Natural Resources Department

Burns Paiute Tribe

Natural Resources Department

100 Pasigo St

Burns, OR 97720

Phone (541)573-1375

Fax (541)573-7806

3 December 2014

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Mr. Michael Carrier

Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368

Boise, ID 83709

Re: Revised Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, Submission of Burns Paiute Tribe Comments

Dear Mr. Carrier,

On September 4, 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a solicitation for

comments on the Revised Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan (“Draft Plan”). Staff of the Burns

Paiute Tribe Natural Resource Department has reviewed the Draft Plan and responds to the

September 4, 2014 solicitation with the enclosed comments. On November 4, 2014 five tribes

submitted joint preliminary comments on the Draft Plan, to which the Burns Paiute Tribe was a

signatory. We submit the enclosed comments to be considered in addition to the November 4,

2014 intertribal comments that you have already received but to which FWS has not yet

responded. The enclosed comments pertain specifically to the two Malheur River Core Areas

and to the Upper Snake Recovery Unit which encompasses the BPT’s ancestral homeland.

These comments are consistent with policy directives from BPT Tribal Council.

Our staff’s review of the Draft Plan rendered substantial changes that must be made prior

to finalization. Consistent with FWS’s federal tribal trust obligations to Indian tribes, we

anticipate a response from you in writing, as is normal for agency response to comments

provided by the public and upon conclusion of a public comment period, as well as in person as

is normal to the federal response to Indian tribes when major concerns on an agency product are

formally raised. We expect this meeting to occur prior to the end of January to ensure that our

comments will be incorporated as finalization of the Draft Plan expeditiously progresses. Since

the FWS has already begun development of its RUIPs, premature to the incorporation of public

comments, BPT staff emphasizes the necessity of immediate schedule of this meeting and with

its tribal partners.

Page 1 of 16

Frankly stated, it is our firm belief that the Draft Plan, if it remains unchanged by tribal

comments, will contribute to the eventual decline and extirpation of not only the Malheur River

Core Areas but of other Core Areas throughout the range of the species and which are

specifically important to tribes. We believe that this will occur as a direct result of assignment of

percentages to threats-management targets in some Recovery Units; and from the revisions of the

former 27 Recovery Units into 6 Recovery Units which cross state lines and other fisheries

management boundaries and which lack robust scientific support in definition. As per the

intertribal comments submitted to you on November 4th, it is our sincere hope that you will

utilize this opportunity to improve upon the Draft Plan and converse meaningfully with tribal

partners.

Please contact BPT Fisheries Program Manager, Erica Maltz, for questions regarding

these comments and/or for scheduling of follow-up meetings. She may be contacted at

541.573.8088 or maltzem@burnspaiute-nsn.gov.

Respectfully,

/s/ JASON KESLING

Jason Kesling, Director, Burns Paiute Tribe Natural Resources Department

Enclosure:

Burns Paiute Tribe comments on the Revised Draft Bull Trout Recovery

Plan

CC (electronic):

fw1bulltroutrecoveryplan@fws.gov

Robyn Thorson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve Duke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Joe Mentor, Mentor Law Group, PLLC

Robert Dach, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Deane Osterman, Kalispel Natural Resources

Alfred Nomee, Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Jinwon Seo, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

Rich Janssen, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Robert Austin, Upper Snake River Tribes Foundation

2015 Malheur River Bull Trout Technical Advisory Committee

Page 2 of 16

Burns Paiute Tribal Authority, Expertise and Interest in Bull Trout Populations in the

Malheur River, OR and Tribal Expectations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) is a sovereign nation and collaborative manager of fish and

wildlife resources with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The BPT is a federallyrecognized Indian tribe with a reservation in Harney County, Oregon and manages

approximately 8,000 acres of property in the Malheur River including approximately eight miles

of designated bull trout Critical Habitat. Additionally, BPT currently implements and consults on

a variety of bull trout recovery actions in Malheur River with the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation. Since the listing of the species in 1999, BPT has assumed agency leadership with

respect to monitoring the health of bull trout in the Malheur River and the response of local

populations to multiagency recovery actions. The continued existence, demographic recovery and

future viability of bull trout populations in the Malheur River is a major concern to BPT, as

evidenced by the sixteen years of effort the BPT has allocated towards agency coordination, and

enhancement and monitoring of these populations.

The United States has a well-established, solemn trust obligation to Indian Tribes. Under this

obligation, the United States has assumed a special fiduciary responsibility to consider the best

interests of the tribes pursuant to its treaties and executive orders. Most fundamentally, the

modern form of the trust obligation is the federal government’s duty to protect tribal rights,

interests and trust resources. The BPT asks the FWS to fulfill its duty to the tribe and to consider

and assess the effects of the Draft Plan on BPT’s rights and resources via careful consideration of

the following comments and of the comments submitted in collaboration with four other tribes

on November 4th, 2014, via active discourse with the tribes on these comments and beyond that

which is given to members of the public.

