Historic, Archive Document

Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526

General Technical Report RM-GTR-282

Michael K. Young R. Nick Schmal Thomas W. Kohley Victoria G. Leonard

Received by I 1 Indexing BrancB

I I Historical distribution

, Locations of conservation populations

/\/ Upp>er Colorado River Basin

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 geneticallv pure fish), and introgressed hatchery stocks has degraded many populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Only 26% of the remammg populations are believed to be genetically pure. Almost 45% of the remaming 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 Mever, 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 Scientist^

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Laramie,

Wyoming

R. Nick Schmal, Program Leader^

Rocky IVIountain 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

' 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 Agricul- ture.

Contents

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

iii

Conservation Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

Michael K. Young, R. Nick Sclimal, 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 U.S. 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. Biims (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.

1

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 trout 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 modifying 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 contam 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 mav 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.

2

Table 1. Summary of characteristics for populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in Utah, Utah-Wyoming, Wyoming, and Colorado waters. All numbers refer to the number of populations.

Characteristics	1 IT U 1	1 IT \A/V U 1 - W Y	\A/V W T		1 Oial
Total populations	17	30	119	152	318
Nonindigenous populations'	1	8	29	17	55
fipnpfjp nuritv
Pure	1 1	3	25	44	83
Hybridized	2	20	51	59	132
Mixed results	3	3	4	5	15
Not tested	1	4	39	44	88
Genetic technique
Meristics	5	18	79	108	210
Protein electrophoresis	4	10	9	4	27
mtDNA analysis	16	5	1	0	22
Non-native species
Waters with sympatric populations	5	14	68	55	142
ot brook trout	4	1 1	62	50	127
of brown trout	2	0	5	3	10
ot non-native cutthroat trout	2	1	0	0	3
of rainbow trout	2	7	20	11	40
Watpf; <?tnrkpri ^inrp	0	7	20	70	97
with hrnnk trout will 1 La/I \J\J l\ 11 \J U L	0	0	0	20	20
with hrnwn trout	0	0	0
with nnn-n?iti\/P piitthmsit trniit	n	4.	17
with rainbow trout	0	2	5	33	40
Recently stocked in headwaters	0	2	0	24	26
Wfltpr*; with harripr';^ V V Q Id O VV 1 LI I UCll 1 Id O
I Oo	1	Q o
No	0	1	72	28	101
Rrppphpri	0	0	14	\j
Unknown	16	26	7	59	108
Land management effects
Dewatering	5	1	13	3	22
Grazing	6	2	6	15	29
Logging	1	1	0	0	2
Mining	0	0	4	2	6
Road erosion	3	2	12	2	19

' 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

All three states have re-established or created new populations of genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout; 17% of all waters have received such nonindigenous fish (those estab-

lished or supplemented by stocking of genetically pure fish). The population in Durfey Creek, Utah, was translocated from nearby East Fork Boulder Creek. A hatchery stock from trout in Rock Creek 2, Wyoming, supplemented or founded popula- tions in Wyoming and Utah- Wyoming waters.

3

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.

Partly 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 mitochondrial 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 1). Brook trout occurred in nearly 90%^ of these sympatric populations and rainbow trout in 28%. 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).

4

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 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 and Snake River fine- spotted cutthroat trout (D. Krieger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, pers. comm.).

^Colorado River cutthroat trout that have hybridized with Yel- lowstone cutthroat trout and rainbow trout (Martinez 1988; Leary 1990).

5

Land management

Table 2. Potential sites for restoration of connectivity between populations.

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 II 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-

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

Thompson Creek

South Fork Ranch Creek

Little Muddy Creek

Little Green Creek

larly from events such as fire, flood, toxic spills, or one-time stocking of non-native fish (Rieman and Mclntyre 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 1992), 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

6

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 contam barriers to upstream migration, these populations may represent the best remainmg 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, CM. 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

7

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 4:81-89.

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, Chevenne. 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. Mclntyre. 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. Soule, 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 mitochondrial 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. 1995b. Relation- ships between cutthroat trout populations from eight Utah streams in the Colorado River and Bonneville drainages. Utah Division of Wildlife

8

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 clarki 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.

Thurow, 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. 1995b. 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.

