SELECTED AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 

IN THE GREAT SALT LAKE BASINS, 1875-1998, 

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

By Elise M. Giddings and Doyle Stephens

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4132

National Water-Quality Assessment Program

Salt Lake City, Utah

1999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director
 iii

FOREWORD

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the earth resources of 

the Nation and to provide information that will assist resource managers and policymakers at Federal, State, and 

local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and trends is an important part of 

this overall mission.

One of the greatest challenges faced by water-resources scientists is acquiring reliable information that will guide 

the use and protection of the Nation’s water resources. That challenge is being addressed by Federal, State, interstate, 

and local water-resource agencies and by many academic institutions. These organizations are collecting waterquality data for a host of purposes that include: compliance with permits and water-supply standards; development 

of remediation plans for specific contamination problems; operational decisions on industrial, wastewater, or watersupply facilities; and research on factors that affect water quality. An additional need for water-quality information 

is to provide a basis on which regional- and national-level policy decisions can be based. Wise decisions must be 

based on sound information. As a society, we need to know whether certain types of water-quality problems are 

isolated or ubiquitous, whether there are significant differences in conditions among regions, whether the conditions 

are changing over time, and why these conditions change from place to place and over time. The information can 

be used to help determine the efficacy of existing water-quality policies and to help analysts determine the need for 

and likely consequences of new policies. 

To address these needs, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds in 1986 for the USGS to begin a pilot program in 

seven project areas to develop and refine the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. In 1991, the 

USGS began full implementation of the program. The NAWQA Program builds upon an existing base of waterquality studies of the USGS, as well as those of other Federal, State, and local agencies. The objectives of the 

NAWQA Program are to:

• Describe current water-quality conditions for a large part of the Nation’s freshwater streams, rivers, and 

aquifers.

• Describe how water quality is changing over time.

• Improve understanding of the primary natural and human factors that affect water-quality conditions.

This information will help support the development and evaluation of management, regulatory, and monitoring 

decisions by other Federal, State, and local agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources.

The goals of the NAWQA Program are being achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations of 59 of the 

Nation’s most important river basins and aquifer systems, which are referred to as study units. These study units are 

distributed throughout the Nation and cover a diversity of hydrogeologic settings. More than two-thirds of the 

Nation’s freshwater use occurs within the 59 study units and more than two-thirds of the people served by public 

water-supply systems live within their boundaries.

National synthesis of data analysis, based on aggregation of comparable information obtained from the study 

units, is a major component of the program. This effort focuses on selected water-quality topics using nationally 

consistent information. Comparative studies will explain differences and similarities in observed water-quality 

conditions among study areas and will identify changes and trends and their causes. The first topics addressed by 

the national synthesis are pesticides, nutrients, volatile organic compounds, and aquatic biology. Discussions on 

these and other water-quality topics will be published in periodic summaries of the quality of the Nation’s ground 

and surface water as the information becomes available.

This report is an element of the comprehensive body of information developed as part of the NAWQA Program. 

The program depends heavily on the advice, cooperation, and information from many Federal, State, interstate, 

Tribal, and local agencies and the public. The assistance and suggestions of all are greatly appreciated.

Robert M. Hirsch

Chief Hydrologist 
 v

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Great Salt Lake Basins............................................................................................................................ 2

Purpose and scope................................................................................................................................... 2

Historical background............................................................................................................................. 2

Fish ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................................................... 6

Algae ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Summary of investigations ................................................................................................................................ 10

Aquatic biota and habitat ........................................................................................................................ 10

Aquatic populations and community structure............................................................................. 10

Species of special concern............................................................................................................ 17

Aquatic habitat and riparian wetlands.......................................................................................... 20

Contaminants ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Utah Lake – Jordan River Basin................................................................................................... 23

Weber River Basin........................................................................................................................ 28

Bear River Basin .......................................................................................................................... 29

Lakes....................................................................................................................................................... 29

Utah Lake ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Bear Lake ..................................................................................................................................... 31

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 32

FIGURES

1-8. Maps showing:

1. Location of Great Salt Lake Basins study unit............................................................................. 3

2. Current and historical distribution of (a) Bonneville cutthroat trout, (b) June sucker, (c) 

least chub, (d) leatherside chub, and (e) spotted frog, in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit . 7

3. Location of sites where macroinvertebrates have been or are currently monitored for waterquality assessments in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ...................................................... 9

