DOCSLIB.ORG

Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts August 1976 USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract Behnke, R. J., and Mark Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA For. Sew. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28, 45 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. Discusses taxonomy, reasons for decline, life history and ecology, and sug- gestions for preservation and management of six closely related trouts native to western North America: Colorado River cutthroat, Salmo clarki pleuriticus; green- back trout, S. c. stomias; Lahontan cutthroat, S. c. henshawi; Paiute trout, S. c. seleniris; Gila trout, S. gilae; and Arizona native trout, S. apache. Meristic characters, distribution and status, habitat requirements and limiting factors, protective measures, and management recommendations are presented for each taxon. Keywords: Native trout, Salrno clarki pleuriticus. Sali?zo ckurki stoi~zius. Sulnzo clarki herzshawi, Salmo clarki seleniris, Salrno gilue. Sulrno uprrchc. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 August 1976 Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts R. J. Behnke Colorado State University Mark Zarn Conservation Library Denver Public Library Information reported here was prepared under contract by the Conservation Library of the Denver Public Library, through the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The report is printed as prepared by the authors; opinions are not necessarily those of the U.S. Forest Service. TABLE OF CONTENTS I . GJ3NERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR RAE3 AND ENDANGJIRED WESTERN TROUTS Introduction ........................... Taxonomy ............................. Reasons for Decline .................... .... Life History and Ecology ..................... Preservation. Restoration and Management Programs ......... Potential Role of Native Trout in Fisheries Management . .... Summary ............................... Authorities ............................ References ............................ 11 . COLORADO RImR CUTTHROAT TROUT. Salmo clarki pleuriticus Typical Meristic Characteristics. * ........... Species Description .................. Distribution ..................... Status and Population Trend .............. LifeHistory ..................... Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors ....... Protective Measures .................. Recommendations .................... Authorities ...................... References ...................... I11 . WNBACK CUTTHROAT TROUT. Salmo clarki s tomias Typical Meristic Characteristics....... Species Description ............. Distribution ................ Status and Population Trend ......... Life History ................ Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors . Protective Measures ............. Recommendations ............... Authorities ................. References ................. IV . LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT. Salmo clarki henshawi Typical Meristic Characteristics ....... Species Description ............. Distribution ................ Status and Population Trend ......... Life History ................ Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors . Protective Measures ............. Recommendations ............... Authorities ................. References ................. V . PAIUTE TROUT. SaLmo clarki seleniris Typical Meristic Characteristics ...................... 32 Species Description ............................ 32 Distribution ............................... 33 Status and Population Trend ........................ 33 Life History ...............................34 Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors ................. 34 Protective Measures ............................ 34 Recommendations .............................. 34 Authorities ................................. 35 References ................................ 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) VI . GILA TROUT. Salmo ailae Typical Meristic Characteristics. ..................... 36 Species Description ............................ 36 Distribution ............................... 38 Status and Population Trend ........................ 39 Life History ............................... 39 Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors ................. 39 Protective Measures ....... Recommendations ......... Authorities ........... References ........... VII . ARIZONA NATIVE TROUT. Salmo apache Typical Meristic Characteristics . .... Species Description ....... .... Distribution .............. Status and Population Trend ... .... Life History .......... .... Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors Protective Measures ........... Recommendations ......... .... Authorities ............... References ........... .... BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WESTERN TROUTS occur with anadromous steelhead trout (5. gairdneri) does coexistence occur naturally This report discusses the biology and without hybridization. In all instances where management of six closely related trouts the rainbow trout has been established beyond native to western North America. All sharg its native range and stocked with Gila trout, many common ecological and genetic attributes; golden trout or any of the interior subspecies all have suffered catastrophic declines in of cutthroat trout, hybridization has invariably abundance due to essentially similar factors. resulted. The indiscriminate stocking of The folLowing section presents general in- untold millions of rainbow trout and several formation applicable to all of these trouts subspecies of cutthroat trout into virtually and relevant to any meaningful preservation, every habitable water throughout the West, and restoration and