9

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 species In Appendix B

Water' Drainage purity^ nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.* Activity' Figure^ Water#^

UTAH
Escalante R.
E. Fk. Boulder Cr.f	Boulder Cr.	P	m,d	bk,rb	?	y	—	1	1
W. Fk. Boulder Cr.	Boulder Cr.	P	d	—	?	u	—	1	2
Durfey Cr.*	W. Fk. Boulder Cr.	P	d	—	?	u	—	1	3
Duchesne R.
Whiterocks R.	Uinta R.	u	—	bk	?	u	g.r.l	2	4
Reader Cr.	Whiterocks R.	P	d	9	?	u	—	2	5
Yellowstone R.	Lake Fork R.	P	d	bk,bn,ct	?	u	d,g	2	6
Avintaquin Cr.	Strawberry R.	m	m,d		9	u	d,g	3	7
Currant Cr.	Red Cr.	m	e,d	o /	o f	u		6	o o
Racetrack Cr.	Currant Cr. Res.	P	d	?	?	u	—	3	9
Timber Canyon	Strawberry R.	P	d	—	?	u	d,g,r	3	10
Willow Cr.	Strawberry R.	h	d	bn,ct,rb	?	u	d,g,r	3	1 1
W. Fk. Duchesne R.	Duchesne R.	P	d	?	?	u	—	3	12
Green R.
Dry Fk. Ashley Cr.	Ashley Cr.	P	d	bk	?	u	d,g	2	13
	Roc Cr.	h	d	?	?	u		4	14
l—CX O d ' V_/l .	Dniorp'; R	m	m,e,d	?	?	u		4	15
	1 3 Sal Cr	n	m,e,d	?	?	u		4	16
^yllri Fk Rp;:iv/pr Cr IVIIU. ' rx - Ot^dvCI wl .	Rpaupr	n H	m,e,d	?	?	u		4	17
UTAH-WYOMING
Green R
Red Cr.'	Green R.	0	m	bk		u		5	18
Carter Cr	Flaming Gorge Rs.	U		bk.ct.rb	?	u	d,g,l,r	2	19
N. Fk. Sheep Cr.	Sheep Cr.	P	e,d	?	?	u		2	20
S Fk ShppD Cr	Sheep Cr.	m	e,d	bk	9'	u		2	21
Hpnr\/<^ Fk	Green R,	h	m,e	rb	src	u		2	22
Birrh Cr *	Henrys Fk.	h	m		srcrb	u		2	23
Burnt Fk.	Henrys Fk.	p	d			u		2	24
W Bpaver Cr * V V . 1 I O CI V C 1 1 .	Henrys Fk.	h	m		src	u		2	25
Pni^nn Cr	Henrys Fk.	h	m	rb		n		2	26
nphlnrppn Cr	Henrys Fk.	h	e		?	u		2	27
Currant Cr.*	Green R.	h	m	bk		u		5	28
Blacks Fk.
Blacks rk.	ureen h.	n	m	rh ru		1 1 u		p	2Q
E. Muddy Cr.	Muddy Cr.	h	m			u		2	30
W. Muddy Cr.	Muddy Cr.	h	m		rb	u		2	31
Van Tassel Cr.	W. Muddy Cr.	h	m			u		2	32
Cottonwood Cr.*	Smiths Fk.	u		bk		u		2	33
Sage Cr.	Cottonwood Cr.	h	m		src	y	g-r	2	34
Swamp Cr.*	Cottonwood Cr.	u		bk		u		2	35
Willow Cr.	Smiths Fk.	h	m			u		2	36
E. Fk. Smiths Fk.*	Smiths Fk.	u		bk,rb		u		2	37
Gilbert Cr.*	E. Fk. Smiths Fk.	h	m,e	bk,rb		y		2	38
Little Gilbert Cr.	Gilbert Cr.	m	m,e	bk		u		2	39
W. Fk. Smiths Fk.	Smiths Fk.	h	m,e	bk.rb		u		2	40
Archie Cr.	W. Fk. Smiths Fk.	h	m,e			u		2	41

10

Appendix A. Cont'd

Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Appendix B

Water^ Drainage purity^ nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.^ Activity^ Figure^ Water#^

UTAH-WYOIVIING (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	9	9	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.f	Little Snake R.	p	m,e	bk	ct	y	—	6	68
N. Fk. Little Snake R.	Little 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
Habbit Cr.	W. Branch	n	m	Pk		y	u,r	b	72
Standard Cr.	W. Branch	h	m			y	d,r	6	73
Solomon Cr.	N. rk. Little bnake	P	m,e			D	d,r	6	74
Rose Cr.	INI. rk. Little bnaKe	u n	m			u D	a,r	b	75
Harrison Cr.	N. rk. Little bnake	n	m			u D	d,r	b	76
oreen i irrnjcr .	IN. rr\. Liuic? oiicliNc	h	m 1 [ 1			h u	H r U,l	ft D	77
Deadman Cr.	N. Fk. Little Snake	h	m			b	d,r	6	78
Third Cr	N. Fk. Little Snake	h	m			y	d,r	6	79
Ted Cr.t	N. Fk. Little 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,g	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

11

Appendix A. Cont'd.

Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Appendix B

Water' Drainage purity^ nique^ Presenf Stocked^ Barr.^ Activity' Figure^ Water*^

WYOMING (Cont'd.)
^ Fk Fnntpnpllp Cr O- ir\. 1 u'lidiciic^ w 1 .	Fnntpnpllp Pr
1 a Ra rno P r * LdDdiyc L/i .	Prppn R	u
riUUK L^i . ^1	1 aRarnp Pr L-dLJdi yc .	n	m p H
1 ittio Fall Cr	1 i^^Pirnf^ Cr i—dLJdi yc7 Wl .	y
1 ittip Hnrnpt Cr	1 aRarnp Pr	h	m
Rin Fall Pr Diy rail L/i .	1 ^iRarnp Pr l_dLJdi y^:^ wi .	r 1
"Ti 1 rUp\/ Pr	1 aRarnp Pr	(J
RalH Hnrnpt Pr	1 aR^^rnp Pr	u
Qhafpr Pr 0 1 1 Ctl d \-/\ •	L aRarnp Pr	[J
Pa(^UcaHrllp Pr	1 flR^irnp Pr	(J
1 aRarnp Pr	1 aR;^rnp Pr	m	m
^ylarl< Pr	S 1 aRarnp Cr o . I— dl— 'dl y c V- '1 .	(J
Klamp|pc:c Pr * 1 N dl 1 1 C7I Coo \J 1 •	1 aRarne Pr	h	m
Rr^arl Pr	LaBarnp Cr	y
^nrinn Pr P opi II ly oi . ^	1 ?iRpirnp Pr	n H	m e
PIpar Pr *	1 flRprnp Pr 1— dLJdi yo wi .	n	m
Trail Pr 1 1 dl 1 \j\ ■	1 ?iRarnp Pr	h	m
Dr\j Pinpv Pr	Green R.	y
Fnnartv/ Pr * 1 uydi ly wi .	Drv Pinpv Cr	y
Pinp Rrnvp Pr *	Fogarty Cr.	n r	m
Rl;^pk P^in\/nn Pr	Dry Piney Cr.	u
Rd a \/o r* P r Dtrdvt;! wi .	Q pinpv Cr	y
Qnrinn Cr		h	m
Trail RiHnp Pr i idM niuyc ■	RpQ\/pr Or	h	m
M Rpa\/pr Pr +	Rpa\/pr C^.r	n	m
IVIIU. DydVcI v_/i .	Rpa\/pr C^.r UCCl V CI W 1 .	h	m
Q Rcia\/Qr Pr 1	RpQ\/pr Or	h	m
CTioh Pr * rlSD L/l.	C Pinpu Pr o. r^ii Icy wi .	u
N. rK. risn Ur.	Pich Pr risn ur.	u
Porcupine Cr.	o. riney ur.	U
Apperson Cr.	M DinQ\/ Pr N. riney ur.	u
Lake Cr.	M Pinov/ Pr In . r 1 1 lfc?y Oi .	h 1 r	m
N. Piney L.	IN. riney ur.	h ri	m
(\J. riney ur.	Uireen n.	h n	m
Muday ur.	Uireen n.	u
b. Muaoy ur.	^/ll irlHx/ Pr iviuuuy ur.	U
IN. Muoay or.	tv/li iHHx/ Pr iviuuuy ur.	h 1 1	m 1 1 1
L. August*	M Pl<- RmilHor Pr IN. rK. Duuiuer ur.	P	m
Sunrise L.*	Q RniilHor Pr o. rK. Douioer or.	P	m
1 ittio O Atto n\A/nr\H C^r LILLItr V_/UllUI IWUUU .	PnttnnvA/nnH P.r	h	m
Beecher Cr.	1 itflQ P r^ n\A/r*» aH Liiiie uoiiuriwcjuu	U
Camp Cr.*	Beecher Cr.	h	m
Red Castle Cr.	Little Cottonwood	h	m
S. Cottonwood Cr.*	Cottonwood Cr.	h	m
Bare Cr.*	S. Cottonwood Cr.	h	m
N. Cottonwood Cr.*	Cottonwood Cr.	h	m
Maki Cr.	N. Cottonwood Cr.	h	m
Irene Cr.*	N. Cottonwood Cr.	h	m
Hardin Cr.*	N. Cottonwood Cr.	P	m
Nylander Cr.*	N. Cottonwood Cr.	P	m
Ole Cr.	N. Cottonwood Cr.	U

