title
Conservation status of Colorado River cutthroat trout
author
Array ( [0] => Young, Michael K. [1] => Schmal, R. Nick [2] => Kohley, Thomas W. [3] => Leonard, Victoria G. )
abstract
General Technical Report RM-GTR-282
date
1996-01-01
organization
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (Fort Collins, Colo.) ; United States. Forest Service
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/conservation-status-of-colorado-river-cutthroat-trout.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/conservation-status-of-colorado-river-cutthroat-trout-pdf-1-791x1024.jpg
content
1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 General Technical Report RM-GTR-249 Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Michael K. Young R. Nick Schmal Thomas W. Kohley Victoria G. Leonard klyon OCR Disclaimer Young, Michael K., R. Nick Schmal, Thomas W. Kohley, and Victoria G. Leonard. 1996. Conservation status of Colorado River cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-GTR-282. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi- ment Station. 32 p. Abstract Though biologists recognize that populations of Colorado River cut- throat trout have declined, the magnitude of the loss remains unquantified. We obtained information from state and federal biologists and from state databases to determine the current distribution and status of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Recent population extinctions have been documented throughout this range. Hybridization with rainbow trout, nonindigenous cut- throat trout (those established or supplemented by stocking of genetically pure fish), and introgressed hatchery stocks has degraded many populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Only 26% of the remaming populations are believed to be genetically pure. Almost 45% of the remaining populations are at least partly sympatric with non-native trout species or hybridized hatchery stocks. Brook trout are the most common sympatric non-native species. Barriers (permanent, physical obstructions) to upstream migration are known to protect 27% of the indigenous populations from non-native stocks. Land management problems were inconsistently mentioned, but grazing and dewatering were the most frequently cited. As a consequence of these threats, the continued existence of Colorado River cutthroat trout is in doubt. Of the 318 waters, only 20 contain Colorado River cutthroat trout that are believed to be indigenous, genetically pure, allopatric above a barrier, and in a drainage not recently stocked. Keywords: Colorado River cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus, extinction, conservation biology Acknowledgments We thank Mike Bozek, Jeff Cameron, Don Duff, Mark Fowden, Tom Fratt, Dave Gerhardt, Dale Hepworth, Corey Sue Hutchinson, Ellie Jones, Rick Jones, Kevin Johnson, Sandra Kaye, Mary McAfee, Kurt Nelson, Marsha Raus, Ron Remmick, Bruce Rosenlund, Paul Thompson, Dan Vos, and Bill Wengert for providing data and reviewing portions of Appendix A. We also thank Don Miller from Wyoming and Mark Jones and Bill Weiler from Colorado for providing access to or information from the databases. Comments by Dan Isaak, Anita Martinez, Kevin Meyer, Tom Nesler, Phil Pister, Amie Shovlain, David Wilcove, and Rick Wilkison substantially improved the manuscript. Cover: Historic range of Colorado River cutthroat trout and location of remaining conservation populations. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-282 August 1996 Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Michael K. Young, Fisheries Scientist1 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Laramie, Wyoming R. Nick Schmal, Program Leader2 Rocky Mountain Region Fish Habitat Relationships Unit, USDA Forest Service, Laramie, Wyoming Thomas W. Kohley, Research Associate Wyoming Water Resources Center, Laramie, Wyoming Victoria G. Leonard, Technician Rocky Mountain Region Fish Habitat Relationships Unit. USDA Forest Service, Laramie. Wyoming I Headquarters is in Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State University. * In cooperation with the University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service and Department of Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management, College of Agrlcui- ture. Page Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Historical Distribution and Current Management ................................................ 1 Methods .................................................................................................................... 2 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 2 .............................................................................. Reintroduced populations 3 ................................................................................................... Genetic purity 4 Non-native trout .......................................................................................... 4 ............................................................................................................. Barriers 5 Land management ........................................................................................... 6 Population status ............................................................................................ 6 Immediate needs .............................................................................................. 6 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................ 7 Appendix A Characteristics of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah. Utah.Wyoming. Wyoming. and Colorado waters ... 10 Appendix B Current distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah. Utah.Wyoming. Wyoming. and Colorado waters ........................... 18 Appendix C Data sources for specific geographic sites .................................... 32 Appendix D Names of fishes ................................................................................. 32 Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Michael K. Young, R. Nick Schmal, Thomas W. Kohley, and Victoria G. Leonard INTRODUCTION Many populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout have been exterminated since the late 1800s. The now-familiar causes, which include introduc- tions of non-native fishes, habitat degradation, loss and fragmentation, and overharvest, were wide- spread throughout the historic range of this sub- species (Young 1995b). Most of these practices continue (Young 1995a) and presumably so does the loss of populations. An increased awareness of this loss has led to attempts to maintain and restore populations of this subspecies (e.g., Pister 1990) and to document their occurrence. Most assessments of the status and distribution of this subspecies have focused on portions of states or national forests (Remmick 1982; Oberholtzer 1987; Martinez 1988; Langlois et al. 1994), but a compre- hensive overview of the security of the subspecies is lacking. The intent of this review was to: (1) examine historical information on the distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout; (2) determine the current distribution of the subspecies in its former range of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah (neglecting potential populations in Arizona and