General Comments

1. BPT staff seeks FWS response to all intertribal comments provided to FWS on November

4th, 2014 and does not reiterate those comments here.

2. Include site-specific and quantifiable demographic targets, at the Core Area level, to

supplement the Draft Plan’s reliance on qualitative measures of the success of threats-based

management.

The cumulative interactions and population level effects of many common threats to bull trout

are not well understood. Additionally, the overall definition of when successful threats

management is reached to establish “recovery” (and to warrant a de-listing process), versus when

successful threats management has not been reached (and warrants additional action), is

nebulous, subjective, and not easily quantified. The informal nature of multi-jurisdictional

management of non-anadromous, non-game fish species further confounds the path towards the

Page 3 of 16

recovery of bull trout. These variables lead BPT to comment that inclusion of additional and

quantifiable targets at the Core Area level will strengthen the Draft Plan and provide a platform

for multi-agency discourse on the status of bull trout and effectiveness of management actions.

The Draft Plan’s subjectivity could be translated into actions that may not actually benefit bull

trout populations but that meet the Draft Plan’s criteria for recovery, actions that may not be

applied for an appropriate extent of time or that may be interpreted in a manner that cannot be

objectively evaluated by land and resource management agencies.

To illustrate the range of potential variables and the degree of subjectivity, BPT provides a

hypothetical example population of bull trout “population X.” During identification of primary

threats to this population, as FWS is currently soliciting within the parallel RUIP development, a

panel of interagency experts identifies the following primary threats: cattle grazing, brook trout,

passage and temperature and ranks them as roughly equal primary threats to population X. With

a final Recovery Plan in place, land and resource management agencies are then tasked with

managing the threats they have identified and ranked during RUIP development. To remove

these threats: for cattle, the U.S. Forest Service constructs fences around spawning habitat and

uses pasture rotation during August and September; for brook trout, the state fish and wildlife

agency conducts removal activities annually in priority areas and to reduce pressure on spawning

adult bull trout; for passage, the Bureau of Land Management drafts a list of major blockages to

fluvial bull trout and develops a schedule for culvert replacement; and for temperature, the tribe

plants riparian species in degraded stream sections. Subsequently, each of these agencies

individually implements effectiveness monitoring measures to ensure that cattle were not

utilizing spawning areas, that brook trout were excluded from bull trout spawning grounds, that

passage was occurring at replaced culverts, and to ensure growth and survival of riparian

plantings. After initiating these measures, representatives from each agency meet for a FWS

Assessment Workshop (p. 128) to evaluate the collective progress towards recovery.

At the Assessment Workshop the panel confirms that it has implemented the above listed threats

management actions and has evaluated respective success via effectiveness monitoring.

However, annual bull trout monitoring reveals no change in bull trout status in the stream. All

identified threats have been successfully managed, yet bull trout are still not showing desired

population response. Based on the proposed Draft Recovery Plan, it could be interpreted that

these actions meet the criteria for recovery, despite no change in bull trout population trends.

Without quantifiable targets that apply directly to bull trout in individual Core Areas, “recovery”

can be based entirely on management of anthropogenic factors that may have only limited

benefit to bull trout and are not sufficient on their own to justify delisting. Conversely, with

quantitative demographic targets in place (e.g. colonization rates, spawner abundance, increases

in genetically pure bull trout, etc.), the panel could, based on the empirical results of their annual

bull trout monitoring, revisit the relevance of the primary threats selected in the RUIP, the

magnitude and duration of management actions aimed at mitigating or removing those threats,

and the connection of management actions to the appropriate life history stages and forms.

Page 4 of 16

Furthermore, this hypothetical example is intended to illustrate the difficulty in utilizing the

Threats Assessment Tool in one particular watershed (e.g. the Malheur River) or state (e.g. the

Malheur River in Oregon). The Draft Plan entirely fails to address the following scenario: if the

expert panels in each of the other 10 Core Areas in population X’s Recovery Unit determine via

respective Assessment Workshops that they are successfully managing all primary threats—is

the entire Recovery Unit re-designated as a DPS and delisted despite the unknown or potentially

declining status of population X? Under the Draft Plan, there are no quantified benchmarks to

gauge the sufficiency of management actions, the extent of management actions and measurable

effects to bull trout populations at either the Core Area or the Recovery Unit scale.