bk	—	n	—	7	89
bk.bn.rb	—	n	—	7	90
—	—	y	—	7	91
bk	—	n	—	7	92
bk.rb	—	n	—	7	93
rb	—	n	—	7	94
bk.rb	—	n	—	7	95
bk	—	n	—	7	96
?	—	n	—	7	97
9	—	n	—	7	98
bk,rb	—	u	—	7	99
bk	—	n	—	7	100
bk,rb	—	b	—	7	101
bk	—	n	—	7	102
bk	—	n	—	7	103
bk	—	b	—	7	104
bk	—	n	—	7	105
bk	—	n	—	7	106
bk	—	n	—	7	107
—	—	n	—	7	108
bk	—	n	—	7	109
—	—	n	—	7	110
rb	—	n	—	7	111
—	—	n	—	7	112
—	—	y	—	7	113
—	—	n	—	7	114
rb	—	n	g	7	115
bk.rb	src	n		7	lib
—	—	n	—	7	117
bk	—	n	—	■7	118
bk	src	n	—	9	119
bk	—	n	—	9	120
bk	—	n	—	9	121
bk	src	n	—	9	122
—	—	n	—	9	123
—	src	n	—	9	124
—	—	n	—	9	125
—	—	n	—	10	126
		y		10	127
		n		9	128
		n		9	129
		n		9	130
		n		9	131
bk.rb	src	n	g	9	132
bk		b	g	9	133
bk,rb	src	n		9	134
		n		9	135
bk		b		9	136
bk		b		9	137
bk		b		9	138
bk		n		9	139

12

Appendix A. Cont'd.

Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Appendix B

Water^ Drainage purity^ nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.^ Activity^ Figure^ Water#

WYOMING (Cont'd.)
Green R. (Cont d.)
Sjhoberg Cr.	N. Cottonwood Cr.	m	m,e
S. Horse Cr.	Horse Cr.	h	m
Cole Cr.	S. Horse Cr.	u
Dead Cow Cr.	S. Horse Cr.	h	m
Camp Cr.'	S. Horse Cr.	h	m
N. Horse Cr.	Horse Cr.	h	m
Lead Cr.	l\l. Horse Cr.	P	m
N. Fk. N. Horse Cr.	N. Horse Cr.	h	m
S. Fk. N. Horse Cr.	N. Horse Cr.	h	m
S. Beaver Cr. 2	Green R.	h	m
Chal! Cr.	S. Beaver Cr. 2	h	m
S. Fk. Chall Cr.	Chall Cr.	h	m
Buck Cr.	S. Beaver Cr. 2	u	—
N. Fk. Mid. Beaver Cr.	N. Beaver Cr.	h	m
Miner Cr.*	N. Beaver Cr.	u
Packer Cr.*	N. Beaver Cr.	n	m
Diy OMocp ivIUUl 1 Ldll 1 l_.	P\/riciim Pr Oy|JoUI 1 1 \-/[ .	U	m 1 1 1
Little Twin Cr.	Green R.	U
Big Twin Cr.	Green R.	u	—
Rock Cr. 3	Green R.	h	m
Trudy Cr.*	Rock Cr. 3	h	m
No Name Cr.*	Green R.	u
Klondike Cr.*	Green R.	P	m
Tosi Cr.	Green R.	u
Tepee Cr.*	Tosi Cr.	h	m
Wagon Cr.	Green R.	u
Beats Me Cr.*	Wagon Cr.	P	m
COLORADO
C PL- Mormnca Pr +	1— lormr^co Pr	P	1 1 1
Ucci wl . 1	I— lormncG Pr nt;i 1 1 lUod wi .	P	f 1 1
Rin R^nH Pr OIU Oof lU ^1 .	1— IprmnQp Pr nciiiiuod v_/i.	h 1 1	1 1 1
c pi^ Mormrica Pr *	1— IprmriQa Pr nci 1 1 lUod .	P	m 1 1 1
	PipHra R I 1 Id 11,	n K	m
W Fk Mpvpin R +	Ma\/airi R	n	m
Aijnij*=itnr?i Or ' > U M U O L W CI V-/ 1 . I	W. Fk. Navajo R.	n	m
Himes Cr.	W. Fk. San Juan R.	U
Whitp R Will ri •
Lake Cr.	Cathedral Cr.	h	m
Soldier Cr.	Cathedral Cr.	h	m
Big Beaver Cr.	N. Fk. White R.	h	m
Fawn Cr.	N. Fk. White R.	u
Lost Cr.	N. Fk. White R.	h	m
Hahn Cr.	Lost Cr.	P	m
Snell Cr.	N. Fk. White R.	P	m
Little Skinny Fish L.*	Skinny Fish Cr.	h	m
Trappers L.	N. Fk. White R.	m	m,e
Little Snake R.
Willow Cr.	Little Snake R.	P	m