 4. Location of studies of fish populations or surveys in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ...... 14

5. Location of studies of macroinvertebrate populations or surveys in the Great Salt Lake 

Basins study unit, excluding water-quality monitoring sites........................................................ 15

6. Location of studies of algal populations in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ...................... 16

7. Location of studies of aquatic habitat in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit .......................... 22

8. Location of studies of contaminants in sediments or fish tissues in the Great Salt Lake 

Basins study unit........................................................................................................................... 25
vi 

TABLES

1. Fish species present in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ............................................................ 4

2. Selected investigations of the populations and interactions of fish, macroinvertebrates, and 

algae in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit.................................................................................... 11

3. Selected investigations of aquatic species of special concern in the Great Salt Lake Basins 

study unit............................................................................................................................................. 18

4. Selected investigations of aquatic habitat and riparian wetlands in the Great Salt Lake Basins 

study unit............................................................................................................................................. 21

5. Selected investigations of the presence and effects of contaminants in sediments or fish tissue 

in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ............................................................................................. 24

6. Selected investigations of Utah Lake and Bear Lake in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit ......... 30

CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS

Multiply By To obtain

mile 1.609 kilometer

square mile 2.59 square kilometer

Water temperature is reported in degrees Celsius (°C), which can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by the 

following equation:

°F = 1.8(°C)+32.

Sea level: In this report “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929—a geodetic datum 

derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea 

Level Datum of 1929.

Chemical concentration and water temperature are reported only in metric units. Chemical concentration in 

water is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit 

expressing the solute per unit volume (liter) of water and is about the same as parts per million unless concentrations 

are greater than 7,000 milligrams per liter. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to 1 milligram per liter. 

Chemical concentration in sediment and biological tissues is reported in micrograms per gram (μg/g), which is equal 

to parts per million (ppm), or micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), which is equal to parts per billion (ppb). The units 

milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) are equivalent to micrograms per gram (μg/g). 

To compare dry-weight tissue concentration to wet weight, the equation is:

wet weight = dry weight concentration x [1-(percent moisture/100)].
 1

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes previous investigations of aquatic biological communities, habitat, 

and contaminants in streams and selected large 

lakes within the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit 

as part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). 

The Great Salt Lake Basins study unit is one of 59 

such units designed to characterize water quality 

through the examination of chemical, physical, 

and biological factors in surface and ground waters 

across the country. The data will be used to aid in 

the planning, collection, and analysis of biological 

information for the NAWQA study unit and to aid 

other researchers concerned with water quality of 

the study unit.

A total of 234 investigations conducted during 1875-1998 are summarized in this report. The 

studies are grouped into three major subjects: (1) 

aquatic communities and habitat, (2) contamination of streambed sediments and biological tissues, 

and (3) lakes. The location and a general description of each study is listed. The majority of the 

studies focus on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Studies of algal communities, aquatic 

habitat, riparian wetlands, and contamination of 

streambed sediment or biological tissues are less 

common. Areas close to the major population centers of Salt Lake City, Provo, and Logan, Utah, are 

generally well studied, but more rural areas and 

much of the Bear River Basin are lacking in 

detailed information, except for fish populations.

INTRODUCTION

In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

began full-scale implementation of the National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. The objectives of the NAWQA program are to (1) describe the 

status and trends in water-quality conditions of a large 

part of the Nation’s surface and ground waters, and (2) 

improve understanding of the primary natural and 

human factors that affect water-quality conditions (Gilliom and others, 1995). This information will be used to 

plan future water-management actions and assess their 

likely consequences. The NAWQA program is 

designed to address water-quality issues at multiple 

scales. The Great Salt Lake Basins (GSLB) study unit 

is 1 of 59 proposed study units that are the building 

blocks of the program. Information from all the study 

units will be aggregated to assess regional and national 

water-quality issues.

One of the primary goals of the NAWQA program is to develop a better understanding of the interactions among physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of streams in selected environmental settings (Gurtz, 1994). Ecological studies are included in 

the NAWQA program to provide data on biological 

communities that contribute to the understanding of 

this interaction. In addition, biological communities 

can, in themselves, be good indicators of water quality. 

Studies of organic and inorganic contamination of fish 

tissues and streambed sediments also are included in 

the NAWQA program to help understand the potential 

danger these contaminants pose to aquatic and terrestrial life. To aid in the interpretation of these studies, 

conditions of biological communities and contaminants 

are investigated in existing literature. This compilation 

of previous investigations will aid in understanding 

current water-quality status and trends in the study unit.