Although likely oversimplified, the preceding scenario and hypothetical questions are not outside

a reasonable expectation of the implementation of the Draft Plan based on the description it

provides. Without any biologically-supportable and quantifiable standards, the Assessment

Workshops are unlikely to resolve even the basic question of whether threats to bull trout have

been adequately addressed to meet the criteria in the Draft Plan. BPT anticipates the following

scenarios will occur if the Draft Plan is executed in the manner described:

•

•

Insufficient magnitude of action: Agencies may select management actions that may

appear to address the threat, but that do not produce the intended population response.

Without a demographic requirement, there are no incentives for Recovery Units to relate

management actions to population responses. For example, it is well demonstrated that

brook trout cause negative impacts to bull trout through a variety of mechanisms,

including the genetic impacts of interspecific spawning. How does an agency manage

genetic threats? An agency could start, as the state fish and wildlife agency did for

population X, with removing brook trout in priority bull trout spawning areas. Is that

action sufficient or have brook genetics introgressed with bull trout to the extent that

population X now contains too few genetically pure bull trout and that is actually the

problem? If the effect is the latter, then might reintroductions to population X also be an

appropriate management action in tandem with removal? The desired outcome would be

an increase in genetically pure bull trout in the spawning population, but in this example

brook trout removal alone could satisfy the requirements of the Draft Plan without

necessarily achieving this outcome.

Insufficient duration of action: Following the example of brook trout, if an agency was

able to remove 99% of brook trout in a given Core Area, short term benefits to bull trout

would likely be present, but if brook trout populations rebound, the threat to bull trout

may be present to the original extent within a short period of time. The Draft Plan does

not specify the duration of threats management to determine that “recovery” has been

achieved. Without demographic targets (e.g. x adults stable over x generations),

insufficient duration of management actions could satisfy the requirements of the Draft

Plan.

Page 5 of 16

•

•

Incorrect management actions. By adopting threats management as the definition of

recovery, the Draft Plan assumes a causal relationship between the management of

primary threats and “the long-term persistence of bull trout.” That relationship has not

been tested for most standard management tools to address common threats to bull trout.

For example, most bull trout populations occupy a small percentage of historically

occupied habitat. Under the Draft Plan, resource and land management agencies are

highly likely to focus threats management within localities where bull trout currently

exist. What if the underlying problem in some Core Areas lies in the amount of suitable

habitat unoccupied? Will removal of threats cause bull trout to recolonize or will

agencies have to actively relocate individuals to those areas? Numeric demographic

targets (e.g. colonization rates) would allow land and resource management agencies to

evaluate causal assumptions as well as assist them in evaluating the extent of necessary

management actions.

Inability to evaluate whether threats are being managed. The FWS proposes to utilize the

Threats Assessment Tool to gauge success. As it is described in the Draft Plan, the

Threats Assessment Tool appears to be a moderated convention (“Assessment

Workshop”) of management agencies to input qualitative thoughts into a table and

associate with rankings that may or may not be based on scientific data. Unless the FWS

intends to financially support a quantitative exercise, such as Structured Decision

Making, for all Core Areas, then there must be other quantitative standards in place

beyond threats management to provide an unbiased basis for gauging progression

towards recovery. BPT proposes that site specific demographic targets should be

identified for each Core Area so that the Assessment Workshops may function around

whether numeric targets are met and objective evaluation of the status of bull trout

populations with respect to metrics of viability. Agencies are unlikely to invent numbers

to delist, but may attempt to assert insufficient management actions to meet the Draft

Plan’s subjective criteria.

In contrast to the Draft Plan, the 2002-2004 draft plans included universal targets for adult and

spawner abundance. These were apparently abandoned over internal disagreement on whether

the conclusions of Rieman and McIntyre (1993) and Rieman and Allendorf (2001) should be

applied to all bull trout populations (Steve Duke, pers. comm.). Site specific demographic

targets, beyond abundance (e.g. the multi-metric approach outlined in Bowerman 2013), would

provide management agencies with a numeric benchmark against which they can collectively

reevaluate whether threats management is causing the desired outcomes in bull trout populations

and adaptively reevaluate whether the correct threats are being addressed.

3. The FWS has demonstrated a conflict of interest in its utilization of the scientific rationale

provided for Recovery Unit delineation; therefore, Recovery Unit delineation should be

reevaluated with external scientific evidence prior to the release of a final plan.

Page 6 of 16

The Draft Plan cites Ardren et al. (2011) to support definition of the 6 Recovery Units used in

the Draft Plan, and to provide rationale for its departure from the 27 units formerly outlined in

the 2002-2004 draft plans. Ardren et al. (2011) states: “In this study we provide new

information, based on microsatellite DNA and mtDNA, that will aid in the designation of bull

trout conservation units.” Ardren et al. (2011) continues to state: “interpretation of our results,

along with careful considerations of ecological and life history information, allows for

identification of conservation units at DPS to recovery unit scales.” Although BPT does not

debate the scientific merits of Ardren’s work, BPT does debate whether similar conclusions

would be drawn if the work had occurred independent of the FWS.