New Mexico); and (3) identify characteristics that could influence the persistence of these popula- tions. HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT Comprehensive descriptions of the historical range of Colorado River cutthroat trout are un- available. Behnke (1992) considered the range to include all accessible cool waters of the upper Colorado River drainage, including the Green, Yampa, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan, Duchesne, and Dirty Devil rivers. By the 1970s, this distribu- tion had been drastically reduced (Behnke and Benson 1980). The decline triggered responses from several management agencies. Colorado River cutthroat trout were classified as a Category 2 species (considered for formal listing under the Endangered Species Act until this category was abolished) by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, a sensitive species by Regions 2 and 4 of the U.S. Forest Service, and designated with special status by Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Johnson 1987). Separate management plans for this subspecies have been prepared for northwestern Colorado, southwestern Colorado, south-central Wyoming, southwestern Wyoming, and Utah. Conservation strategies have centered on sur- veys, angling restrictions, and channel modifica- tions. Initially, population inventories were lim- ited. Behnke and Zarn (1976) knew of only two genetically pure populations, both in Wyoming. However, they reported but did not identify a number of hybridized populations. Later surveys were more thorough and additional populations were located. Binns (1977) identified 42 waters in the Little Snake River, Blacks Fork, and upper Green River drainage in Wyoming that supported populations of this subspecies. Oberholtzer (1987) collected Colorado River cutthroat trout from 36 streams in the Little Snake River drainage. In the most extensive survey, Martinez (1988) evaluated 160 streams and lakes in northwestern Colorado within the historical range of this subspecies and found 96 populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout; 21 of which were considered genetically pure. Other intensive surveys of the distribution of this subspecies were completed in southcentral Wyoming (Oberholtzer 1990), southwestern Wyo- ming (Remmick 1982), and northwestern Colorado (T. Fratt, Routt National Forest, pers. comm.; D. Vos, White River National Forest, pers. comm.). Strategies for restricting anglers have varied. Many Wyoming populations are protected by fishing closures or catch-and-release regulations. Similarly, Colorado has prohibited harvest and mandates the use of artificial flies and lures in some waters containing this subspecies. Utah chose not to apply special regulations to certain streams containing this subspecies to avoid attract- ing public attention (Schmidt et al. 1995). Most conservation and management plans (e.g., Speas et al. 1994) for the Colorado River cutthroat bout emphasize barrier (permanent, physical obstructions; e.g., installing rock weirs) construc- tion to protect existing populations, or barrier construction and chemical treatment (fish removal) to prepare the waters for reintroduction (e.g., West Beaver Creek, Colorado and Clear Creek, Wyo- ming). An alternative to chemical treatment is depletion-removal electrofishing. The advantage of this method is that nontarget fish, such as Colo- rado River cutthroat trout, are not killed; nonethe- less, complete elimination of undesirable species may be impossible (Thompson 1995). Agencies have also installed channel structures to increase habitat quantity and quality, and are modlfying land management to improve stream habitat. METHODS We used three techniques to obtain information on the status and distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout within their historical range. First, we sent two questionnaires to state and federal biologists responsible for managing waters known or suspected to contain Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Second, we obtained data from publications, reports, and personal contacts. Third, we searched the comput- erized databases maintained by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for references to Colorado River cutthroat trout and for records of stocking in waters believed to contain this subspecies. Information obtained from the first question- naire included the name and location of waters known to contain Colorado River cutthroat trout, the non-native trout present, the genetic purity of Colorado River cutthroat trout and mode of deter- mination, and the land management activities affecting the water. After assembling this informa- tion, we prepared a follow-up questionnaire that was submitted to the same biologists. The second questionnaire included questions on population origin and the presence of a barrier to upstream migration. Because not all biologists responded to our pleas for information, the list of populations and their characteristics is inaccurate. In many cases, waters with marginal populations have not been recently revisited, and some of these populations may now be extinct. Similarly, stocking records were limited. The computerized database for Colorado only contains records since 1973, and earlier stocking was not consistently reported. Also, we were unclear about the identity of certain waters; some were unnamed on maps or had names different than those on U.S. Geological Survey maps. Unau- thorized stocking by anglers could not be docu- mented and perhaps not all stocking by state or federal agencies was entered in the database. These same concerns pertain to Wyoming. Few records of any kind could be obtained from Utah. We used the terms "population" and "water" interchangeably because we could not distinguish between distinct populations that occupied the same body of water (e.g., perhaps in Trappers Lake, Colorado; Thurow et al. 1988) or determine when a single population occupied more than one stream or lake (e.g., perhaps in the North Fork Little Snake River, Wyoming; Fausch and Young 1995). Our convention may be appropriate for most populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout because they are isolated in relatively short stream reaches. We believe that this list of waters is a critical benchmark in assessing the status of Colorado River cutthroat trout and for gaging the success or failure of future conservation efforts. We hope field biologists will direct future efforts to correct- ing our errors and oversights. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We estimate that 318 populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout still exist within the historical range of this subspecies in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado (Table 1; Appendix A; Appendix B). This total is provisional because the inclusion of some waters is controversial, for the following reasons. Table 1. Summary of characteristics for populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah, Utah-Wyoming, Wyoming, and Colorado waters. All numbers refer t o the number of populations. Characteristics UT UT-WY WY CO Total Total populations Nonindigenous populations' Genetic purity Pure Hybridized Mixed results Not tested Genetic technique Meristics Protein electrophoresis mtDNA analysis Non-native species Waters w~th sympatric populations of brook trout of brown trout of non-native cutthroat trout of ralnbow trout Waters stocked since 1973 w~th brook trout with brown trout with non-native cutthroat trout with rainbow trout Recently stocked in headwaters Waters with barriers2 Yes No Breached Unknown Land management effects Dewatering Grazing Logging Mining Road erosion Populations established or supplemented by stocking of genetically pure fish. * Permanent, physical obstructions to upstream migration; non-native species are present above a breached barrier. Reintroduced populations lished or supplemented by stocking of genetically pure fish). The population in Durfey Creek, Utah, All three states have re-established or created was translocated from nearby East Fork Boulder new populations of genetically pure Colorado Creek. A hatchery stock from trout in Rock Creek River cutthroat trout; 17% of all waters have 2, Wyoming, supplemented or founded popula- received such nonindigenous fish (those estab- tions in Wyoming and Utah-Wyoming waters. Similarly, a stock from trout in Williamson Lakes, California, which originated from Trappers Lake, Colorado in 1931 (Pister 1990), was used in Colo- rado waters. Some of these waters, especially lakes (e.g., Big Sheep Mountain Lake, Wyoming and Bench Lake, Colorado), were probably historically barren. They were included, but whether they should be considered "restored" populations is debatable. Not all attempts to maintain or restore popula- tions of Colorado River cutthroat trout have succeeded. Populations above barriers in some streams (e.g., Irene and Nameless Creeks, Wyo- ming) are apparently not self-sustaining, but rely on repeated stocking (Thompson 1995). Perhaps inadequate or insufficient habitat prevented successful re-establishment of these populations. Alternatively, hatchery populations founded by migratory or lacustrine stocks may be maladapted for restoring Colorado River cutthroat trout to small, fragmented streams. Genetic purity Only 26% of the remaining populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout were judged to be genetically pure (Table 1). In contrast, 42% were thought to be introgressed with genes from rain- bow trout or nonindigenous stocks of cutthroat trout; 28% remain unevaluated. Though genetic analysis is critical, absolute confidence in purity designation is unjustified because of technique or sampling method deficiencies. As evidence, 15 populations have been judged both genetically pure and introgressed. Many of these mixed conclusions resulted from meristic analyses, which are based on counts or the presence of certain anatomical characters, conducted by different individuals at different times (e.g., Northwater and Cunningham Creeks, Colorado). Though the populations may have become hybridized in the interval between samples, it is also likely that different meristic analyses conflicted because the method is highly subjective (Hubert and Alexander 1995). The accuracy of meristic analysis is also suspect because of the lack of experimental studies comparing meristic counts of pure fish, their first-generation hybrids and backcrosses (a first-generation hybrid mated with a parent), and the absence of assessments of the statistical reli- ability of these counts. One of the characteristics thought to be an indicator of hybridization with rainbow trout, the absence of basibranchial teeth, has been demonstrated to be unreliable (Leary et al. 1996). Meristic analysis may also be less sensi- tive than other techniques (Campton 1987) because meristic variation may have environmental and genetic components (Leary et al. 1985). Meristic analysis of purity should be considered an interim assessment until other techniques are applied. Partlv due to the high costs of these methods, " only 49 populations have been genetically evalu- ated by using protein electrophoresis (Leary et al. 1993) or by examining mitochondria1 DNA (Shiozawa and Evans 1995a). These techniques are less subjective, but still suffer shortcomings for evaluating genetic characteristics (Campton 1987; Utter 1987; R.J. Behnke, Colorado State University, pers. comm.), which produced conflicting designa- tions of purity (e.g., Currant and South Fork Sheep Creeks, Utah). We have the greatest confidence in the genetic evaluations for populations judged free from hybridization by all three methods (e.g., Beaver Creek, Utah, and Rock Creek 2, Wyoming). Unfortunately, for some hybrids, such as green- backs crossed with Colorado River cutthroat trout, there may be no technique that reliably distin- guishes them from the parent stock (Behnke 1992; R. Leary, University of Montana, pers. comm.). Non-native trout The introduction and subsequent spread of non- native trout may be the greatest threat to the continued existence of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Behnke 1992). Almost 45% of the remaining populations are at least partly sympatric with non-native species or stocks (Table I). Brook trout occurred in nearly 90% of these sympatric populations and rainbow trout in 2890. Brook trout have been widely reported to replace Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oberholtzer 1987; Behnke 1992; Thompson 1995), and hybridization with rainbow trout has been repeatedly documented (Leary 1990; Behnke 1992; Bischoff 1995). Non-native salmonids have been stocked in the historical range of Colorado River cutthroat trout for over 100 years. Such stocking began in 1872 in Colorado (Wiltzius 1985). Brook and rainbow trout were first introduced in 1880 in Wyoming, and brown trout were first stocked 10 years later (Wiley 1993). In the North Fork Little Snake River drainage in Wyoming, rainbow trout were first introduced in 1950 and Yellowstone cutthroat and brook trout in 1936 (Oberholtzer 1987). In the Savery Creek drainage, tributary to the Little Snake River, rainbow, brook, and brown trout were first introduced in 1936 and fine-spotted or Yellowstone cutthroat trout may have been intro- duced as early as 1933 (Eiserman 1958). Rainbow trout were first stocked in 1915 in the Smiths Fork, a tributary to the Green River in Wyoming (M. Fowden, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, pers. comm.). Rainbow, brook ,brown, golden, and lake trout and coho salmon were introduced into the northern and eastern portions of the Green River drainage before 1934 (Simon 1935), which probably explains the complete absence of indig- enous populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in that portion of the watershed. Stocking of non-native trout continues to threaten Colorado River cutthroat trout. Of the waters considered to support this subspecies, 30% have been recently stocked. Many streams on public land in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado with road crossings, which allow for stocking by auto- mobiles, or with headwater lakes, which allow for stocking by aircraft, have introduced populations of non-native trout. Because some of these waters (e.g., Porcupine Lake, Lake of the Crags, and Lake Diana, Colorado) have been repeatedly stocked with nonindigenous forms of cutthroat trout, they probably should not be included in the remaining range of this subspecies. However, they have been included in this