SELECTED AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE 

GREAT SALT LAKE BASINS, 1875-1998, NATIONAL WATERQUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

By Elise M. Giddings and Doyle Stephens
2 

Great Salt Lake Basins

The Great Salt Lake Basins study unit (fig. 1) 

encompasses three major river systems that enter Great 

Salt Lake: the Bear River in the northern part of the 

study unit, the Weber River in the central part, and the 

Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin in the southern part of 

the study unit. The Provo River and the Spanish Fork 

are large tributary drainages that terminate in Utah 

Lake. The Jordan River flows northward from Utah 

Lake through the Salt Lake City metropolitan area 

before discharging to Great Salt Lake. The study unit is 

14,500 square miles in area and is mostly located in 

Utah, but also includes parts of southwestern Wyoming 

and southeastern Idaho. The study unit includes Utah’s 

3 largest cities, Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo, and 

about 1.4 million people, 85 percent of the State’s population. Utah’s population is expected to grow nearly 50 

percent in the next 20 years, with most of the increase 

occurring in the study unit. Most of the study unit is forest and rangeland (70 percent), but 18 percent is agricultural and 3 percent is urban. Most of the agricultural 

land is irrigated. 

Purpose and Scope

This report summarizes available investigations 

of aquatic biota and habitat in the GSLB study unit. 

Current and changing conditions of fish and macroinvertebrate populations in the study unit are discussed in 

general. Investigations summarized in this report are 

categorized into three major groups with subsections: 

(1) aquatic biota and habitat; (2) contaminants; and (3) 

lakes. This information will be used by the staff of the 

GSLB study unit to further develop the aquatic biology 

part of the program, and by other professionals and students working in the study unit.

Investigations included in this report examine 

fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, instream habitat, riparian wetlands, human effects on aquatic communities, 

contaminants and health of aquatic communities, and 

aquatic species of special concern. Literature on aquatic 

species of special concern is covered only briefly 

because special concern species are not a focus of the 

NAWQA program. Laboratory studies are not included, 

and studies on the control of mosquitoes also are not 

included. Although the focus of the NAWQA program 

is on rivers and not lakes, a short discussion of Utah and 

Bear Lakes is included in this report because of their 

importance to the river systems and the general public. 

Recent stream studies are included whenever possible. 

Some investigations published only in internal or informal documents may not be included.

Literature selected for inclusion is published in a 

variety of formats including journal articles and conference proceedings, government reports, university documents, theses, dissertations, and books. Investigations 

were carried out by university faculty and students, 

other Federal, State, and local government agencies, 

and environmental consulting firms.

Historical Background 

Fish

The native fishery of the study unit is typical of 

the Basin and Range Province of the United States. It 

consists of about 17 native species of fish, many of 

which are endemic to the enclosed basins of the Western United States. Cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish are the most dominant native predatory fish. Utah 

Lake is noted in reports from early settlers for its abundance of trout, whitefish, and suckers, which were a 

major food source for pioneers (Cope and Yarrow, 

1875; Jordan, 1891). Other species native to the study 

unit are listed in table 1, and include species of chubs, 

minnows, sculpins, and four species endemic to Bear 

Lake. 

Stocking of exotic fish species began in earnest in 

1881, with the stocking of carp throughout the State. 

The carp were stocked as an additional food source for 

settlers, and as part of a nationwide stocking program of 

food fishes (Holden and others, 1996). In the 1890s, 

sport fishing became popular and the fish species chosen for stocking reflected this trend. Game fish from 

around the country, as well as native cutthroat trout, 

were raised in hatcheries and introduced into the study 

unit. The stocking program in the State has continued to 

expand and game species of all types have been introduced, including other trout species and warm-water 

species such as bass, bluegill, and perch (table 1). 
 3
4 

Table 1. Fish species present in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Family Common name Scientific name1

NATIVE FISH

Minnow family; Cyprinidae Utah chub Gila atraria 

Least chub Iotichthys phlegethontis 

Leatherside chub Gila copei 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus 

Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus 

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae 

Sucker family; Catostomidae Utah sucker Catostomus ardens 

June sucker Chasmistes liorus 

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus 

Bluehead sucker (Green sucker) Catostomus discobolus 

Trout and Whitefish family; Salmonidae Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah 