It appears that the FWS has “interpreted” internal science in development of Recovery Units that

are indirectly tied to future delisting. This conflict is exacerbated by the FWS redefinition of

Recovery Units to encompass considerably larger geographic areas than previous draft plans, and

which overlap various and potentially incompatible sovereign management units. As iterated in

the Draft Plan, the 6 Recovery Units were developed to withstand the tests of FWS DPS policy

in anticipation that a Recovery Unit could be designated as a DPS and delisted pending future

status assessments. The Draft Plan discusses the Recovery Units and their relationship to DPS

policy explicitly in the context of delisting. BPT highlights that scientific support for defining

Recovery Units, particularly in the politically-charged context of the geographic scale of future

delisting, should be subject to more robust generation and interpretation and with more emphasis

on “careful considerations of ecological and life history information.” BPT believes that “careful

considerations of ecological and life history information” with tribal and federal partners may

have precipitated alternative delineation of Recovery Units, which is a critical delineation if

Recovery Units are precursory to DPS designations.

4. The Recovery Unit boundaries in the Draft Plan should be revised to consider existing land

and resource management boundaries of agencies that will implement threats-based management

and to encompass smaller geographic areas that are consistent with existing jurisdictional

boundaries in resident (non-anadromous) fish management.

Recovery Unit delineation does not consider state management lines yet the Draft Plan offers

successful threats management as the new target for defining ESA-recovery. Given that states,

tribes and other federal agencies manage bull trout populations and their habitats, how does the

FWS anticipate collective achievement of successful threats management within Recovery Units

that do not consider existing management boundaries? This particular paradigm in ESA

Recovery Planning may be effective for anadromous populations that, by the nature of their life

histories, require large Recovery Units that are multi-jurisdictional and are subject to legal and

regulatory agreements; however, most bull trout populations are confined to isolated headwater

areas with physical and water quality impediments to their movement. In these areas there is

likely no inclination at the scale of Recovery Units for state-to-state management and monitoring

Page 7 of 16

to ensure threats management thresholds are met at the geographic scale intended by the Draft

Plan.

The Draft Plan aims to “prioritize and implement recovery actions in those areas where success

is likely” (p. 44), which insinuates that some degree of oversight on the geographic scale of each

Recovery Unit is necessary. However, the Malheur Core Areas are currently the only 2 out of 22

in the Upper Snake Recovery Unit that are not, at least partially, located in Idaho. Since

management of resident, non-anadromous fish predominantly occurs according to state lines (e.g.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game), a Draft Plan that

defines ESA Recovery as successful threats-based management but that does not consider the

practicality of existing resource management boundaries, must assume that new inter-state

collaboration and coordination will form to meet these targets. The Draft Plan appears to

provide FWS with a facilitation role at this geographic scale and relies upon the existing

purviews of fish and land management agencies to determine the success and sufficiency of

management. New inter-state collaboration around management of bull trout is unlikely to occur,

particularly between states (e.g. Oregon and Idaho) that do not share commonalities in native

species policy or that adhere to native species policies which are in direct conflict (e.g. Oregon

and Idaho). An alternative strategy would be to redefine Recovery Units primarily based upon

genetic distinction and life history and secondarily along state lines and/or federal land

management districts.

5. The two Malheur River Core Areas should be removed from the Upper Snake Recovery Unit

based on biological uniqueness, the biodiversity principles, and FWS DPS policy.

Since Malheur River bull trout exist at low numbers and spawning surveys have supported that

observation since 1999, these populations cannot be placed at risk for premature delisting based

on the management of populations outside of the Malheur River. The Draft Plan places these

populations at risk for premature delisting via inclusion of these two Core Areas in a Recovery

Unit comprised of Core Areas outside of the management jurisdictions of agencies in Oregon

(i.e., the 20 Core Areas in Idaho) and by assigning a 75% threshold for threats management. BPT

proposes that the FWS removes the two Malheur River Core Areas from the Upper Snake

Recovery Unit to ensure that delisting will not occur until population viability of these two Core

Areas can be empirically demonstrated, and based on biological rationale provided by BPT in

these comments. Aside from abolishing the 75% target for the Upper Snake Recovery Unit,

which the November 4th intertribal comments propose for all Recovery Units for which the 75%

target is in place, the Draft Plan cannot guarantee the protection of the Malheur River Core Areas

until a time at which ESA protection is no longer warranted based solely on the management and

viability of these two Core Areas. BPT questions how the FWS could support any Recovery

Plan that allows for the potential delisting of the Malheur River Core Areas while populations

remain well below viability and thus, in BPT staff’s professional opinion, continue to warrant

ESA protection.