assessment. Recent stocking has been extensive. For ex- ample, of the 152 waters believed to contain rem- nant populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Colorado, 70 have been directly stocked with non-native trout or have had presumably con- nected portions of their watersheds stocked. Sixty- three of the 70 waters have been stocked with species or subspecies likely to hybridize with Colorado River cutthroat trout. These stocks include rainbow trout, Pikes Peak cutthroat I , Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat, Trappers Lake cutthroat >, and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Barriers The majority of waters containing Colorado River cutthroat trout have not been surveyed for migration barriers. Only 28% of the waters with indigenous trout populations are known to have barriers that protect those populations from inva- sions by non-native stocks (Table 1). Although what constitutes a natural barrier to migration has not been quantitatively defined, many barriers are human-made structures designed to prevent fish passage. In Wyoming, such structures are at least 1 m high with a downstream apron typically extending over 2 m (Ed Novotny, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, pers. comm.). Human-made barriers are less permanent than geologic barriers; high flows in 1995 severed a 10-month-old weir in West Beaver Creek, Colorado. Twenty waters possess barriers that have been breached by non-native trout species. Headwater introductions by government agencies may ac- count for some of these instances, and improper design or maintenance may have enabled brook trout to scale some barriers (e.g., Nameless and Deep Creeks, Wyoming). The most insidious threats to populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout above barriers are illegal introductions by anglers. This activity often enables non-native trout to reproduce and spread before they are detected by management agencies. For example, when sampling the North Fork Little Snake River above a barrier in 1995, we discovered at least three age classes of brook trout distributed over 4 km, suggesting that adults were probably intro- duced in 1993 (M. Young, unpub. data). This illegal introduction may jeopardize the future of the largest population of indigenous Colorado River cutthroat trout in Wyoming. 'Greenback cutthroat trout that have hybridized with Yellow- stone cutthroat andsnake River fine- spotfedcutthroat trout (D. Krieger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, per.. cornrn.). *Colorado River cutthroat trout that have hybridized with Yel- lowstone cutthroat troutandrainbow trout (Martinez 1988; Leary 1990). Land management Grazing, stream-dewatering, and roads were the most frequently identified problems for waters containing Colorado River cutthroat trout. But the effects of land management were rarely noted by most biologists responding to the questionnaire and may be more widespread than reported. Land management problems were usually noted for well-studied watersheds. For example, water diversion structures and roads for the Cheyenne Stage I1 water diversion project in the North Fork Little Snake River watershed accounted for most these effects in Wyoming (Appendix A). Population status Fluvial populations (individuals migrating between rivers and streams or between different streams) of Colorado River cutthroat trout have been extirpated from most large streams and rivers throughout their historic range. The North Fork Little Snake River may contain the longest contigu- ous, available habitat of 27.8 km (Oberholtzer 1990). Similarly, indigenous populations of adfluvial Colorado River cutthroat trout (individu- als migrating between lakes and streams) have almost been eliminated from their historic range. Of the 318 waters containing this subspecies, only 24 are lakes or reservoirs and only two indigenous populations have escaped extensive introductions of non-native stocks. These populations are in the Fryingpan Lakes in Colorado, which may lack a barrier, and North Piney Lake in Wyoming, which nevertheless contains brook trout. Yet adfluvial stocks have been readily re-established and could be a priority for further restoration. Most of the occupied range of this subspecies consists of isolated segments of small streams on public land; only Miller and Smith Creeks in Colorado and Van Tassel Creek in Wyoming are largely private. This fragmentation resulted from human-built structures (e.g., culverts and water diversions) that blocked upstream fish movement, and from non-native salmonids in lower reaches that seemingly prevented recolonization by Colo- rado River cutthroat trout. Populations of Colo- rado River cutthroat trout in these segments are probably at risk of short-term extinction particu- Table 2. Potential sites for restoration of connectivity between populations. Utah-Wyoming Upper Henrys Fork Upper Blacks Fork Wyoming North Fork Little Snake River West Branch North Fork Little Snake River LaBarge Creek Hams Fork Cottonwood Creek Piney Creek Colorado Upper Piedra River South Fork Little Snake River East Fork Parachute Creek Thomoson Creek south' Fork Ranch Creek Little Muddy Creek Linle Green Creek larly from events such as fire, flood, toxic spills, or one-time stocking of non-native fish (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). But in several locations, connected networks of streams enable individuals to move freely or connections could be restored by non- native fish removal and downstream barriers (Table 2). Such networks could be the focus of restoration (Moyle and Yoshiyama 1994). Linking populations may reduce their risk of extinction by providing some habitats likely to be unaffected by a single environmental disturbance (Shaffer 1987). For this reason, Wyoming intends to chemically remove all non-native fish from the lower reaches of the West Branch and the mainstem of the North Fork Little Snake River downstream to a geologic barrier (M. Fowden, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, pers. comm.). This would reconnect two of the largest populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in the Little Snake River watershed. Immediate needs As a consequence of the introduction of non- native species, historical overharvest (Behnke 19921, improper land management, and a lack of knowledge about this subspecies, the continued existence of Colorado River cutthroat trout is in doubt. Of the 318 waters believed to contain this subspecies, only 20 may support populations that are indigenous, genetically pure, allopatric above a barrier, and in a drainage not recently stocked. We consider these "conservation populations" because of their importance as regionally adapted stocks, which might be used to restore populations to nearby waters, and because they may be tempo- rarily secure. Despite this standing, such popula- tions may be too small to remain viable. The overall status of this subspecies may be much worse or only marginally better than we have depicted because of what we do not know. For example, many populations have not been geneti- cally tested, only 12 of those considered genetically pure have been evaluated with more than one technique, and we cannot confirm the presence of a barrier for 25 waters containing