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 

Bonneville whitefish2 Prosopium spilonotus 

Bear Lake whitefish2 Prosopium abyssicola

Bonneville cisco2 Prosopium gemmifer 

Sculpin family; Cottidae Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi 

Paiute sculpin Cottus beldingi 

Utah Lake scuplin (extinct) Cottus echinatus 

Bear Lake sculpin2 Cottus extensus 

INTRODUCED FISH

Herring family; Clupeidae Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Minnow family; Cyprinidae Common carp Cyprinus carpio 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas 

Goldfish Carassius auratus 

Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Sucker family; Catostomidae White sucker Catostomus commersoni 

Catfish family; Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas 

Pike family; Esocidae Northern pike Esox lucius

Tiger muskie Esox masquinongy x E. lucius

Table 1. Fish species present in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit
 5

INTRODUCED FISH—Continued

Trout and Whitefish family; Salmonidae Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

Cutthroat trout hybrids Oncorhynchus clarki ssp.

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Brown trout Salmo trutta 

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Golden trout Oncorhynchus aguabonita 

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush 

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus 

Splake Salvelinus namaycush x S. fontinalis

Killifish family; Cyprinodontidae Rainwater killifish Lucania parva 

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus

Livebearer family; Poeciliidae Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 

Temperate bass family; Percichthyidae White bass Morone chrysops 

Wiper Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis

Sunfish family; Centrarchidae Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Perch family; Percidae Yellow perch Perca flavescens 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 

1

Taxonomic classification follows Robins and others, 1991.

2

These species are endemic to Bear Lake.

Table 1. Fish species present in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Family Common name Scientific name1
6 

Native fish species generally have declined as a 

result of the presence of exotic species and the destruction of fish habitats. Four of the original 17 native species in the Bonneville drainages are now considered 

endangered, sensitive, or rare: the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, June sucker, least chub, and leatherside chub (fig. 

2). The fish assemblage of Utah Lake has been greatly 

affected by the introduction of exotic species (Environmental Dynamics, 1975), and the original populations 

of cutthroat trout and suckers have declined dramatically, partly as a result of these introductions. Stocking 

efforts for native species have increased in recent years 

in an attempt to expand their distribution to historical 

ranges. 

In contrast, introduced fish species have not 

thrived in Bear Lake. It is suspected that this is caused 

by a unique chemical environment and lack of habitat 

conducive to non-native fishes in the lake (Dave Beauchamp, Utah State University, oral commun., 1998). 

Four native species endemic only to Bear Lake dominate the community: Bear Lake whitefish, Bonneville 

whitefish, Bear Lake sculpin, and Bonneville cisco 

(Wurtsbaugh and Hawkins, 1990). In addition to these 

species, the native lake form of the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout and the exotic lake trout also are maintained 

through stocking programs.

Macroinvertebrates

Researchers began to focus on the macroinvertebrates of the region in the 1960s, and taxonomic keys 

and lists of species were produced for many groups, 

especially the stoneflies (Plecoptera) (for example 

Gaufin, 1964; Gaufin and others, 1966). Before the 

1960s, studies of the macroinvertebrates tended to 

focus on their role as a food source for game fish. Many 

of the studies in the 1960s and 70s provide information 

on aquatic invertebrates with which current studies can 

be compared, at least for specific areas. However, the 

studies were often limited in time or space, so it is difficult to get a sense of trends in the macroinvertebrate 

community over time.

The Provo and Logan Rivers are the most studied 

rivers in the study unit, in addition to some streams 

along the Wasatch Front. The Brigham Young University Center for Health and Environmental Studies 

(1976) collected and analyzed macroinvertebrate data 

from the Provo River in 1976 in order to characterize 

the water quality of the river. This study was one of the 

first to use macroinvertebrates for water-quality assessment on a large scale. Hinshaw (1967) used macroinvertebrates as an indicator of declining water quality in 

the Jordan River during 1956-65. 

The use of macroinvertebrates to monitor water 

quality has been gaining popularity in recent years. For 

example, the U.S. Forest Service has been collecting 

macroinvertebrate samples from streams on their lands 

to assess both water quality and food sources for fish 

(Paul Cowley, Wasatch National Forest, oral commun., 

1998). State Departments of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) also have incorporated the collection of macroinvertebrates as part of their routine sampling. In Idaho, 

both macroinvertebrate and periphyton samples are collected as part of a “beneficial use reconnaissance 

project” to rapidly characterize stream integrity and 

water quality (Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality, 1998). The Wyoming DEQ also has started to 

collect macroinvertebrate and some periphyton samples to assess water quality in part of the Bear River 

basin (Jack Smith, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, oral commun., 1998). The Utah DEQ 

has collected macroinvertebrate samples at sites 

throughout the State, including the Great Salt Lake 

Basins study unit (Mangum, 1995). Sites where macroinvertebrates have been or are currently monitored for 

water-quality assessment are shown in figure 3. 