management efforts. Succeed- subsequent hybridization with the native trout ing chapters present more specific biological fauna, has been the primary cause for the and management considerations for each taxa. almost complete elimination of pure populations of most of the taxonomic categories of native trouts in the interior regions of the West. Man still lacks complete knowledge of The presence of all degrees of hybridi- the evolutionary history which resulted in zation greatly confounds the work of correctly the diverse array of western North American identifying and evaluating the purity of exist- trouts of the genus Salmo. Earlier thought ing populations of native trout in most regions, considered that all western trouts either and the recognition of pure stocks of any of belonged to or recently derived from two the six trouts considered in this report is evolutionary lines or species: the rainbow not a simple matter. Although one can acquire trout, Salmo gairdneri, and the cutthroat sufficient familiarity with the subtle varia- trout, 2. clarki. Recent studies have demon- tions among the different species and sub- strated that the true situation is much more species of western trouts to distinguish the complex; several distinct groups including various taxa, the average field worker cannot the Gila trout (S-. gilae), Arizona native be expected to accurately differentiate the trout (5. apache), Mexican golden trout true native trout of a given area from hybrid (Salmo chrysogaster) , California golden trout populations. Taxonomic criteria exist for all (Salmo aguabonita) and redband trout (not the trouts in this report, but the sorting and officially named) do not fit the diagnosis of evaluation of specimens collected during survey either the rainbow trout or the cutthroat work to determine the status of a native trout trout and probably represent distinct evolu- and to locate pure populations remains an in- tionary lines of their own which sprang from volved process of detailed examination and a common ancestor to all western Salmo comparison of twr~ycharacters. (Behnke 1972b, Schreck and Behnke 1971, Miller 1972). So unless an agency is dealing with "certified" pure popqlations in a rare trout Despite such evolutionary diversity, all management program, it will ultimathll confront western trouts are closely related to the the problem of identification. Possibilities extent that they can interbreed freely with for additional refinement of information useful each other to produce fertile hybrids. Only in taxonomic identification exist; these in- in Pacific Coast rivers, where rainbow trout clude biochemical techniques such as protein and the coastal cutthroat, 5. c. clarki, electrophoresis and karyotype examination-- reside together and in the Salmon and Clear- the determination of chromosome number and water drainages of the Columbia River basin morphology. Yet the investigator should use of Idaho where resident interior cutthroat caution in utilizing these modern techniques to determine the relative purity of trout also favor the displacement of native trouts populations, for they require both a Icnowledge by more tolerant introduced species, notably of basic principles of taxonomy and a familiar- the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and ity with the natural range of variability of the brown trout (Salmo trutta). the trout under study. Often, if the extent of hybridization has reached a level where it Most pure native trout populations in can be detected by electrophoresis or altera- the interior regions of the West persist only tions in the chromosome compleaent, it will in small isolated headwater stream situations also show up in the form of changes in den- in essentially undisturbed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Center Comments to the California Department of Fish and Game
    July 24, 2006 Ryan Broderick, Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Improving efficiency of California’s fish hatchery system Dear Director Broderick: On behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, we are writing to express our concerns about the state’s fish hatchery and stocking system and to recommend needed changes that will ensure that the system does not negatively impact California’s native biological diversity. This letter is an update to our letter of August 31, 2005. With this letter, we are enclosing many of the scientific studies we relied on in developing this letter. Fish hatcheries and the stocking of fish into lakes and streams cause numerous measurable, significant environmental effects on California ecosystems. Based on these impacts, numerous policy changes are needed to ensure that the Department of Fish and Game’s (“DFG”) operation of the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not adversely affect California’s environment. Further, as currently operated, the state’s hatchery and stocking program do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Endangered Species Act. The impacts to California’s environment, and needed policy changes to bring the state’s hatchery and stocking program into compliance with applicable state and federal laws, are described below. I. FISH STOCKING NEGATIVELY IMPACTS CALIFORNIA’S NATIVE SALMONIDS, INCLUDING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Introduced salmonids negatively impact native salmonids in a variety of ways. Moyle, et. al. (1996) notes that “Introduction of non-native fish species has also been the single biggest factor associated with fish declines in the Sierra Nevada.” Moyle also notes that introduced species are contributing to the decline of 18 species of native Sierra Nevada fish species, and are a major factor in the decline of eight of those species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trout Waters of California Details Six of the State’S Most Scenic, Diverse, and Significant Native Trout Fisheries