Page 8 of 16

BPT provides the following biologically-supportable rationale for the formation of the two

Malheur River Core Areas into one independent Recovery Unit:

•

•

•

•

Interagency data collection in the Malheur River demonstrated that fluvial bull trout may

mature at an earlier age than individuals in most other bull trout populations (Steve Namitz,

pers. comm.). Schwabe (2005) empirically developed the following size classes for fluvial

bull trout in the Upper Malheur River: age-3 consists of individuals ranging from 175-225

mm and age-4 consists of individuals ranging from 226mm-276mm. Malheur River fluvial

individuals age-4 and potentially age-3 have been confirmed as sexually mature (BPT 1999).

In recent years, BPT capture of fluvial adults in the Upper Malheur and during staging for

spawning in July and August has almost entirely consisted of individuals smaller than 276

mm (BPT 2013, BPT 2014 draft). The earlier age at maturation among fluvial individuals

may be a unique feature among Malheur Core Areas in comparison to the remainder of

Upper Snake Recovery Unit Core Areas in which the age at maturation is generally accepted

to occur at ages 4-6 for fluvial fish (Ratliff and Howell 1992).

The two Malheur River Core Areas are comprised of resident, fluvial, and adfluvial

populations thus meeting the biodiversity principle of “Representation” in which all extant

life history forms must be expressed within the distinct unit.

There is a high potential for the establishment of new populations in the Malheur in currently

unoccupied areas, and a substantial interagency effort to investigate and implement such

reintroductions, thus the potential to meet the biodiversity principle of “Redundancy.”

Additionally, substantial biological evidence exists to support the further division of the two

existing Core Areas into multiple extant populations, thus the principle of “Redundancy”

may already be met with existing populations in the Malheur River (BPT 1999-2013,

Schwabe and Dehaan 2005, Dehaan et al. 2009).

Probability of persistence of extant Malheur populations may be increased by planned and

proposed management actions, thus BPT anticipates that the Malheur River will meet the

principle of “Resiliency” as collaborative management actions continue to be prioritized and

implemented on appropriate geographic scales.

The Draft Plan focuses on outlining Recovery Units that are also consistent with DPS policy

(USFWS 1996). USFWS (1996) requires the basis of DPS definition on the following criteria:

1) “discreteness of a unit”; 2) “the significance of that unit to the taxon”; and 3) “the

conservation status of the unit” (as cited in the Draft Plan). This policy further defines

“significance” as occupying a unique ecological setting, that extirpation of the unit would result

in a gap in the species’ range, or that the unit differs genetically from other populations

(definition as described by Ardren et al. 2011).

Under these criteria for DPS definition, an argument for the Malheur River as its own Recovery

Unit, potentially as precursory to future DPS designation, can be outlined:

Page 9 of 16

•

•

•

Discreteness: the Malheur River Core Areas are not connected to any of the other Upper

Snake Core Areas nor is there ever likely to be volitional connection between these two Core

Areas and the remaining 20 Core Areas of the Upper Snake.

Significance: the Malheur River Core Areas comprise two of only a few Core Areas at the

historic southern extent of the species’ range in the U.S. These are the only two Core Areas

that comprise extant populations in the entirety of Southeast Oregon. Along with the Klamath

Basin, these five Core Areas comprise all extant populations in the entirety of Southern

Oregon. Furthermore, the Malheur Core Areas are genetically distinct from all bull trout

populations in other Snake River tributaries in Oregon (Spruell and Allendorf 1997 as cited

in USFWS 2002). Given that the state lines of Oregon constitute a sovereign management

unit separate from the sovereign management jurisdiction of Idaho, BPT asserts that, under

the threats management framework of the Draft Plan, Malheur River Core Areas should only

be included in Recovery Units with other populations in Oregon. Since Spruell and

Allendorf (1997) demonstrated that Malheur River bull trout are distinct in comparison to

Oregon populations, BPT asserts that the Malheur River should again constitute its own

Recovery Unit and based on genetic uniqueness.

Conservation Status: The Malheur River Core Areas are collaboratively managed by several

state and land management agencies while the BPT leads coordination in these issues. A

substantial amount of resources has been and is planned to be allocated to recovery of these

populations. For example, the Malheur National Forest has been awarded a ten year grant at

$2.2 million annually to implement restorative measures. BPT manages three Bonneville

Power Administration projects, one of which is entirely dedicated to the health of Malheur

River bull trout and is worth approximately $260,000 annually for coordination and

implementation of recovery projects. BPT has already spent nearly one million dollars in the

purchase and planting of riparian species alone in the eight miles of Critical Habitat managed

by BPT. BPT has also excluded cattle grazing entirely from the Critical Habitat under its

management since 2006. The Malheur Core Areas have also benefited from the infrastructure

that has arisen around efforts towards recovery. The Malheur River has one of the largest