Algae

As with macroinvertebrates, algae studies are 

mostly limited to surveys and taxonomic lists and a few 

studies of the role of algae in stream dynamics. Norrington (1925) provided an early checklist of algae in 

the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains. McConnell and 

Sigler (1958) examined periphyton relations to macroinvertebrates, and Quinn (1958) used periphyton to 

document pollution from a sugar beet factory along the 

Jordan River. Although some monitoring efforts are in 

place to examine periphyton, algae populations continue to be neglected as a source of water-quality information.
 7
8 
 9
10 

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS

A selection of 234 studies conducted from 1875 

to 1998 are summarized in this report. The studies are 

categorized into three groups, with subsections, by subject: (1) aquatic biota and habitat, (2) contamination of 

streambed sediment and biological tissues, and (3) Utah 

and Bear Lakes. A general description of each study is 

presented in tables 2 to 6 and locations of site-specific 

studies are shown in figures 4 to 8. Some studies examine multiple aspects of aquatic biota (for example biotic 

communities and their contaminants) and are listed in 

more than one table or figure. The majority of the studies focus on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. 

Studies of algal communities, aquatic habitat, riparian 

wetlands, and contamination of streambed sediment or 

biological tissues are less common. Areas close to the 

major population centers of Salt Lake City, Provo, and 

Logan, Utah, are generally well studied, but more rural 

areas and much of the Bear River Basin are lacking in 

detailed information, except for fish populations. 

Selected studies from each group are discussed below.

Aquatic Biota and Habitat

Studies of aquatic biological communities and 

their habitat represent most of the information that has 

been collected in the study unit. These studies have 

been further categorized into three sections: (1) aquatic 

populations and community structure, (2) species of 

special concern, and (3) aquatic habitat and riparian 

wetlands.

A few bibliographic compilations have been published that include the GSLB study unit. Christensen 

published a bibliography of aquatic biological studies 

conducted in Utah, which he later updated (Christensen, 1956; Christensen, 1962), and Rushforth and 

Merkley (1988) published a literature review of algal 

taxonomic studies.

Aquatic Populations and Community Structure

Studies of the aquatic populations and communities in streams generally consist of surveys of species 

assemblages, taxonomic descriptions, and ecological 

studies (table 2). Earlier studies focus on surveys of 

community composition and taxonomy. More recent 

studies emphasize the ecology of specific organisms or 

groups of organisms and how they relate to their environments. Information on fish (fig. 4) and macroinvertebrates (fig. 5) is extensive in some areas of the study 

unit and sparse in other areas. Information on algal populations is sparse throughout the study unit (fig. 6). 

Fisheries have been important since the settlement of the West began. The first recorded information 

on fish communities in Utah comes from the Wheeler 

Geographical Survey in the natural historian’s report 

(Cope and Yarrow, 1875). Shortly after that, a more 

extensive report on the fishes of Colorado and Utah was 

published by Jordan (1891). Tanner (1936) made the 

first survey of Utah fishes that included all waters of the 

State. All State fish and wildlife agencies have published books that commonly include the distribution of 

each fish taxa statewide, some life history notes, and 

information for anglers. Fishes of Utah was published 

in 1963 (Sigler and Miller), a revised Fishes of Wyoming in 1970 (Baxter and Simon), and a revised Fishes 

of Idaho in 1982 (Simpson and Wallace). Both Wyoming Fishes and Fishes of Utah have been updated 

recently (Baxter and Stone, 1995; Sigler and Sigler, 

1996). Sigler and Sigler (1987) also published a comprehensive book on the Fishes of the Great Basin. In 

addition to current distribution, status, and life history 

notes for both native and exotic species, this book contains information on the history of fish stocking in the 

region. Holden and others (1996) also published a comprehensive report on the history, reasons for, and effects 

of fish stocking in Utah.