purportedly genetically pure populations. Many waters that we included have not been examined for over 20 years and may no longer contain Colorado River cut- throat trout. Finally, historically barren waters and those that have been intensively stocked make a dubious contribution to the total number of popu- lations. Because lakes and accessible streams have experienced intensive fish management, retention of unrecognized, indigenous populations of this subspecies is unlikely. But small streams that are rarely visited by anglers, biologists, or fish culturists may contain remnant populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Clusters of such streams may persist in the Gunnison and Dolores river basins in Colorado or the upper Blacks Fork and Strawberry river basins in Utah. Because small streams seem the most likely to contain barriers to upstream migration, these populations may represent the best remaining genetic examples of the subspecies. Biologists have several tactics for increasing the knowledge of the status and distribution of Colo- rado river cutthroat trout. We recommend that biologists examine the state databases to identify waters that have not been recently stocked or sampled, or to find waters that other biologists have not noticed. Electrofishing, or visual or hook- and-line surveys in remote waters are effective in identifying populations of Colorado River cut- throat trout and may provide information on the characteristics, location, and permanence of natu- ral barriers. Populations protected by a natural barrier or an old human-made barrier, such as a water diversion, or those with good phenotypic characteristics are likely candidates for genetic testing. Finally, noting the location of existing populations may lead to the discovery of nearby populations and will enable biologists to recognize streams of importance to the conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout. LITERATURE CITED Behnke, R.J. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North America. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Mono- graph 6. Behnke, R.J., and D.E. Benson. 1980. Endangered and threatened fishes of the upper Colorado River basin. Cooperative Extension Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Bulletin 503A. Behnke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-28. Binns, N.A. 1977. Present status of indigenous populations of cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, in southwest Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Fisheries Technical Bulletin 2. Bischoff, C.M. 1995. Introgression between Colo- rado River cutthroat trout and rainbow trout in an isolated drainage system. Master's thesis, Utah State University. Logan. Campton, D.E. 1987. Natural hybridization and introgression in fishes: methods of detection and genetic interpretations. Pages 161-192 in N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors. 1987. Population genetics & fishery management. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Eiserman, F. 1958. A fisheries survey of the Little Snake River drainage. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Fisheries Technical Report 6. Fausch, K.D., and M.K. Young. 1995. Evolution- arily significant units and movement of resident stream fishes: a cautionary tale. J.L. Nielsen and D. Powers, editors. Pages 360-370. In: Evolution D. Powers, editors. Pages 360-370. In: Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Hubert, W.A., and C.B. Alexander. 1995. Observer variation in counts of meristic traits affects fluctuating asymmetry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:156-158. Johnson, J.E. 1987. Protected fishes of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Langlois, D., J. Cameron, C.S. Hutchinson, M. Japhet, D. Smith, and J. Castellano. 1994. Colo- rado River cutthroat trout conservation strategy for southwest Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2300 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401. Leary, R.F. 1990. Genetic and meristic analysis of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula. Population Genetics Laboratory Report 90/2. Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and K.L. Knudsen. 1985. Inheritance of meristic variation and the evolution of developmental stability in rainbow trout. Evolution 39:308-314. Leary, R.F., W.R. Gould, and G.K. Sage. 1996. Success of basibranchial teeth in indicating pure populations of rainbow trout and failure to indicate pure populations of westlsope cutthraot trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:210-213. Leary, R.F., G.K. Sage, and F.W. Allendorf. 1993. Genetic variation in Colorado River cutthroat trout in the North Fork Little Snake River drainage, Wyoming. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Laboratory Report 93/3. Martinez, A.M. 1988. Identification and status of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Colorado. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4231-89. Moyle, P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five-tiered approach. Fisheries (Bethesda) 19(2):6-18. Oberholtzer, M. 1987. A fisheries survey of the Little Snake River drainage, Carbon County, Wyoming. Fish Division, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Project 5086.01- 8501. Oberholtzer, M. 1990. Current status of Colorado River cutthroat trout in the Little Snake River enclave. Fish Division, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Project 5090-28- 8501. Pister, P. 1990. Pure Colorado trout saved by California. Outdoor California 51:12-15. Remmick, R. 1982. A survey of native cutthroat populations and associated stream habitats in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Fish Divi- sion, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demo- graphic and habitat requirements for conserva- tion of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Inter- mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report INT-302. Schmidt, B.R., P.W. Birdsey, Jr., and B.R. Nielson. 1995. A conceptual management plan for cut- throat trout in Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publication 95-7 Shaffer, M. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. M.E. Soul6, ed. Pages 69-86. In: Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shiozawa, D.K., and R.P. Evans. No date. The genetic status of the cutthroat trout population in Rock Creek, Sublette Co.. Wyoming based on examination of mitochondria1 DNA. Final report to Kemmerer Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Kemmerer, Wyoming. 11 p. Shiozawa, D.K., and R.P. Evans. 1994. Relation- ships between cutthroat trout populations from thirteen Utah streams in the Colorado River and Bonneville drainages. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden. Final Report. Contract 92- 2377. Shiozawa, D.K., and R.P. Evans. 1995a. The use of DNA to identify geographical isolation in trout stocks. R. Barnhart, B. Shake, and R.H. Hamre, technical editors. Pages 125-131. In: Wild Trout V: wild trout in the 21st century. Yellowstone National Park, 26-27 September 1994. Shiozawa, D.K., and R.P. Evans. 199513. Relation- ships between cutthroat trout populations from eight Utah streams in the Colorado River and Bonneville drainages. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden. Interim Report. Contract 94- 2377. Shiozawa, D.K., R.P. Evans, and R.N. Williams. 1993. Relationships between cutthroat trout populations from ten Utah streams in the Colo- rado River and Bonneville drainages. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ogden. Interim Report. Contract 92-2377. Simon, J.R. 1935. A survey of the waters of the Wyoming National Forest. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D.C. Speas, C., M. Fowden, M. Gorges, T. Rinkes, G. Eaglin, and B. Wengert. 1994. Conservation plan for Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clnrki pleuriticus) for the Little Snake River drainage in southeastern Wyoming. 49 p. Thompson, P.D. 1995. Evaluating the effectiveness of electrofishing and man-made barriers for controlling brook trout populations in streams containing cutthroat trout. Master's thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 272 p. Throw, R.F., C.E. Corsi, and V.K. Moore. 1988. Status, ecology, and management of Yellow- stone cutthroat trout in the upper Snake River drainage, Idaho. R.E. Gresswell, editor. Pages 25-36. In: Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4. Utter, F., P. Aebersold, and G. Winans. 1987. Interpreting genetic variation detected by electrophoresis. N. Ryman and F. Utter, editors. Pages 21-45. In: Population genetics & fishery management. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Wernsman, G.R. 1973. Systematics of native Colorado cutthroat trout. Master's thesis, Colo- rado State University, Fort Collins. 57 p. Wiley, R.W. 1993. Wyoming fish management, 1869-1993. Fish Division, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Admin- istrative Report. 27 p. Wiltzius, W.J. 1985. Fish culture and stocking in Colorado, 1872-1978. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Division Report 12. Young, M. K. 1995a. Colorado River cutthroat trout. M. K. Young, technical editor. Pages 16-23. In: A conservation assessment for inland cut- throat trout. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- tain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-GTR-256. Young, M. K. 199513. Synthesis of management and research considerations. M. K. Young, technical editor. Pages 55-61. In: A conservation assess- ment for inland cutthroat trout. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-GTR-256. Appendix A. Characteristics of populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah, Utah-Wyoming, Wyoming, and Colorado waters. Waters are listed from downstream to upstream within each state. Genetic Tech- Non-native s ~ e c i e s In A~oend i x B Water' Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 Stockeds [email protected] Activity7 Figures Water* UTAH Escalante R. E. Fk. Boulder Cr.7 W. Fk. Boulder Cr. Durfey Cr: Duchesne R. Whiterocks R. Reader Cr. Yellowstone R. Avintaquin Cr. Currant Cr. Racetrack Cr. Timber Canyon Willow Cr. W. Fk. Duchesne R. Green R. Dry Fk. Ashley Cr. Dolores R. Geyser Cr. La Sal Cr. Beaver Cr. Mid. Fk. Beaver Cr. UTAH-WYOMING Green R. Red Cr.' Caner Cr. N. Fk. Sheep Cr. S. Fk. Sheep Cr. Henrys Fk. Birch Cr: Burnt Fk. W. Beaver Cr.' Poison Cr. Dahlgreen Cr. Currant Cr.' Blacks Fk. Blacks Fk. E. Muddy Cr. W. Muddy Cr. Van Tassel Cr. Cononwood Cr: Sage Cr. Swamp Cr: Willow Cr. E. Fk. Smiths Fk: Gilbert Cr.' Little Gilbert Cr. W. Fk. Smiths Fk. Archie Cr. Boulder Cr. P Boulder Cr. P W. Fk. Boulder Cr. p Uinta A. Whiterocks R. Lake Fork R. Strawberry R. Red Cr. Currant Cr. Res. Strawberry R. Strawberry R. Duchesne R. Ashley Cr. Roc Cr. Dolores A. La Sal Cr. Beaver Cr. Green R Flaming Gorge Rs. u Sheep Cr. Sheep Cr. Green R. Henrys Fk. Henrys Fk. Henrys Fk. Henrys Fk. Henrys Fk. Green R. Green R. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. W. Muddy Cr. Smiths Fk. Cottonwood Cr. Cottonwood Cr. Smiths Fk. Smiths Fk. E. Fk. Smiths Fk. Gilbert Cr. Smiths Fk. W. Fk. Smiths Fk. h ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - ? ? ?' src src.rb - src - ? - - - rb - - src - - - - - - - Appendix A. Cont'd. Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Apuendix B Water' Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 Stocked5 Barr.6 Activity7 Figures Water#= UTAH-WYOMING (Cont'd.) Green R. (Cont'd.) Little W. Fk. Blacks Fk. Meeks Cabin Res. m m - - Y - 2 43 E. Fk. Blacks Fk. Blacks Fk. h e ? ? u - 2 44 Little E. Fk. Blacks Fk. E. Fk. Blacks Fk. h e bk ?' u - 2 45 W. Fk. Blacks Fk. Blacks Fk. h d - - u - 2 46 Middle Fk. Blacks Fk. W. Fk. Blacks Fk. h d - - u - 2 47 Horse Cr. Blacks Fk. h m ? - u - 2 42 WYOMING Little Snake R. Deep Cr. Big Sandstone Cr. h m bk - Y - 6 48 E. Branch Deep Cr. Deep Cr. m m.e bk - Y - 6 49 W. Branch Deep Cr. Deep Cr. u - bk rb Y - 6 50 Mill Cr. Big Sandstone Cr. h m bk - b - 6 51 S. Fk. Mill Cr. Mill Cr. u - bk - Y - 6 52 Elk Cr. Mill Cr. h m - - Y - 6 53 Right Branch Mill Cr. Mill Cr. u - bk Y - 6 54 Skull Cr. Big Sandstone Cr. h m bk - n - 6 55 Big Sandstone Cr. AC Big Sandstone Cr. p m bk - u - 6 56 N. Fk. Big Sandstone Cr. p m bk - u - 6 57 Hell Canyon Savery Cr. h m - - Y - 6 58 Dirtyman Fk. Savery Cr. Savery Cr. h m - ct,rb Y - 6 59 Hatch Cr. E. Fk. Savery Cr. h m - - Y - 6 60 Carrico Reservoir' Hatch Cr. h m - - Y - 6 61 Beaver Cr. Joe Cr. P m - - u - 6 62 Haggarty Cr. W. Fk. Battle Cr. u - - ct n m 6 63 Green Cr. Haggarty Cr. P m - - n m 6 64 Alisha Cr. Haggarty Cr. P m - - n m 6 65 Bachelor Cr. Haggarty Cr. P m - - n m 6 66 Lost Cr. W. Fk. Battle Cr. u - bk ct n - 6 67 Roaring Fk.7 Little Snake R. p m,e bk ct Y - 6 68 N. Fk. Little Snake R. Lidle Snake R. m m,e bk rb,yc b d,r 6 69 W. Branch N. Fk. Ltl. Snake R. h m bk ct Y d,r 6 70 Deadline Cr. W. Branch u - bk - Y d,r 6 71 Rabbit Cr. W. Branch h m bk - Y d.r 6 72 Standard Cr. W. Branch h m - - Y d,r 6 73 Solomon Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake p m e - - b d,r 6 74 Rose Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake h m - - b d,r 6 75 Harr~son Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake h m - - b d,r 6 76 Green Timber Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake h m - - b d,r 6 77 Deadman Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake h m - - b d.r 6 78 Thlrd Cr. N. Fk. Little Snake h m - - Y d,r 6 79 Ted Cr.t N. Fk. Linle Snake p m,e - - Y d,r 6 80 Dale Cr.t N. Fk. Little Snake p m - - Y - 6 81 Upper N. Fk.t N. Fk. Little Snake p e - - Y - 6 82 Green R. Trout Cr.' Sage Cr. h m - src Y d,Ll 5 83 Little Indian Cr. Hams Fk. h m rb - n - 7 84 Devils Hole Cr. Hams Fk. P m bk,rb - n - 7 85 Game Trail Cr. Devils Hole Cr. u - rb - Y - 7 86 Faucet Cr. Devils Hole Cr. u - - - u - 7 87 Sculpin Cr. Big Sandy R. u - bn,rb - n - 8 88 Appendix A. Cont'd. Genetic Tech- Non-native s ~ e c i e s In Aboendix B Water' Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 Stocked5 Barr.' Activity7 Figures Water#' WYOMING (Cont'd.) Green R. (Cont'd.) S. Fk. Fontenelle Cr. LaBarge Cr.' Rock Cr. 2t Little Fall Cr. Little Hornet Cr. Big Fall Cr. Turkey Cr. Bald Hornet Cr. Shafer Cr. Packsaddle Cr. S. LaBarge Cr. Mack Cr. Nameless Cr: Road Cr. Spring Cr. 2 Clear Cr.' Trail Cr. Dry Piney Cr. Fogarty Cr.' Pine Grove Cr.' Black Canyon Cr. Beaver Cr. Spring Cr. Trail Ridge Cr. N. Beaver Cr.7 Mid. Beaver Cr. S. Beaver Cr. 1 Fish Cr: N. Fk. Fish Cr.' Porcupine Cr. Apperson Cr. Lake Cr. N. Piney L. N. Piney Cr.' Muddy Cr. S. Muddy Cr. N. Muddy Cr. L. August' Sunrise 1.' Little Cottonwood Cr. Beecher Cr. Camp Cr.' Red Castle Cr. S. Cottonwood Cr: Bare Cr.' N. Cottonwood Cr.