Working Groups in Oregon, complemented by the interagency Malheur River Bull Trout

Technical Advisory Committee which meets quarterly to share information, prioritize

recovery actions, and develop new multi-jurisdictional management actions. With the

magnitude of stable resources allocated directly or indirectly to the recovery of Malheur

River bull trout, BPT believes that these Core Areas will not only become a useful case study

for determining the effectiveness of various types of management actions and methods of

monitoring population response, but that a more substantial multi-agency commitment to

restoring these populations to viability exists than in most other basins in Oregon and

throughout the range of bull trout. This commitment has been largely generated by BPT and

the resulting resource allocation is tied to the Malheur River.

Exclusion of the Malheur River Core Areas from the Upper Snake Recovery Unit, and formation

of a new Malheur River Recovery Unit based on the rationale provided, is the only guarantee

Page 10 of 16

that ESA protection of these Core Areas will remain until threats can be effectively managed and

populations can be recovered to the extent that they no longer require ESA protection. The

existing and planned resource allocation, combined with the functional collaborative

management framework described, predisposes the proposed Malheur River Recovery Unit to

successful threats management and to eventual viability of all contained populations.

6. Provide formal clarification on genetic thresholds for conservation of pure bull trout in

anticipation that brook trout will be included as a primary threat in the RUIPs.

BPT anticipates that brook trout will be identified as a primary threat in several Core Areas

within multiple Recovery Units during RUIP development. Management actions around this

threat will require clarification of whether to remove hybrids and at what phenotypic or genetic

threshold. In the Upper Malheur River, occurrence of hybridization beyond the first generation

has been identified (Dehaan et al. 2009); therefore, allowing hybrids to be released during

removal activities may inhibit the success of the management of this threat. State, federal and

tribal land and resource management agencies in the Malheur River could utilize formal

guidance provided by FWS.

Specific Comments

BPT staff provides the following specific comments that were prepared by Malheur River Bull

Trout Technical Advisory Committee members, but which were not included in agency

comments due to respective internal deadlines, the brevity of the Draft Plan comment period, and

the coincidence of the Draft Plan comment period with normal field seasons. BPT includes these

comments as our own as an indication of agreement with other Malheur River Bull Trout

Technical Advisory Committee members on necessary revisions to the Draft Plan.

7. On page vi the Draft Plan states (under Revised Draft Recovery Plan Executive Summary,

“Recover Goals Objectives and Criteria”): “The ultimate goal of this recovery strategy is to

manage threats and ensure sufficient distribution and abundance to improve the status of bull

trout throughout their extant range in the coterminous United States so that protection under the

Endangered Species Act is no longer necessary. When this is achieved, we expect that:

• Bull trout will be geographically widespread across representative habitats and

demographically stable in each recovery unit;

• The genetic diversity and diverse life history forms of bull trout will be conserved to the

maximum extent possible; and

• Cold water habitats essential to bull trout will be conserved and connected.”

Comment: The proposed Draft Plan directly contradicts the above bulleted statements. If four

of the six Draft Recovery Units are delisted, there will be limited opportunities for monitoring

existing populations, and/or limited funding to achieve recovery work to support the above draft

Page 11 of 16

Recovery Goals. Delisting while acknowledging population declines is in direct contradiction to

the three Recovery Goals listed in the Draft Plan.

8. On page vii the Draft Plan provides the following sequential statements (under Revised Draft

Recovery Plan Executive Summary, first paragraph): “Bull trout population status remains

strong in some core areas. However, in developing this revised draft recovery plan, we

acknowledge that despite our best conservation efforts, it is likely that some existing bull trout

core areas will become extirpated due to various factors; including the effects of small

populations and isolation (35 of 110 extant core areas comprise a single local population). Thus,

our current approach to developing recovery criteria and necessary recovery actions for bull trout

is intended to ensure adequate conservation of genetic diversity, life-history features, and broad

geographical representation of bull trout populations while acknowledging some local

extirpations are likely to occur.”

In the second paragraph, the Draft Plan continues: “the proposed recovery criteria represent our

best assessment of the conditions that would most likely result in a determination that listing

under the Act is no longer required.”

And finally in the second paragraph, first bullet: “For the Coastal, Mid-Columbia, Upper Snake

and Columbia Headwaters Recovery Units: Primary threats are effectively managed in at least 75

percent of all core areas, representing 75 percent or more of bull trout local populations within

each of these four recovery units (as identified in Appendix B and Table 2 in this revised draft

recovery plan).”