A number of studies have examined the life history of specific fish species. Most of these studies are 

related to salmonids (Sigler, 1951a; Sigler, 1951b; 

Bridges, 1963; Brown, 1972; Myers, 1972; Salevurakis, 1974) or endangered species, but nongame 

species have been examined in some cases. Studies 

have been done on Utah and bluehead suckers in the 

Weber River (Andreasen and Barnes, 1975), the leatherside chub in Utah (Johnson and others, 1995), dace 

species in the Weber River (Bulloch, 1969), Utah chub 

(Carbine, 1936), and carp (Sigler, 1955; Sigler, 1958). 

Macroinvertebrates also have been examined 

through surveys and ecological studies. The Brigham 

Young University Center for Health and Environmental 

Studies (1976) surveyed macroinvertebrates in the 

Provo River and Diamond Fork and calculated 
 11

Table 2. Selected investigations of the populations and interactions of fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Map 

number

(figs.

4-6)

Reference Sub- basin Fish Macro- inver-te- brates Algae Habitat General description

1 Adamus, 1975 3 x Diversity of population and drift of benthic organisms related to environ2 Alstad, 1978 all x Distribution, diversity, and community characteristics of caddisflies; Uta3 Anderson, 1963 2 x x Macroinvertebrate and algae relation to environmental setting; Smith a4 Andreasen and Barnes, 1975 2 x Reproduction of two species of suckers; Weber River5 Bangerter, 1966 1 x Fisheries investigation/survey; Blacksmith Fork6 Baumann, 1967 3 x Taxonomy, distribution, and emergence patterns of stoneflies; Mill Cre7 Baxter and Stone, 1995 1 x Fish distribution, status; Wyoming8 Beers, 1969 1 x Energy flow in the stream benthos for algae and microbes; Logan Rive9 Behmer and Hawkins, 1986 1 x Invertebrate populations in a shaded vs. unshaded section of stream; 

10 Bergersen, 1973 1 x Fish population response to cessation of domestic sewage discharge; 

11 Bernard, 1976 1 x Reproduction and movement of salmonids in different sections of strea

Logan River)

12 Bickel, 1977 all x Survey of endemic molluscs; Intermountain West13 Bridges, 1963 1 x Movement, numbers, and survival of brown trout and mountain whitefi14 Brigham Young University, 1976 1,4 x Inventory and information about macroinvertebrates; Provo River, Blac15 Brooks, 1955 4 x Life histories, taxonomic keys, and distribution of midges (Chironomida

Creek Reservoir

16 Brown, 1935 1 x x x Physical, chemical, and biological descriptions; Logan River, Blacksm

Cache National Forest

17 Brown, 1972 1 x Life history of juvenile mountain whitefish; Logan River18 Bulloch, 1969 2 x x Life history characteristics, taxonomy, and habitats of two dace specie19 Carbine, 1936 all x Life history characteristics of Tigoma ataria (chub); Great Basin20 Cather, 1974 3 x Life history and general habits of six species of stoneflies; Mill Creek, 21 Christensen, 1962 all Bibliography of aquatic biology studies in Utah22 Clark, 1958 1 x Phytoplankton population survey; Logan River23 Coombs, 1964 1,2,4 x x Survey of algal flora by habitat (rivers, springs, etc.); western Uinta Mo24 Cope and Yarrow, 1875 all x Reports on collections of fish, oriented toward human use; parts of We25 Cowley, 1994 1 x Fish surveys; Caribou National Forest 26 Cowley, 1995 all x Fish surveys; Wasatch-Cache National Forest27 Cowley, 1997a all x Fish surveys; Wasatch-Cache National Forest28 Cowley, 1997b all x Fish surveys; Wasatch-Cache National Forest29 Crist and Holden, 1991 3 x Distribution and reproduction of fish; lower Jordan River30 EDAW, 1979 3 x Fish population survey; Jordan River, Mill Creek, Little Cottonwood Cr31 Edmunds, 1954 all x Checklist of mayflies; Utah32 Environmental Dynamics, 1975 3 x x x Baseline conditions of fish, invertebrates, and algae in Jordan River, so33 Erman, 1968 1 x Occurrence and distribution of invertebrates; lower Logan River34 Gaufin, 1949 4 x Examined productivity based on benthic fauna; North and South Forks 35 Gaufin, 1955 all x Distribution and taxonomy of stoneflies; Utah36 Gaufin, 1959 4 x Quantitative and qualitative measure of benthic invertebrates as poten