    NATIVE TROUT WATERS OF CALIFORNIA Michael Carl The Ecological Angler www.ecoangler.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUTION – THE ORIGINAL SIX 4 ABOUT THE BOOK 4 CLAVEY RIVER 5 BACKGROUND 6 TROUT POPULATION DATA 6 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 7 DIRECTIONS TO REACH SEGMENT 3 AND 4 (E.G., BRIDGE CROSSING CLAVEY RIVER): 7 AREA MAP 8 CLAVEY RIVER FLOW STATISTICS 9 FISHING TECHNIQUES 9 EAGLE LAKE 10 BACKGROUND 11 BIG TROUT FOOD – TUI CHUBS 11 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 11 DIRECTIONS TO EAGLE LAKE FROM RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA: 11 AREA MAP 12 PRODUCTIVE TIMES AND ZONES TO FISH 13 FISHING TECHNIQUES 13 SPALDING TRACT – TOPO MAP 14 PIKES POINT – TOPO MAP 15 GOLDEN TROUT CREEK 16 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 17 ABUNDANCE OF CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT 17 CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT GENETIC DATA 17 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND ACCESS 18 DIRECTIONS TO COTTONWOOD PASS TRAILHEAD 18 AREA MAP 19 PHOTO JOURNAL – COTTONWOOD PASS TO TUNNEL MEADOW 20 FISHING TECHNIQUES 23 HEENAN LAKE 24 BACKGROUND 25 FLY ANGLER STATISTICS – 2007 SEASON (8/3/07 TO 10/28/07) 26 REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 27 AREA MAP 27 DIRECTIONS 27 PRODUCTIVE ZONES TO FISH 28 FISHING TECHNIQUES 28 UPPER KERN RIVER 29 BACKGROUND 30 KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 DISTRIBUTION OF KERN RIVER RAINBOWS 30 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS AND ACCESS 31 MAP – LLOYD MEADOW ROAD TO FORKS OF THE KERN 32 SPOTLIGHT – FORKS OF THE KERN 33 DIRECTIONS AND TRAIL DESCRIPTION 33 RECOMMENDED FISHING GEAR 33 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER 35 OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED 36 ABUNDANCE AND SIZE OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT 37 STREAM POPULATIONS, REGULATIONS, ACCESS & DISTANCE 37 DIRECTIONS TO REACH TRAILHEAD: 38 AREA MAP 39 TRAIL DESCRIPTION 40 FISHING TECHNIQUES 40 Introduction – The Original Six The Native Trout Waters of California details six of the state’s most scenic, diverse, and significant native trout fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America
    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 10, 2008 Michael K. Young, Ph.D USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 800 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, Montana 59801 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society 1 Young, M.K. (2008, October 10). Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coloradorivercutthroattrout.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. My thanks also to Claire McGrath, Bruce Rosenlund, and Dave Winters for their reviews of a similar manuscript on a related subspecies. I appreciate the assistance of Dennis Shiozawa, Brigham Young University; Bill Wengert, Wyoming Game and Fish Department; and Dan Brauch, Colorado Division of Wildlife, for sharing a number of unpublished reports. This work was funded by the Species Conservation Project for Region 2 and the Rocky Mountain Research Station, both part of the USDA Forest Service. AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbances on stream ecosystems. COVER ILLUSTRATION CREDIT Illustration of the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) by © Joseph Tomelleri.
    [Show full text]
  • GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus Gilae)
    (Technical Review Draft, April 2002) GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus gilae) (Third Revision) RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: January 12, 1979) (First Revision Approved: January 3, 1984) (Second Revision Approved: December 8, 1993) Prepared by John Pittenger (Purchase Order 201819M251) for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: XXX Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/ or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or national Marine Fisheries Service are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position of the National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Tahoe's Seven Summits
    Birds return to Lake Tahoe, page 4 Summer 2014 Drought offers TAHOE’S SEVEN SUMMITS good news, bad By Jeff Cowen news for Lake Tahoe In Depth By Jim Sloan The Lake may be this Region’s Tahoe In Depth most famous geographic feature, but it is Tahoe’s peaks that define our From the shoreline, a long-term landscapes and, at times, the course or severe drought seems to put of our lives. Daily, we glimpse them Lake Tahoe in dire straits. The water towering over our tedium, indelible recedes, streams dry up and the reminders of nature’s greatness and our shoreline beaches expand to expose own impermanence. Succumbing to a bathtub ring along the 72-mile their power, we climb them. shoreline. Some climbers are peak collectors, But from the water, things don’t “bagging” the major summits one by always look so bad. During a one. Others climb on a lark, impulsively drought, many of the pollutants joining friends and unprepared for the that affect Lake Tahoe’s clarity can’t Photo © Steve Dunleavy experience ahead. Regardless of our Pyramid Peak rises above the fog-choked Tahoe Basin. find their way to the Lake. Droughts paths, once we reach their summits, we slow down the rate of urban runoff, feel at once tiny and expansive, earth and rodents. Trees become shorter and neighborhoods. reducing erosion and the flow of fine and time stretching in all directions wider, until they disappear entirely. Our Climbers of even our most benign sediment and other water-clouding below us, the experience undeniably bodies change too.
