WCT Multi-state Assessment February 10, 2003 



range). All of the agencies and tribes responsible for managing WCT throughout their range in 

 the U.S. recognize the importance of conserving populations that have no detectable 

 introgression. illustrated by the the inclusion of almost all genetically tested and unaltered WCT 

 populations within designated conservation populations. 



Agencies and tribes responsible for fish population management should regulate sport fisheries 

 on WCT populations to ensure that both harvest and incidental hooking mortality do not cause 

 these populations to decline in a deterministic fashion. Angler-caused mortality should be low 

 enough to ensure that each WCT population has adequate resiliency to recover rapidly from 

 stochastic environmental events that could severely reduce that population. We also recommend 

 that fish managers continue their efforts to reduce the potential for genetic introgression resulting 

 from fish stocking practices and management of nonnative species that may potentially 

 introgress with WCT. Land management agencies need to conserve aquatic habitats to a level 

 that ensures that remaining WCT populations persist and. preferably, flourish. In particular, we 

 recommend that existing roadless areas, parks, and wilderness areas continue to be managed so 

 that aquatic habitats are maintained at or near their potential in these areas. Since so much of the 

 remaining habitat occupied by WCT is located within federally managed lands, good 

 stewardship of these lands is critical for maintaining WCT. Of the nearly 70% of currently 

 occupied habitats within federally managed lands, over 2 1 ,000 miles, or 90%, are within Forest 

 Service and BLM managed lands within the upper Columbia River basin where special 

 protective measures are in place to protect native fishes (INFISH and PACFISH; U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the hiterior 1995a, 1995b). 



This assessment will serve as a baseline for measuring fijture conservation progress. In addition, 

 this information will be used for prioritizing WCT conservation efforts and assist in conservation 

 planning by the states, tribes, and others with fish management responsibility. Updating this 

 database with data from a well-designed field-monitoring program could serve as a barometer to 

 monitor the status of WCT over time. 



Acknowledgements 



We would like to thank all the fisheries biologists and data entry and geographical information 

 technicians who provided infonnation, entered data, and assisted with GIS applications. Their 

 names can be found in Appendix A. Steve Carson of Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

 provided support and applications for the GIS program ArcView. We would like to thank the 

 Fisheries Administrators and staffs of the: states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana; 

 U.S. National Park Service, particularly Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks; Confederated 

 Salish and Kootenia, Couer d'Alene, Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, Kalispel. and Kootenai of 

 Idaho tribes; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U. S. Bureau of Land 

 Management for their participation and support. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, 

 provided funding that helped us conduct this assessment. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and 

 U.S.D.A. Forest Service supported the main authors' efforts to collect and summarize status 

 infonnation and prepare this report. S. Kalinowski, M. Campbell, S. Yundt, and all members of 

 the WCT interagency conservation team reviewed earlier drafts of this report and provided 

 helpful suggestions. 



Page - 43 