Comment: The intention to “ensure adequate conservation of genetic diversity, life-history

features, and broad geographical representation of bull trout populations while acknowledging

some local extirpations are likely to occur” is noted, but we professionally disagree that

removing the protections afforded by the ESA “for the Coastal, Mid-Columbia, Upper Snake and

Columbia Headwaters Recovery Units” will have a positive outcome on the conservation of

genetic diversity, life-history features, and broad geographical representation of the bull trout

populations in these units. In actuality, delisting these populations will have a negative effect;

negatively influencing these “Recovery Unit” populations by diminishing genetic diversity,

creating population loss to brook trout hybridization and competition, and ultimately extirpation.

Many recovery actions are implemented through mitigation funding from power producing

entities. Continuation of future bull trout habitat enhancements, monitoring and/or adaptive

management actions may cease if delisting in these Recovery Units occur. However, the

necessity of implementation in those areas is likely to remain as populations will remain well

below viability. Further, unique populations of bull trout in the Coastal, Mid-Columbia, and

Upper Snake Recovery Units will suffer as a result. The short- and long-term effects of any

delisting action based on threats management alone will contradict the intent of the Endangered

Species Act. Some unique, genetically isolated bull trout populations (e.g. upper Malheur River

& North Fork Malheur River) will degrade in status from decreasing to extirpated:

Page 12 of 16

•

•

•

Anthropogenic barriers will prevent natural bull trout recolonization and prevent

metapopulation gene flow via a decreased ability to remove and/or provide passage at known

barriers;

Land use practices will increase pressure on bull trout occupied habitats on federal land by

undermining regulatory actions that are contingent upon listing status; and

Continued bull trout decline is likely if a long-term commitment to recovery actions is

lacking, based on trends in ODFW spawning survey data (1992-2013), and may lead to

extirpation.

Comment: In reference to the following statement (excerpted above) “The proposed recovery

criteria represent our best assessment of the conditions that would most likely result in a

determination that listing under the Act is no longer required”: Acknowledging that bull trout

populations remain in decline does not justify removing ESA protection. We believe bull trout

absolutely require ESA protection based on monitoring data. By this inconsistent “recovery”

logic of delisting declining populations, is it not possible that bull trout status could move from

‘Threatened’ to ‘Delisted’ to ‘Endangered’ and/or ‘Extirpated’? Extirpation could occur without

the mechanism or mandates afforded by the ESA to track and prevent continued population

decline.

Comment: In reference to the following statement (excerpted above) “Primary threats are

effectively managed in at least 75 percent of all core areas, representing 75 percent or more of

bull trout local populations within each of these four recovery units.” Provide clarification on

how achieving effective management in at least 75% of the remaining 40% of bull trout’s

historic distribution is a biologically appropriate justification for delisting. It appears USFWS is

suggesting that managing threats in 30% of historic range (e.g. 75% x 40% = 30%) is considered

“recovery,” while acknowledging that “some local extirpations are likely to occur” and

recognizing that managing threats does not ensure stable or increasing population abundance.

9. On page 8 the Draft Plan states (last paragraph): “In preparation of this revised draft recovery

plan, we also applied the NatureServe status assessment tool to evaluate the status of the six

recovery units. The tool rated the Klamath Recovery Unit as the least robust, most vulnerable

bull trout recovery unit and the Upper Snake Recovery Unit the most robust and least

vulnerable.”

Comment: The Upper Snake Recovery Unit is listed as the “most robust” and “least

vulnerable.” Upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur populations have been in a decreasing

trend since 2000 (ODFW spawning survey reports included in BPT 2000-2013). Therefore,

Upper Malheur River and North Fork Malheur River populations should not be included in a

Recovery Unit that has met the 75% Criteria for delisting. ODFW has been performing redd

counts in this system since 1992 “due to increased interest in the status of bull trout.” Delisting

these populations will decrease regulatory interest in continued monitoring of spawning

Page 13 of 16

abundance, and likely move populations toward extirpation by reducing the necessity of

management actions. ODFW redd survey methodology caveats their counts with “Brook trout

are present in the upper Malheur River system, and spawn timing overlaps with that of bull

trout.” And further “In the upper Malheur Watershed, distinguishing between bull trout and

brook trout redds is impossible without identifying the fish creating each redd” (Hurn 2014). If

Malheur River bull trout are delisted as a function of management elsewhere in the Upper Snake

Recovery Unit, it is unlikely that the acknowledged threat of brook trout will be addressed due to

reduced regulatory necessity.

10. On page 8 the Draft Plan states (last paragraph): “In preparation of this revised draft recovery

plan, we also applied the NatureServe status assessment tool to evaluate the status of the six

recovery units…The Upper Snake Recovery Unit is ranked as T4: ‘Apparently SecureUncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.’”