River

Table 2. Selected investigations of the populations and interactions of fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit

[Subbasin 1, Bear River Basin; 2, Weber River Basin; 3, Jordan River Basin; 4, Provo River/Utah Lake Basin]
12 

37 Gaufin, 1964 all x Checklist of stoneflies; Intermountain West38 Gaufin and others, 1966 all x Distribution and taxonomy of stoneflies; Utah39 Geer, 1981 3 x Trout fishery condition; Little Cottonwood Creek40 Graham, 1950 all x Taxonomy and some life history of adult midges; northern Utah41 Harvey, 1993 3 x x Effects of trout on benthic assemblages in headwater streams; Wasatc42 Harvey and Marti, 1993 1 x Predation on stream benthos by the Dipper (a bird); Wheeler Creek43 Holden and Crist, 1987 3 x x Status and limiting factors of aquatic community; Jordan River44 Holden and others, 1996 all x History and effects of fish stocking; Utah45 Hovingh, 1981 all x History and distribution of leeches, molluscs, and amphibians; Intermou46 Hubbs and Miller, 1948 all x Regional dispersal of fish in glacial and post-glacial time; Great Basin i47 Hubert, 1988 1 x Survey of crayfish in Wyoming48 Jensen, 1985 3 x x x x Summarizes biological information collected and determines if streams 

Mill Creek, Little and Big Cottonwood Creeks valley reaches

49 Jensen, 1990 3 x Monitoring of invertebrates; Mill Creek, Little and Big Cottonwood Cree50 Jensen, 1991 3 x Monitoring of invertebrates; Mill Creek, Little and Big Cottonwood Cree51 Johnson, 1985 all x Survey of crayfish in Utah52 Johnson and others, 1995 all x Life history characteristics of leatherside chub53 Jordan, 1891 all x Reports on collections of fish in 1889; Utah and Colorado54 Knowlton and Harmston, 1938 all x Checklist of Plecoptera and Trichoptera; Utah55 Lawson and Rushforth, 1975 4 x Taxonomy and range of diatoms; Provo River56 Lium, 1969 2,4 x x Aquatic insect community composition in relation to habitats (fast and s

cades); Uinta Mountains

57 Madsen, 1931 3 x List and taxonomy of invertebrates; City Creek58 Mangum, 1995 all x Monitoring of macroinvertebrates, yearly report; Utah59 Matthews and Neuhold, 1967 1 x Movement of fish in relation to stream flows and temperature; lower Lo60 McArthur and Barnes, 1988 4 x Invertebrate community dynamics in process of leaf litter breakdown; N61 McConnell and Sigler, 1958 1 x x Spatial and temporal variability of chlorophyll levels and standing crops 62 Merkley, 1948 4 x Taxonomy of adult caddisflies; Provo River63 Meyers, 1972 1 x Feeding habits of brown trout and whitefish; Logan River64 Miller, 1960 all x Changes in fish fauna as related to human activities; American Southw65 Miller, 1977 1 x Fish surveys; Bear River drainage in Wyoming66 Moffett, 1935 3 x Colonization rates of invertebrates after flooding events in four streams

Farmington Creek (Davis County), City and Mill Creeks (Salt Lake Co

67 Mou-Sheng and Rushforth, 1977 4 x Survey of algal flora of Brigham Young University campus68 Nebeker, 1966 all x Taxonomy and range of family Capniidae (Plecoptera); Western United 69 Needham and Christenson, 1927 1 x Survey of invertebrates that are trout food; Logan River and nearby are70 Newell and Minshall, 1976 1 x Annotated checklist of Plecoptera; southeast Idaho71 Newell and Minshall, 1977 1 x Annotated checklist of Trichoptera; southeast Idaho72 Norrington, 1925 all x Checklist of algae in lakes and streams; Wasatch and Uinta Mountains73 Oberndorfer and others, 1984 4 x Leaf litter breakdown by invertebrate communities; North Fork Provo R74 Osborn, 1981 1 x x Invertebrate populations, chlorophyll, and leaf processing rates in relat

Logan, Utah, and near Yellowstone Park

Table 2. Selected investigations of the populations and interactions of fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Map 

number

(figs.