bk		n		9	140
bk		n		9	141
		n		9	142
		n		9	143
		n		9	144
bk,rb	src	n	g	9	145
bk		n	g	9	146
bk		n		9	147
bk		n		9	148
bk,rb		n		9	149
7		n		9	150
bk	src	n		9	151
	src	n		9	152
bk		n	—	9	153
bk		n			154
bk		n			155
	—	y	—	1;	156
9		u			157
?		u		■1 1	158
bk,bn,rb	rb	n		1 1	159
		n		1 1	160
bk		n		1 1	161
bk,bn,rb		y		.| ^	162
bk,bn,rb	rb	b		'^ ^	163
bk	src	n	—	11	164
DK		n			165
	—	n	—	]]	166
—	ppn	y	—	12	167
—	rb.tic	y	—	12	168
	—	u	—	12	169
—	—	y	—	12	170
—	—	y		13	171
		V	r	13	172
—	—	y		13	173
		y		13	174
	rb	u		14	175
rb		u		14	176
rb	rb	u		15	177
bk		u		15	178
		u	g	15	179
		u	g	15	180
bk	bk,tlc*	n		15	181
	rb,tlc	u		15	182
bk,rb	rb,yc	u		15	183
bk		n		16	184

13

Appendix A. Cont'd

Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Appendix B

Water' Drainage purity^ nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.^ Activity^ Figure^ Water*^

COLORADO (Cont'd.)

Little Snake R. (Cont'd.)

Roaring Fk. Slater Cr.	Slater Cr.	u		bk	bk,ct,tlc	n		1 6	185
S. Fk. Slater Cr,	Slater Cr.	u			tic	u		1 6	186
W. Prong S. Fk.	S. Fk. Slater Cr.	u			bk	u		1 6	187
S. Fk. Little Snake R.	Little Snake R.	u		bk		u		1 6	188
Johnson Cr.	S. Fk. Ltl. Snake R.	h	m	f		u		1 6	1 89
Oliver Cr.	S. Fk. Ltl. Snake R.	h	m			u		1 6	1 90
Lopez Cr.	S. Fk. Ltl. Snake R.	u		bk		n		1 6	191
Summit Cr.	Independence Cr.	u			rb	u		1 6	1 92
Yampa R.
Beaver Cr. 1	S. Fk. Williams Fk.	u	—	—	bk.rb.tic	u	—	15	193
Indian Run	Beaver Cr. 1	u	—	bk	bk	u	—	15	194
Poose Cr.	E. Fk. Williams Fk.	h	m	rb	rb*	n	—	15	195
Cyclone Cr.	Poose Cr.	u	—	—	—	u	—	15	196
Rough Cr.	Poose Cr.	u	—	—	rb	u	—	15	197
Baldy Cr.	E. Fk. Williams Fk.	u	—	bk	bk	u	—	15	198
Black Mountain Cr.	E. Fk. Williams Fk.	u	—	—	—	u	—	15	199
Little Cottonwood Cr.	Fortification Cr.	u	—	rb	ct,ppn,rb,tlc*	n	—	16	200
Freeman Res.	Little Cttwd. Cr.	u	—	rb	ct,ppn,rb,tlc	b	—	16	201
S. Fk. Fortification Cr.	Fortification Cr.	u	—	bk	—	u	—	16	202
First Cr.	Elkhead Cr.	h	m	bk.rb	bk.rb	n	—	16	203
Armstrong Cr.	Elkhead Cr.	u	—	bk	bk	u	—	16	204
Porcupine L.	S. Fk. Mad Cr.	h	m		ct.ppn.tic	u		16	205
Luna L.	N. Fk. Mad Cr.	h	m		ct,ppn,tlc'	u		1 b	dub
L. of the Crags	N. Fk. Mad Cr.	h	m		ct,ppn,tlc	u		1 b
Smith Cr.	Deep Cr.	u				u		1 b	') AO
Miller Cr.	Deep Cr.	h	m			n		1 b	*"» An 209
Sand Cr. 1	Elk R.	u				u		1 6	O 1 A 210
Beaver Cr. 2	Willow Cr.	u		bk	bk,ppn	u		1 D	'■> -1 -1 Z \ 1
Lost Dog Cr.	N. Fk. Elk R.	h	m	bk		u		1 b	212
L. Diana	N. Fk. Elk R.	h	m		r\nn tip	1 1 u		1 R	?1 T c~ i O
W Pnfll r.r	Coal Cr.	u			rb	u		15	214
L/Wl 1 IC 0( .	Bear R.	u			bk	u		15	215
ManHpll Cr ivicii lUdii \ji .	Bear R.	h	m	bk,bn,rb	bk,ct,ppn,	b		15	216
					rb.tic*
Gunnison R.
Jones Cr.	Cr. Fk. E. Muddy Cr.u				y		1 /	O H "7 21 /
Rock Cr.	Cr. Fk. E. Muddy Cr.u		bk		n		1 /
N. Anthracite Cr.	Anthracite Cr.	u			ppn	u		-1 7 1 /	9 1 Q
Second Cr.	Smith Fk.	P	m	bk		u	g	18	220
Upper Lake Fk.*	Gunnison R.	u		bk	bk,bn,ct,ppn,	b		12	221
					rb,src,tlc*
W. Beaver Cr.*	Beaver Cr.	p	m			n	g	18	222
Colorado R.
Roan Cr.	Colorado R.	p	m	?		u		14	223
E. Fk. Parachute Cr.	Parachute Cr.	h	m	bk		n	g	19	224
JQS Gulch	E. Fk. Parachute Cr,	, h	m	bk		n	g	19	225
E. Mid. Fk.	Parachute Cr.	h	m		ct.rb	y		19	226
Northwater Cr.	E. Mid. Fk.	m	m		ct.rb	y		19	227
Trapper Cr.	E. Mid. Fk.	h	m		ct.rb	y	g	19	228
Battlement Cr.	Colorado R.	P	m	bk	ct,ppn,rb,tlc*	u		19	229