Comment: This is not consistent with the 2005, 5 year status review figures. How did the status

of so many Core Areas move from ‘At Risk or High Risk’ and ‘Declining or Unknown’ (Maps A

& D, respectively from the 2008 5 year review) predominantly within the Draft Upper Snake

River Recovery Units move to “Apparently Secure” in three years (2005 to 2008)?

USFWS (2013) states “the law’s (ESA) ultimate goal is to ‘recover’ species so they no longer

need protection under the ESA. Recovery plans describe the steps needed to restore a species to

ecological health. FWS biologists write and implement these plans with the assistance of species

experts; other Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; nongovernmental organizations;

academia; and other stakeholders.” Biologists and managers in the Malheur River do not believe

that including upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur bull trout populations within the Upper

Snake Recovery Unit will meet the intent of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore we believe

the upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur bull trout populations should comprise one unique

Recovery Unit designated completely within the boundary of the state of Oregon.

11. On page 56, the Draft Plan states (first subheading, “Upper Snake Recovery Unit”): Brook

trout are identified as a primary threat in eight core areas within this recovery unit. Brook trout

removal efforts should be implemented where feasible and biologically supportable. Preventing

spread of brook trout into new drainages should be prioritized (e.g., in the North Fork Malheur

River).”

Comment: If the Upper Snake River Recovery Unit is delisted, brook trout removal efforts will

not be implemented although feasible and biologically supportable. Pressure on existing bull

trout populations will continue and there will be no mechanism in place to prevent the spread of

brook trout into new drainages (e.g. to the North Fork Malheur River). There will be no funding

source for these previously prioritized actions and the 5 plus years of planning efforts will have

been wasted. Therefore we believe the Upper Malheur and North Fork Malheur bull trout

Page 14 of 16

populations should comprise one unique Recovery Unit designated completely within the

boundary of the state of Oregon.

12. In reference to the Threats Table (p. 97-98), Comment: We request clarification in the

“threat table” applying to all boxes that list “Upland/riparian land management (legacy timber

harvest and Roads)”. As currently stated it implies that current threats are associated with legacy

upland and riparian management. While legacy effects should be addressed, threats should also

include on-going and future land management practices. All current and future upland and

riparian land management practices should be developed and implemented mindfully when ESA

listed species could potentially be affected.

References

Bowerman, Tracy. 2013. A multi-scale investigation of factors limiting bull trout viability

(2013). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1524.

(BPT) Burns Paiute Tribe. 2000-2013. Annual Reports to Bonneville Power Administration.

Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur River Subbasin. Project

No. 1997-019-00.

(BPT) Burns Paiute Tribe. 1999. FY1999 Annual Report to Bonneville Power Administration.

Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur River Subbasin. Project

No. 1997-019-00. 118 p.

(BPT) Burns Paiute Tribe. 2013. FY2013 Annual Report to Bonneville Power Administration.

Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur River Subbasin. Project

No. 1997-019-00. 92 p.

(BPT) Burns Paiute Tribe. 2014 Draft (final expected by July 2015). FY2014 Annual Report to

Bonneville Power Administration. Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the

Malheur River Subbasin. Project No. 1997-019-00.

DeHaan, P., L. Schwabe, W. Arden. 2009. Spatial patterns of hybridization between bull trout,

Salvelinus confluentus, and brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis in an Oregon stream

network. Conservation Genetics. 11 (3): 935-949.

Hurn, Shannon. 2013. Bull Trout Spawning Survey Report. Malheur Fish District. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Annual Report. 17 pp.

Rieman, B. and F. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation criteria

for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 756-764.

Rieman, B. and J. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of

bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain

Research Station, Boise, ID.

Page 15 of 16

Schwabe, L. 2005. Determine the length at age for bull trout through the analysis of cycloid

scales taken from bull trout in the Malheur River, Oregon. Chapter 4 in Evaluate the Life

History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur Subbasin. FY2005 Annual Report. Prepared

for Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 1997-019-00. 4-1 to 4-11.

Schwabe, L. and P. Dehaan. 2005. Genetic population structure of bull trout in the Upper

Malheur River Basin. Chapter 3 in Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids in the

Malheur Subbasin. FY2005 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power

Administration, Project No. 1997-019-00. 3-1 to 3-3.

Duke, S. Personal Communication. Personal contact with employee at the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, Boise, ID. Reference to comments at a

joint tribal and USFWS meeting held in Spokane on June 5, 2014.

Steve Namitz, pers. comm. Personal contact with employee at the U.S. Forest Service, Malheur

National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, John Day, OR. Contact at

smnamitz@fs.fed.us.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon.

71 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft

Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 71pp.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. ESA Basics. 40 Years of Conserving

Endangered Species. Fact Sheet. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf (Accessed December 2014).

Page 16 of 16