WCT Multi-state Assessment February 1 0, 2003 



Appendix B. Assessment Protocol and Data Forms 



Westslope Cutthroat Trout Range-wide Assessment Update Historical Range, Current Status, and Risk: 

 Protocols - July 2002 



An interstate and interagency group of fishery staff, managers, and biologists representing the states of Idaho, 

 Montana, Oregon, Washington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service met May 23'^'', 2002 in Coeur 

 .Alenc, Idaho to initiate a range-wide conservation and coordination effort for westslope cutthroat trout (WCT; 

 'ncorhynchiis clarki lewisi). The discussion at that meeting included consideration of conducting a range-wide 

 assessment for WCT that could include: 1) estimating range that was historically occupied; 2) determining 

 current distributional and genetic status; and 3 ) assessing risk using a ranking system approach similar to that 

 proposed by Rieman et al. ( 1993). The group briefly discussed using an approach similar to the assessment of 

 Yellowstone cutthroat trout (O. c. bouvieri). It was recognized that such an assessment would be based 

 primarily on expert opinion and that, particularly when historically occupied range was assessed, the assessment 

 would be qualitative. However, where field data were available these data would be used and referenced. The 

 protocol detailed below represents a modified version of the Yellowstone cutthroat assessment protocol 

 specifically tailored to a WCT status update. A court decision, filed March, 2002 remanded the FWS to 

 complete a follow up status review for WCT. Completion of a status update will be helpful in meeting the 

 objectives of the range- wide conservation effort for WCT and the court ordered requirements associated with 

 reconsidering whether WCT warrant listing as a threatened species. 



The first issue when conducting any large-scale assessment is determining the map scale that will be used for 

 the assessment. It was decided that 1 : 100,000 scale hydrography (stream layer) would be used and that any 

 information geo-referenced to this hydrography scale must meet the needs of the states involved and be useful 

 for federal agencies. The USGS l:100,000-scale hydrography that is routed using LLID identifiers and that can 

 be transferred to NHD format was selected as the base hydrography layer. The hydrography layer will primarily 

 include named streams. Only those streams identified on the stream layer will have information entered into the 

 database. We fully anticipate that some streams that support WCT will not be shown on the stream layer and 

 therefore they will not be included in this assessment. It is anticipated that these streams will be added in the 

 future during subsequent assessments. In the mean time, to compensate for this situation each watershed will 

 have a separate form that will allow for a partial accounting of these streams . 



The second issue involves data quality and reliability. This assessment update will use two protocols for 

 determining data quality and availability. First, a rating system will be used to indicate the data quality (DQI; 

 Table 1 ; tables provide codes and look-up descriptors that will be used in the database). Second, an effort will 

 be made to document source material for all information used in this assessment (Table 2) and a text field will 

 allow entering a citation which details where the information can be found. 



Finally, several issues directly associated with the logistics of keeping data entry consistent and dealing with a 

 consistent GIS database emerged. The use of 4"^ level hydrologic units will be for accounting purposes only. 

 The actual stream layers, either as cutthroat mapping units or used to identify discrete populations, will be 

 attributed through a database with the specific information developed during the status up date. 



Page - 53 