14

Appendix A. Cont'd

Genetic Tech- Non-native species In Appendix B

Water^ Drainage purity^ nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.^ Activity^ Figure^ Water#^

Butler Cr	Mid. Rifle Cr.	h	m		ct,ppn,rb,tlc	V	n y	19	230
COLORADO (Cont'd.)
PnlnraHn R ^f^rtnt'ri ^
	Main Flk Cr iviciM 1 i_ir\ \j\ .	h	m	bk	hk hn rt	p		19	P31
					rb,tlc
	PnlnraHn R OUIUIdUU 11.	P	m 1 1 1			y		1 Q
	Roaring Fk. R.	h	m			v y	y	21	233
N Thnmn^nn Or	Thompson Cr.	h	m	bk.bn.rb	bk ct rb tic	n	a m r	17	234
PorU Pr	M Xhnmncnn Pr l>J. lll\JIII|JoVJM wl.	U		hk			y	■j 7
h^iH Thr\mrvcr\n Pr IvilU- 1 liUiil|JoUii V-/! -	Xhnmncnn Pr		m		pt nnn rh tip		m	1 7
MValdl lOl Ic L.	A\/alanpho Pr	h 1 1	m 1 1 1	hk rh	nt nnn rh tin Lf l,ppi 1,1 U, IIU	n		1 7
Vi ilo Pr	Prvctpl R	h	m 1 1 1	hk rh	nt nnn tin*			1 7
1 net Trail Pr + LOSl 1 idM or.]	Prwctal R Oi ybidi ri.	P	m ) 1 1			y		1 7
C>r\nU\/ Pl^ Pr + nOCKy rK. V^i. J	11 yn lypdi 1 n.	P	m 1 1 !			y			Pdf)
uunningnarn L/T.	M PI/ Prv/innr\an D IN. rr\. rryiiigpdii n.	m	m	hU hn		y		C.\J	P41
Partor 1	wdl ICI wi .	l-j	m			1 1 u			PdP
o. rK. rryiriypdii n.	11 yii lypdi 1 r\.	1 1 u				u			9A'\
Fryingpan Ls. 2 & 3	Fryingpan R.	p	m			U		on ex)	0>1 /I
Nickelson Cr.	uapitoi ur.	p	m			n		1 /	O/l c
Hunter ur.	Roaring Fk. R.	n	m			u		on	0/1 c
uitticult ur.	Roaring Fk. R.	n	m			y		on	0/1 ~7
Abrams Cr.f	brush or.	P	rn			y	d,g	O i	Oyl O ^4y
Hat Cr.f	Brush Cr.	P	m			y		o ^ d.\	249
bquaw Or.	bagie K.	u		Ok		n		O ^ d\	d.b\j
r- 1 «|^^ /^r b. LaKe ur.	LaKG ur.	n	m	DK	ci,ppn,iic	y			OC 1
Berry Cr.	bagie K.	n	rn			y		O i	oco dod
Mcuoy Ur.	bagie K.	n	rn			y		o ^	do6
Booth Cr.	Gore Cr.	u			* ct,ppn,tlc	y		oo dd	254
Pitkin Cr.	Cjore ur.	n	rn	DK	ct,ppn,tlc*	y		oo dd	occ
Miller Cr.	biacK (jore ur.	n	m	OK		y		oo dd	occ dob
rOIK L.r.	DiacK vjore ur.	n	m			y		dd	OCT! do 1
Cross Cr.	bagie n.	m	m	OK	DK,CL,ppn,	y		Oi	OCQ doo
					rD,iic
Vv. V^-rOSS VjI.	Prncc Pr	P	m		nt nnn rh tin* ui,ppi 1,1 u,uu	y			c.O<j
1 A //^ o r"\ / m O n 1^ f vvearyman	TiirUov/ Pr 1 UI rScy .	1 1 u			rt tir	n 1 1			PRD c.rj\j
oopris L>\.	I— lr^ m Qot Q l/Q Pr nUl llcoLarSc Oi.	h	m 1 1 1		nt nnn tin* UL,|jpi l,UU	1 1 u		pn	PR1
naCK 1	Hark Pr	P	m 1 1 1		nt nnn tin	y			PfiP
Red Dirt Cr.	Colorado R.	h	m			V		15	263
E. Fk. Red Dirt Cr.	Colorado R.	h	m			y		15	264
W- Fk. Red Dirt Cr.	Colorado R.	h	nn			y		15	265
Egeria Cr.	Harper Res.	u		bk	bk	u		15	266
E. Meadow Cr.	Meadow Cr.	p	m			u		22	267
Big Park Cr.	Blacktail Cr.	h	m	bk		n	d,g	23	268
Antelope Cr.	Muddy Cr.	u		?		u		23	269
Lindsey Cr.	Muddy Cr.	u		?		u		23	270
Frantz Cr.	Muddy Cr.	u			bk	u		23	271
Little Green Cr.	Muddy Cr.	h	m			y		23	272
N. Little Green Cr.f	Muddy Cr.	P	m			y		23	273
Blue R.
N. Fk. Elliott Cr.	Elliott Cr.	h	m	?	bk,rb*	u		22	274
Cataract Cr.*	Blue R.	h	m	7	ct,ppn,rb,tlc*	u		22	275
L 10794	Cataract Cr.	h	m	?	ct,rb,tlc	u		22	276