* Maki Cr. Irene Cr: Hardin Cr.' Nylander Cr: Ole Cr. Fontenelle Cr. Green R. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. S. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. LaBarge Cr. Green R. Dry Piney Cr. Fogarty Cr. Dry Piney Cr. S. Piney Cr. Beaver Cr. Beaver Cr. Beaver Cr. Beaver Cr. Beaver Cr. S. Piney Cr. Fish Cr. S. Piney Cr. N. Piney Cr. N. Piney Cr. N. Piney Cr. Green R. Green R. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. N. Fk. Boulder Cr S. Fk. Boulder Cr S. Cottonwood CI Little Cottonwood Beecher Cr. Little Cottonwood Cottonwood Cr. S. Cottonwood Cr Cottonwood Cr. N. Cottonwood CI N. Cottonwood CI N. Cottonwood Cr N. Cottonwood Cr. p N. Cottonwood Cr. u Appendix A. Cont'd. Genetic Tech- - In A p ~ e n d i x B Water' Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 StockedS Barr.' Activity7 Figures Water#* WYOMING (Cont'd.) Green R. (Cont'd.) Sjhoberg Cr. S. Horse Cr. Cole Cr. Dead Cow Cr. Camp Cr.' N. Horse Cr.' Lead Cr. N. Fk. N. Horse Cr. S. Fk. N. Horse Cr. S. Beaver Cr. 2 Chall Cr. S. Fk. Chall Cr. Buck Cr. N. Fk. Mid. Beaver Cr. Mmer Cr: Packer Cr.' N. Cottonwood Cr. m Horse Cr. S. Horse Cr. S. Horse Cr. S. Horse Cr. Horse Cr. N. Horse Cr. N. Horse Cr. N. Horse Cr. Green R. S. Beaver Cr. 2 Chall Cr. S. Beaver Cr. 2 N. Beaver Cr. N. Beaver Cr. N. Beaver Cr. Bia S h e e ~ Mountain L.' Gypsum Cr L I ~ I ~ TWI" Cr. Big Twin Cr. Rock Cr. 3 Trudy Cr: No Name Cr.' Klondike Cr.' Tosi Cr. Tepee Cr: Wagon Cr. Beats Me Cr.' COLORADO San Juan R. S. Fk. Hermosa Cr.t Deer Cr.t Big Bend Cr. E. Fk. Hermosa C r * E. Fk. Piedra R. t W. Fk. Navajo R.t Augustora Cr.t H~mes Cr. White R. Lake Cr. Soldier Cr. Big Beaver Cr. Fawn Cr. Lost Cr. Hahn Cr. Snell Cr. Little Skinny Fish L.' Trappers L. Little Snake R. Willow Cr. ken R. Green R. Green R. Rock Cr. 3 Green R. Green R. Green R. Tosi Cr. Green R. Wagon Cr. Hermosa Cr. Hermosa Cr. Hermosa Cr. Hermosa Cr. Piedra R. Nava~o R. I W. ~ i j Navajo R. p W. Fk. San Juan R. u Cathedral Cr. Cathedral Cr. N. Fk. White R. N. Fk. White R. N. Fk. White R. Lost Cr. N. Fk. White R. Skinny Fish Cr. N. Fk. White R. Little Snake R. Appendix A. Cont'd. Water' Genetic Tech- Non-native s ~ e c i e s In AD~endix B Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 StockedS Barr.6 Activity7 Figurea Water#" COLORADO (Cont'd.) Little Snake R. (Cont'd.) Roarina Fk. Slater Cr. S. Fk. hater Cr. W. Prong S. Fk. S. Fk. Little Snake R. Johnson Cr. Oliver Cr. Lopez Cr. Summit Cr. Yampa R. Beaver Cr. 1 Indian Run Poose Cr. Cyclone Cr. Rough Cr. Baldy Cr. Black Mountain Cr. Little Cottonwood Cr. Freeman Res. S. Fk. Fortification Cr. First Cr. Armstrong Cr. Porcupine L. Luna L. L. of the Crags Smith Cr. Miller Cr. Sand Cr. 1 Beaver Cr. 2 Lost Dog Cr. L. Diana W. Coal Cr. Dome Cr. Mandall Cr. Gunnison R. Jones Cr. Rock Cr. N. Anthracite Cr Second Cr. Upper Lake Fk.' W. Beaver Cr: Colorado R. Roan Cr. E. Fk. Parachute Cr. JQS Gulch E. Mid. Fk. Northwater Cr. Trapper Cr. Battlement Cr. Slater Cr. u Slater Cr. u S. Fk. Slater Cr. u Little Snake R. u S. Fk. LtI. Snake R. h S. Fk. LtI. Snake R. h S. Fk. LtI. Snake R. u Independence Cr. u S. Fk. Williams Fk. u Beaver Cr. 1 u E. Fk. Williams Fk. h Poose Cr. u Poose Cr. u E. Fk. Williams Fk. u E. Fk. Williams Fk. u Fortification Cr. u Little Cttwd. Cr. u Fortification Cr. u Elkhead Cr. h Elkhead Cr. u S. Fk. Mad Cr. h N. Fk. Mad Cr. h N. Fk. Mad Cr. h Deep Cr. u Deep Cr. h Elk R. u Willow Cr. u N. Fk. Elk R. h N. Fk. Elk R. h Coal Cr. u Bear R. u Bear R. h Cr. Fk. E. Muddy Cr.u Cr. Fk. E. Muddy Cr.u Anthracite Cr. u Smith Fk. P Gunnison R. u Beaver Cr. P Colorado R. P Parachute Cr. h E. Fk. Parachute Cr. h Parachute Cr. h E. Mid. Fk. m E. Mid. Fk. h Colorado R. P bk.ct,tlc tlc bk - - - - rb bk,rb,tlc bk rb' - rb bk - ct,ppn,rb,tlc' ct,ppn,rb,tlc - bk,rb bk ct,ppn.tic ct,ppn.tlc' ct,ppn,tlc - - - b k m n - ct,ppn,tlc rb bk bk.ct.ppn, Appendix A. Cont'd. Genetic Tech- Non-native s ~ e c i e s In A p ~ e n d i x B Water' Drainage purityZ nique3 Present4 StockedS Barr.6 Activity7 Figures WaterP Butler Cr. Mid. Rifle Cr. h COLORADO (Cont'd.) Colorado R. (Cont'd.) Corral Cr. Mitchell Cr.7 Cattle Cr. N. Thompson Cr. Park Cr. Mid. Thompson Cr. Avalanche L. Yule Cr. Lost Trail Cr.7 Rocky Fk. Cr.7 Cunnmgham Cr. Carter L. S. Fk. Fryingpan R. Fryingpan Ls. 2 & 3 Nickelson Cr. Hunter Cr. Difficult Cr. Abrams Cr.t Hat Cr.7 Squaw Cr. E. Lake Cr. Berry Cr. McCoy Cr. Booth Cr. Pitkin Cr. Miller Cr. Polk Cr. Cross Cr. W. Cross Cr. Wearyman Cr. Sopris Cr. Hack L.' Red Dirt Cr. E. Fk. Red Dirt Cr. W. Fk. Red Dirt Cr. Eger~a Cr. E. Meadow Cr. Big Park Cr. Antelope Cr. Lindsey Cr. Frantz Cr. Little Green Cr. N. Little Green Cr.f Blue R. N. Fk. Elliott Cr. Cataract Cr: L. 10794 Main Elk Cr. h Colorado R. P Roaring Fk. R. h Thompson Cr. h N. Thompson Cr. u Thompson Cr. h Avalanche Cr. h Crystal R. h Crystal R. P Frymgpan R. P N. Fk. Fry~ngpan R. m Caner Cr. Fryingpan R. Fryingpan R. Capitol Cr. Roaring Fk. R. Roaring Fk. R. Brush Cr. Brush Cr. Eagle R. Lake Cr. Eagie R. Eagie R. Gore Cr. Gore Cr. Black Gore Cr. Black Gore Cr. Eagie R. Cross Cr. Turkey Cr. Homestake Cr. Hack Cr. Colorado R. Colorado R. Colorado R. Harper Res. Meadow Cr. Blacktail Cr. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. Muddy Cr. Elliott Cr. Blue R. Cataract Cr. Appendix A. Cont'd. Genetic Tech- Non-native snecies In Aonendix B Water' Drainage purity2 nique3 Present4 Stocked5 Barr.6 Activity' Figures Water#9 Meadow Cr. Dillon Res. h m bk - Y - 22 277 Corral Cr. W. Tenmile Cr. p m bk - Y - 22 278 COLORADO (Cont'd.) Colorado R. Clinton Res. N. Fk. Swan R. French Gulch7 Spruce Cr: Long Draw Paradise Cr. Timber Cr. 1 Rabbit Ears Cr. Steelman Cr. McQueary Cr. Bobtail Cr. Little Muddy Cr. Cub Cr. Kelly Cr. Kinney Cr: Hamllton Cr. Cabin Cr. S. Fk. Ranch Cr.' Mid. Fk. Ranch Cr. Iron Cr. Vasquez Cr. Little Vasquez Cr.t S. Fk. Vasquez Cr. Jim Cr. Trail Cr. Roaring Fk. Watanga Cr. Watanga L. Arapaho Cr. Buchanan Cr. Thunderbolt Cr. Columbine Cr. Paradise Cr.' Adams L.* Fifth L.* Ptarmigan Cr.' Bench L.' L. Nanita* Timber Cr. 2' Timber L.' Clinton Cr. Swan R. Blue R. Blue R. Haystack Cr. E. Fk. Trblsm. Cr. E. Fk. Trblsm. Cr. Troublesome Cr. Williams Fk. Williams Fk. Williams Fk. Colorado R. Little Muddy Cr. Little Muddy Cr. Colorado R. Hurd Cr. Ranch Cr. Ranch Cr. S. Fk. Ranch Cr. St. LOUIS Cr. Fraser R. Vasquez Cr. Vasquez Cr. Fraser R. Willow Cr. L. Granby Roaring Fk. Watanga Cr. Monarch L. Arapaho Cr. Buchanan Cr. Colorado R. E. lnlet Paradise Cr. E. lnlet N. lnlet Ptarmigan Cr. N. lnlet Colorado R. Timber Cr. ppn,src Ct - bk,ct.gol, ppn,rb, rxc,tlc' tlc - - - - ct,ppn,tlc' - c t m n Ct Ct - - - - - ct,ppn.tlc* bk.rb - - Ct - ct,ppn.tlc" ct,ppn.tlc* ct,ppn,tlc bn.ct.ppn, rb,tlc' ct,ppn,rb,tlc* tlc' - - - - - - - - - 'Water " = population established or supplemented by stocking of nonindigenous, genetically pure fish j = a conservation population (believed to be indigenous, geneticaI/y pure, allopafr~c above a barrier; and not believed to be in a recently stocked watershed) 16 Appendix A. Cont'd. ZGenetic purity p = genetically pure h = hybridized m = mixed results u = unknown (not