YCT Multi-state Assessment February 10, 2003 



were not included in the 1:100,000 scale hydrography. In most cases, these small unnamed 

 streams did not support YCT or any trout. In a few instances YCT were known to exist in 

 unnamed streams that were mapped at the finer scale but not at the 1 : 100,000 scale. These YCT 

 streams were not included in this assessment. 



Assessment Teams and Workshops 



A total of five workshops were held to obtain the pertinent information for this status update. 

 One workshop was held in each of the five states that have historical habitat and current YCT 

 populations. At each workshop a systematic application of the assessment protocol was 

 undertaken (Appendix A) An estimated 43 fisheries professionals from 10 state, federal, and 

 tribal agencies and private firms (Appendix B) provided the information that was used in this 

 assessment. In addition to the fisheries professionals, 8 GIS and data management specialists 

 also participated in these workshops to assist with data entry and display of status information 

 for on-site editing of data. Information stored in statewide databases was available in hard copy 

 and on computer for each of these assessment workshops in tabular and map formats. From two 

 to five information technology and data entry personnel also attended each workshop to provide 

 technical support and enter information into computer databases. All fisher>' professionals were 

 asked to bring field data summaries and reports for their areas of responsibility so existing 

 databases could be updated and used in this assessment. At each workshop fishery professionals 

 who had relevant information or knowledge within each 4"^ code HUC worked collaboratively to 

 fill in data forms that were immediately entered into a computer database. Often individuals 

 worked on several 4' code HUC teams. As data were entered from paper data forms into the 

 computerized database at least one individual ft-om each 4^ code HUC team ensured that data 

 were entered accurately. The fisheries professionals that completed these assessments had 

 experience levels ranging from several months to several decades. Collectively, these fishery 

 professionals had a combined total of 862 years of professional fisheries experience, of which 

 (650 were directly applicable to YCT. The majority of participants had Master's of Science 

 college degrees (3 1 ), one had a PhD degree, and all but one had at least a Bachelor of Science 

 degree. 



Historical Range 



For the purposes of this assessment European "discovery" of the west was set as the benchmark 

 time {- 1 800) for the historical range of YCT. While it is likely that the distribution of YCT has 

 expanded and contracted over geological time, written documentation of historical distribution 

 began around 1800. Behnke (1992) states (p. 89), "Yellowstone cutthroat trout had a much 

 greater distribution before redband trout invaded the middle Columbia River basin in the late- 

 glaciai period." Behnke (1992) viewed YCT as the original native trout to the entire Snake River 

 system and subsequently the upper Yellowstone River drainage. Using Behnke's (1 992) 

 delineation of historical range as a starting point, we included all streams within any 4th code 

 HUC's that were within the area Behnke idenfified as being potentially part of the historically 

 occupied habitat. Fishery professionals were then asked to identify stream segments that should 

 be excluded fi-om historical range based on evidence for exclusion. Evidence for exclusion 

 included: geological barriers with no evidence that YCT inhabited waters above the barriers; 

 tectonic events that would have made regions uninhabitable and were likely either not colonized 

 or ancient populations had gone extinct and not re-colonized prior to 1 800; and habitat judged as 



Page - 5 