15

Appendix A. Cont'd

Water'

Drainage

Genetic purity^

Tech- Non-native species

nique^ Present" Stocked^ Barr.^

In Appendix B Activity' Figure^ Water#^

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.	Clinton Cr.	p	m	?	ppn,src	u		24	279
N. Fk. Swan R.	Swan R.	p	m	bk	ct	n		24	280
French Gulchf	Blue R.	P	m	—	—	y		24	281
Spruce Cr.*	Blue R.	h	m		bk.ct.gol,	u		24	282
					ppn.rb,
					rxctlc*
Long Draw	Haystack Cr.	u	—	bk	tic	u		23	283
Paradise Cr.	E. Fk. Trblsm. Cr.	P	m	?		u		23	284
Timber Cr. 1	E. Fk. Trblsm. Cr.	p	m	?		u		23	285
Rabbit Ears Cr.	Troublesome Cr.	u	—	bk		u		23	286
Steelman Cr.	Williams Fk.	p	m	bk		y		25	287
McQueary Cr.	Williams Fk.	u	—	bk	ct,ppn,tlc*	u		25	288
Bobtail Cr.	Williams Fk.	p	m	bk	—	n		25	289
Little Muddy Cr.	Colorado R.	h	m	bk	ct,ppn	n	g	25	290
Cub Cr.	Little Muddy Cr.	h	m	bk	ct	n		25	291
Kelly Cr.	Little Muddy Cr.	h	m	bk	ct	n	—	25	292
Kinney Cr.*	Colorado R.	P	m	bk	—	y		26	293
Hamilton Cr.	Hurd Cr.	p	m	bk		y		25	294
Cabin Cr.	Ranch Cr.	h	m	bk	—	y	—	25	295
S. Fk. Ranch Cr.*	Ranch Cr.	h	m	—	—	n	—	25	296
Mid. Fk. Ranch Cr.	S. Fk. Ranch Cr.	u	—	—	—	y	—	25	297
Iron Cr.	St. Louis Cr.	u	—	—	ct,ppn,tlc*	y	—	25	298
Vasquez Cr.	Fraser R.	u			bk.rb	y		25	299
Little Vasquez Cr.f	Vasquez Cr.	p	m			y		25	300
S. Fk. Vasquez Cr.	Vasquez Cr.	p	m			n		25	301
Jim Cr.	Fraser R.	h	m	bk	ct	b		25	302
Trail Cr.	Willow Cr.	h	m			y		26	303
Roaring Fk.	L. Granby	h	m		ct,ppn,tlc*	y		26	304
Watanqa Cr.	Roaring Fk.	u			ct.ppn.tic'	y		26	305
Watanga L.	Watanga Cr.	u			ct,ppn,tlc	y		26	306
Arapaho Cr.	Monarch L.	h	m	bk	bn.ct.ppn,	b		26	307
					rb.tic*
Buchanan Cr.	Arapaho Cr.	h	m		ct,ppn,rb,tlc*	u		26	308
Thunderbolt Cr.	Buchanan Cr.	h	m	—	tic*	n	—	26	309
Columbine Cr.	Colorado R.	m	m			v		26	310
Paradise Cr.*	E. Inlet	P	m			y		26	311
Adams L.*	Paradise Cr.	P	m			y		26	312
Fifth L.*	E. Inlet	P	m			y		26	313
Ptarmigan Cr.*	N. Inlet	P	m,e			y		26	314
Bench L.*	Ptarmigan Cr.	P	m,e			y		26	315
L. Nanita*	N. Inlet	P	m,e			y		26	316
Timber Cr. 2*	Colorado R.	P	m			y		26	317
Timber L.*	Timber Cr.	P	m			y		26	318
'Water	* = population established or supplemented by stocking of nonindigenous, genetically pure fish