tested) =Technique Techniques used in genetic analysis m = meristic analysis e = electrophoretic analysis of proteins d = analysis of mtDNA dash = no analysfs performed Presence of sympatric populations of non-native species bk = brook trout bn = brown trout ct = unknown subspecies of cutthroat trout (probably not indigenous) 'Present go1 = golden trout ppn = Pikes Peak cutthroat trout (greenback cutthroat trout introgressed with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and oossiblv Snake River cutthroat trout) 'Activity rb = rainbowrroul rxc = rambow-cutthroat trout hybrlcl src = Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout tic = Trappers Lake cutthroat trout (Colorado River cutthroat trout introgressed with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and possibly rafnbow trout) yc = Yellowstone cutthroat trout - - - non-natwe species believed absent ? = presence of non-natlve species not determmed Water stocked since 1973; species codes are as above - - - water (or nearby. connected waters) was not believed stocked since 1973 7 = stocking of non-native species could not be determined = some or all of the stocking was in a nearby (usually upstream) and presumably connected wate~ body 7' = unidentified species were stocked Presence of permanent, physical barrier to upstream migration y = yes n = no u = unknown b = a barrier breached by non-native species Land management activities that affect water d = water removal g = grazing I = logging m = mining r = roads - - - no effects reported Figure in Appendix 6 that contains this stream or lake Number on figure in Appendix 6 that denotes this stream or lake 18 Appendix B Current distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah, Utah-Wyoming, Wyoming, and Colorado waters. Water and figure numbers shown here correspond with those listed on Appendix A. 19 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 1. Waters 1-3, Escalante River basin, Utah Figure 2. Waters 4-6, 13, 19-27, 29-47, Muddy Creek, Blacks Fork, Ashley Creek, and Flaming Gorge basins, Utah-Wyoming 20 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 3. Waters 7-12, Duchesne River and Strawberry River basins, Utah Figure 4. Waters 14-17, Dolores River basin, Utah-Colorado 21 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 5. Waters 18, 28, 83, upper Green River and Flaming Gorge basin, Utah-Wyoming Figure 6. Waters 48-82, Little Snake River basin, Wyoming 22 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 7. Waters 84-87, 89-118, upper Green River and Blacks Fork basins, Wyoming Figure 8. Water 88, upper Green River basin, Wyoming 23 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 9. Waters 119-125, 128-153, upper Green River basin, Wyoming Figure 10. Waters 126-127, upper Green River basin, Wyoming 24 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 11. Waters 154-166, upper Green River basin, Wyoming Figure 12. Waters 167-170, 221, Animas River and upper Gunnison River basins, Colorado 25 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 13. Waters 171-174, upper San Juan River and Piedra River basins, Colorado Figure 14. Waters 175, 176, 223, lower White River and Roan Creek basins, Colorado 26 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 15. Waters 177-183, 193-199, 214-216, 262-266, upper White River, upper Yampa River, and upper Colorado River basins, Colorado Figure 16. Waters 184-192, 200-213, Little Snake River and upper Yampa River basins, Colorado 27 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 17. Waters 217-219, 234-239, 245, North Fork Gunnison River and Roaring Fork River basins, Colorado Figure 18. Waters 220, 222, upper Gunnison River basin, Colorado 28 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 19. Waters 224-232, Parachute Creek and Colorado River basins, Colorado Figure 20. Waters 240-244, 246-247, 261, Roaring Fork River and Eagle River basins, Colorado 29 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 21. Waters 233, 248-253, 258-259, Eagle River basin, Colorado Figure 22. Waters 254-257, 260, 267, 274-278, Eagle River and Blue River basins, Colorado 30 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 23. Waters 268-273, 283-286, upper Colorado River basin, Colorado Figure 24. Waters 279-282, Blue River basin, Colorado 31 Appendix B. Cont'd. Figure 25. Waters 287-292, 294-302, upper Colorado River basin, Colorado Figure 26. Waters 293, 303-318, upper Colorado River basin, Colorado Appendix C Data sources for specific geographic sites Utah Shiozawa et al. 1993; Shiozawa and Evans 1994, 1995a, 1995b Utah-Wyoming Binns 1977; Bischoff 1995; Shiozawa and Evans 199513 Wyoming Shiozawa and Evans no date; Binns 1977; Remmick 1982; Oberholtzer 1987, 1990; Leary 1990; Leary et al. 1993; Speas et al. 1994: Thompson 1995 Colorado Wernsman 1973; Behnke and Zarn 1976; Behnke 1979, 1992; Behnke and Benson 1980; Martinez 1988; Langlois et al. 1994 Appendix D Names of fishes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Oncorhynchus clarki subsp. Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita Salmo trutta Salvelinus fontinalis Salvelinus namaycush Yellowstone cutthroat trout Colorado River cutthroat trout greenback cutthroat trout Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout coho salmon rainbow trout golden trout brown trout brook trout lake trout The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Printed on @ recycled paper 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station The Rocky Mountain Station is one of seven regional experiment stations, plus the Forest Products Laboratory and the Washington Office Staff, that make up the Forest Service research organization. RESEARCH FOCUS Research programs at the Rocky Mountain Station are coordinated with area universities and with other institutions. Many studies are conducted on a cooperative basis to accelerate solutions to problems involving range, water, wildlife and fish habitat, human and community development, timber, recreation, protection, and multiresource evaluation. RESEARCH LOCATIONS Research Work Units of the Rocky Mountain Station are operated in cooperation with universities in the following cities: Albuquerque, New Mexico Flagstaff, Arizona Fort Collins, Colorado* Laramie, Wyoming Lincoln, Nebraska Rapid City, South Dakota Rocky Mountains Southwest Great Plains *Station Headquarters: 240 W. Prospect St., Fort Collins,CO 80526 INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Reintroduced populations Genetic purity Non-native trout Barriers Land management Population status Immediate needs LITERATURE CITED Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D
geography
Array ( [0] => Array ( [state] => Utah [province] => ) )
batch_date
Tue, 05 May 2020 19:04:31 +0000
original_file_path
https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=download&item=66482
group__id
5eb1b99bc22681.79883202
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350594
year
1996
hash
Array ( [document] => e1ffe8dbf7825f94b18e426e429aeaea1ea052b2 [content] => 0c84b0f7601da1b0b17faadea7190c8ab8f12531 [dedupe] => 476cac052ade18b3ea12978bfb12b4f0c34eeeef )
id
doc-5eb1b99b40caaebea209f187
__hash__
Content: 0c84b0f7601da1b0b17faadea7190c8ab8f12531 | Abstract: dbf049b8e14fe4c55ec88ba649ce3f3c3789a424