    [Show full text]
  • South Tahoe Area Trail Map (From Kingsbury Grade to Highway 89) VAN SICKLE C Si Kl BI-STATE PARK N E Tahoe Rim Trail a Tra V Il to Kingsbury Grade & Stagecoach Lodge
    South Tahoe Area Trail Map (From Kingsbury Grade to Highway 89) VAN SICKLE c Si kl BI-STATE PARK n e Tahoe Rim Trail a Tra V il To Kingsbury Grade & Stagecoach Lodge HGHWAY 50 5.8 L a k e T a h o e elev. 6,225’ East Peak SKI RUN BLVD 9,590’ Heavenly CA Lodge Future 6,500’ Heavenly Mountain Resort Bike 8.5 Park l i a AL TAHOE BLVD r T e * T n i a l r Monument Peak h e 10,060’ o HGHWAY 89 HGHWAY 50 w e o Monument Pass P R i m 8,900’ 3.1 T r a i l 2.5 Co il ld Tra Cr e ek o ad High Meadow R dow 7,800’ a l e i High M a r PIONEER TRAIL1.6 T d e ra G d a o S r t il a a 1.8 r 3.83 R il C La ke Tr a HGHWAY 50 e d a r 1.9 T r Star Lake a C i elev. 9,100’ or l Sidewinder ra l Trail T Trimmer Peak ail r r T a m .9 9,910’ i i l R C ONEIDAS ST o e n h o n Ta e Freel Pass MAP LEGEND: F o c 9,700’ u t n o Multi-Use Trail t r NORTH a Trai in l1.7 P l 5.1 Freel Peak ace Dirt Road Road 10,880’ Fountain Place 7,800’ Narrow Paved Road Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Trails S to Meyers a 3.8 x o Primary Street n Arm stro C n g Trai Creek r l e e k 200’ Interval Contour ( M r .
    [Show full text]
  • Paiute Cutthroat Trout ONCORHYNCHUS CLARKII SELENIRIS Rev
    Conservation Success Index: Paiute Cutthroat Trout ONCORHYNCHUS CLARKII SELENIRIS Rev. 1.0 - 6/2009 SPECIES SUMMARY Silver King Creek drains the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Area on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine County, California and flows into the East Fork of the Carson River. Many of its tributary streams are spring fed systems with steep gradients that flatten out near the confluence with Silver King Creek. Silver King Creek itself is a small, tight drainage punctuated by a steep canyon with a large waterfall and interspersed with sections of lower gradient stream habitat. First described by J. O. Snyder in 1933, the Paiute cutthroat trout is found only in this system. Historically, it was limited to 9 miles of habitat on the lower main-stem of Silver King Creek and three small tributary creeks - Tamarack Creek, Tamarack Lake Creek and the lower section of Coyote Valley Creek downstream of barrier falls. Llewellyn Falls blocked upstream migration in Silver King Creek, while the steep canyon of Silver King Creek isolated Paiute cutthroat from its Lahontan cutthroat ancestors for thousands of years. Paiute cutthroat were transferred above waterfalls on Corral Valley Creek, Coyote Valley Creek, and in two smaller drainages within Silver King Creek in the 1910s. Sometime prior to 1924 rainbow, Lahontan cutthroat, and golden trout were introduced into the lower sections of Silver King Creek. Following these introductions, hybridization eliminated pure Paiute cutthroat from its historic habitat; the only pure populations remaining occur as the result of translocations to the headwaters of Silver King Creek and a few isolated areas in other parts of the Sierra Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus Gilae) Data: Gila Trout Recovery Plan-2003 Partners: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S
    Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) Data: Gila Trout Recovery Plan-2003 Partners: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service Gila Trout Species Status review: landowners provides opportunity for The Gila Trout was originally recognized as increased Gila Trout restoration and should endangered under the Federal Endangered result in a conservation benefit to the Species Preservation Act of 1966 (U.S. Fish species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Service, 1967). Federal- and the State wildlife and fisheries designated status of the fish as endangered management agencies responsible for was continued under the Endangered establishing fishing regulations work to Species Act of 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife ensure that angling pressure does not Service, 1975) until 2006 when the species prevent, but enhances, progress toward full was down-listed to threatened (U.S. Fish and recovery. Gila Trout angling will continue to Wildlife Service, 2006). The Gila Trout was be managed by the States as long as the listed as endangered by the New Mexico population remains above the recovery Department of Game and Fish in 1975 under threshold. the Wildlife Conservation Act and was down-listed to threatened in 1988, and Distribution of Gila Trout: The extent of remains listed as threatened by New Mexico the historical distribution of the Gila Trout is Department of Game and Fish. Gila Trout not known with certainty. It is known to be are considered a Species of Concern by the native to higher elevation streams in Arizona Game and Fish Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus)
    Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Michael K. Young Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-207-WWW March 2008 Young, Michael K. 2008. Colorado River cutthroat trout: a technical conservation assess- ment. [Online]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-207-WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 123 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_GTR- 207-WWW.pdf [March 2008]. Abstract The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) was once distributed throughout the colder waters of the Colorado River basin above the Grand Canyon. About 8 percent of its historical range is occupied by unhybridized or ecologically significant populations. It has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is accorded special status by several state and federal agencies. Habitat alteration and nonnative trout invasions led to the extirpation of many populations and impede restoration. Habitat fragmentation exacerbated by climate change is an emerging threat. A strategic, systematic approach to future conservation is likely to be the most successful. The Author Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbance on stream ecosystems. Address: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 East Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, Montana 59801. Email: [email protected]. Acknowledgments I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • APACHE TROUT My First Exposure to What Later Proved to Be Apache Trout, Caused Considerable Consternation. This Occurred In
    c J tap APACHE TROUT My first exposure to what later proved to be Apache trout, caused considerable consternation. This occurred in the late 1950's while conducting graduate research on the native trout of the Great Basin (mainly the cutthroat trout native to the Lahontan and Bonneville basins of Nevada and Utah). I had borrowed all of the preserved specimens available in museums to examine in order to characterize the subspecies described from the Lahontan and Bonneville basins. These diagnoses would allow me to recognize these subspecies if they still existed. Both the Lahontan subspecies henshawi and the Bonneville subspecies Utah were generally regarded to be extinct as pure populations at the time, but the problem was that if these subspecies still existed, how could they be verified since no valid diagnosis of the subspecies had ever been made. My study was progressing nicely as I compiled the diagnostic traits of the two subspecies when I received three specimens from the U.S. National Museum labeled, "Panguitch Lake, Utah" (a lake in Bonneville basin). These specimens were collected in 1873 and were entirely distinct from any form of cutthroat trout known to me. The specimens were only about five to eight inches in length but their deep bodies, long fins, spotting patterns, and other internal characters such„ as the number of vertebrae were very different from any other trout with which I was familiar. I pondered the question in my MS. thesis; How could a trout so distinctively different from the Bonneville cutthroat have existed in the Bonneville basin and not previously recognized? When I became aware that mix-ups of specimens and locality records of fish collections made by geological surveys and railroad surveys in the nineteenth century were a common occurrence, a bit of further investigation revealed that these three specimens (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenback Cutthroat Trout Genetics and Meristics Studies Facilitated Expert Panel Workshop
    FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Greenback Cutthroat Trout Genetics and Meristics Studies Facilitated Expert Panel Workshop REGION 6 OFFICE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE May 12, 2014 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Ecological Services - Colorado Field Office 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1807 Prepared by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 1819 Denver West Drive Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401 USFWS Order No. F13PB00113 AMEC Project No. 32106C002 Summary Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Background ......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Expert Panel ........................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Workshop ............................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Essential Reading ........................................................................................... 2 3.2 Day One Summary ......................................................................................... 3 3.3 Day Two Summary ......................................................................................... 3 3.4 Day Three Summary ....................................................................................... 3 4.0 Summary of Expert Panel Responses
    [Show full text]