f = a conservation population (believed to be indigenous, genetically pure, allopatric above a barrier: and not believed to be in a recently stocked watershed)

16

Appendix A. Cont'd

^Genetic purity

^Technique

^Present

^Stocked

^Barr.

^Activity

^Figure

p = genetically pure

h = hybridized

m = mixed results

u = unknown (not tested)

Techniques used in genetic analysis m = m eristic analysis e = eiectrophoretic analysis of proteins d = analysis of mtDNA dash = no analysis performed

Presence of sympatric populations of non-native species bk = brook trout bn = brown trout

ct = unknown subspecies of cutthroat trout (probably not indigenous) goi = golden trout

ppn = Pikes Peak cutthroat trout (greenback cutthroat trout introgressed with Yellowstone cutthroat trout and possibly Snake River cutthroat trout) rainbow trout

rainbow-cutthroat trout hybrid Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout

Trappers Lake cutthroat trout (Colorado River cutthroat trout introgressed with Yellowstone

cutthroat trout and possibly rainbow trout) Yellowstone cutthroat trout

— = non-native species believed absent

? = presence of non-native species not determined

Water stocked since 1973; species codes are as above

— = water (or nearby, connected waters) was not believed stocked since 1973 stocking of non-native species could not be determined

some or all of the stocking was in a nearby (usually upstream) and presumably connected water body

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 B that contains this stream or lake

Number on figure in Appendix B that denotes this stream or lake

rb =

rxc -

src =

tic =

yc =

9 =

?* =

17

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.

Legend

/\y Known population

/\/ Conservation population

• Barrier A/ Upper Colorado River Basin

/\/ Subregion watershed

V Hydrologic unit

18

Appendix B. Cont'd

19

Appendix B. Cont'd

Appendix B. Cont'd

21

Appendix B. Cont'd

Appendix B. Cont'd

Appendix B. Cont'd.

Appendix B. Cont'd

Appendix B. Cont'd

Eiigle RivtT

Figure 16. Waters 184-192, 200-213,

Little Snake River and upper Yampa River basins, Colorado

0 5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers

26

Appendix B. Cont'd

27

Appendix B. Cont'd

29

Appendix B. Cont'd.

Appendix B. Cont'd.

Figure 25. Waters 287-292, 294-302, upper Colorado River basin, Colorado

5 0 5 10 15 KUomelers

Figure 26. Waters 293, 303-318, upper Colorado River basin, Colorado

0 5 10 Kilometers

31

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 1995b

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

Wernsman 1973; Behnke and Zarn 1976; Behnke 1979, 1992; Behnke and Benson 1980; Martinez 1988; Langlois et al. 1994

Colorado

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

32

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

1022379340

Rocky Mountains

Southwest

Great Plains

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, Wyorning Lincoln, Nebraska Rapid City, South Dakota

'Station Headquarters: 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526