The U.S. District Court in
aspects of the 1997 finding concerning listing of bull trout. The
court
directed the Service to consider whether listing of the bull trout was
warranted throughout its range; whether listing was warranted throughout
the coterminous United States; if the Service determined that listing
throughout its range, or throughout the coterminous United States was
not
warranted, or is warranted but precluded; and whether listing of the
Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment was warranted. The
court
subsequently directed the Service to prepare its response by
June 10, 1998
The Service published in the Federal Register a final rule to list the
Klamath River and the Columbia River bull trout population segments as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
(63 FR 31647).
August 11, 1998
The Service published in the Federal Register an emergency-listing of
the
Jarbidge River (Idaho, Nevada) bull trout population segment as
endangered
after road crews from the Elko County Road Department destroyed 27
percent
of the river’s bull trout habitat while conducting unauthorized road
construction activities
(63 FR 42757).
April 8, 1999
The Service published a final rule in the Federal Register to list the
Jarbidge River population of bull trout as threatened under the ESA (64
FR
17110).
The Service published a final rule in the Federal Register to list all
bull
trout in the coterminous
November 29, 2002
The Service published in the Federal Register a notice of document
availability for review and comment for the Draft Recovery Plan for the
three of the five Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout (Klamath
River, Columbia River and Saint Mary-Belly River populations) (67 FR
71439).
November 29, 2002
The Service published in the Federal Register a proposed rule for the
designation of critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River
distinct population segments of bull trout and notice of availability of
the draft recovery plan (67 FR 71235) for those populations.
The Service published in the Federal Register a proposed rule for the
designation of critical habitat for the
and Saint Mary-Belly River populations of bull trout
(69 FR 35768).
July 1, 2004
The Service published in the Federal Register a notice of document
availability for review and comment for the draft Recovery Plan for the
Coastal-Puget Sound (69 FR 39950) and Jarbidge (69 FR 39951) distinct
population segments of bull trout.
The Service published a final rule in the Federal Register designation
of
critical habitat for the
bull trout (69 FR 59995).
adequacy of the final critical habitat designation for the
and
remand was subsequently granted by the court with a final rule due by
The Service published in the Federal Register a final rule to open the
comment period for the proposed and final designation of critical
habitat
for the
29998).
The Service published a notice clarifying the reopening until
2005
critical habitat for the
populations (70 FR 32732).
May 3, 2005
The Service published a notice of the availability of the draft economic
analysis (DEA) and reopening of a 30-day comment period until June 2,
2005
(70 FR 22835), for the Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound and Saint
Mary-Belly River populations of bull trout.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jones extended the deadline for designating
critical habitat for the Puget Sound-Coastal, Jarbidge and St.
Mary-Belly
River bull trout populations to
September 26, 2005
The Service published a final rule designating 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)
January 5, 2006
Amended complaint filed by Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of
the
Wild Swan challenging the Service's final critical habitat designation
for
bull trout.
August 2006
Bull Trout 5-Year Review culminates but report not released due to two
additional needs: Distinct Population Segment policy and affected
states'
questions and concerns regarding the status review process.
Oral arguments in the case before U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in
July 2007
The Service asked affected state and federal agencies and tribes to
participate in a Bull Trout 5-Year Review Collaboration Team to help
with
completion of the review.
April 2008
The Service completes the 5-year Review with two recommendations:
Maintain
“threatened” status for bull trout as currently listed and evaluate
whether
to designate multiple Distinct Population Segments (DPSs).