4-6)

Reference Sub- basin Fish Macro- inver-te- brates Algae Habitat General description
 13

75 Peterson, 1955 all x Checklist of blackflies; Utah76 Pettengill, 1994 1 x Creel survey; Logan River77 Poole, 1981 4 x Life history, population structure, distribution, and energetics for the inv

nica; Provo River and Warm River, Idaho

78 Popov and Low, 1953 all x Examines history of fish introductions; Utah79 Radant, 1976 4 x x Fish and habitat survey; Provo River and Main Creek80 Rees, 1945 all x Distribution of mosquitofish in Utah81 Remmick, 1982 1 x Fish surveys for cutthroat trout; Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyomin82 Rushforth and Merkley, 1988 all x Compilation of algae taxanomic studies and checklists published in lite83 Salevurakis, 1974 1 x Factors controlling food digestion in brown trout; Blacksmith Fork84 Samuelson, 1950 3 x Comparison of algae populations in Red Butte Creek and Emigration C85 Sessions, 1960 4 x Taxonomy, distribution, and biology of stoneflies; Provo River86 Sigler, 1951a 1 x Life history of brown trout; Logan River87 Sigler, 1951b 1 x Life history of mountain whitefish; Logan River88 Sigler, 1955 all x Ecology of carp; Utah89 Sigler, 1958 all x More ecology and use of carp; Utah90 Sigler and Sigler, 1996 all x Life history and ecology of fish species, oriented toward anglers; Utah91 Sigler and Sigler, 1987 all x Life history, status, and distribution of fish species; Great Basin92 Sigler and Sigler, 1994 all x Lists all fish species known to occur or be introduced into the Great Ba

tus

93 Simpson and Wallace, 1982 1 x Fish distribution, status; Idaho94 Snyder, 1924 all x Notes on suckers; Bonneville basin95 Stephens, 1969 2 x Trichoptera population in relation to physical and chemical characteris96 Tanner, 1932 all x Description of a new sucker species (Notolepidomyzon utahensis); Uta97 Tanner, 1936 all x Fish distribution, status; Utah98 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995 4 x x Management of dam releases to optimize dissolved-oxygen concentra

Deer Creek Dam

99 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1973

3 x x x Survey of fish, algae, benthic invertebrates, and bacteria in Jordan Riv

100 Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, 1975a

3 x Fish distribution, status; Jordan River tributaries

101 Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, 1975b

4 x x Survey of fish and habitat; Provo River, Deer Creek Dam to Olmstead 

102 Wheeler, 1997 1 x Survey of fish in western Wyoming and comparison to historical survey103 Whitney, 1951 3 x Comparison of aquatic invertebrates in Red Butte Creek and Emigratio104 Winger, 1972 2 x Effects of channelization and water impoundments on macroinvertebra105 Winger and others, 1972 4 x Checklist of macroinvertebrates; Provo River106 Zarbock, 1951 1 x Life history of Utah sculpin; Logan River

Table 2. Selected investigations of the populations and interactions of fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Map 

number

(figs.

4-6)

Reference Sub- basin Fish Macro- inver-te- brates Algae Habitat General description
14 
 15
16 
 17

community metrics to assess water quality. The stoneflies (Plecoptera) have been the subject of a number of 

surveys. Gaufin and others (1966) published a list with 

the taxonomy of stoneflies of Utah, and Nebeker (1966) 

published a dissertation on the ecology and taxonomy 

of the family Capniidae (Plecoptera) in the Western 

United States. 

A number of studies on the ecology of macroinvertebrate communities have been conducted on 

streams located in the Great Salt Lake Basins study 

unit. For example, Behmer and Hawkins (1986) found 

that for most invertebrates, abundance and mean biomass are greater at sunny sites than shaded sites. Harvey 

studied the effects of predation on benthic macroinvertebrates, from trout (Harvey, 1993) and from a bird, the 

American dipper (Harvey and Marti, 1993). A number 

of studies examined the relations between invertebrates 

and physical and chemical characteristics of streams 

(Lium, 1969; Stephens, 1969; Alstad, 1978). Samuelson (1950) and Whitney (1951) compared the aquatic 

populations in Red Butte Creek, a NAWQA reference 

site, and Emigration Creek, a neighboring canyon with 

residential development. Both authors found that the 

macroinvertebrate and algal populations were more 

impaired in Emigration Creek and suggested that siltation was a major contributor to the impairment. Other 

studies examined the relations between macroinvertebrate communities and leaf-litter processing. Oberndorfer and others (1984) found that invertebrate 

shredders contributed substantially to leaf-litter breakdown in small streams, and that predation on shredders 

can have a substantial effect on detritus processing. 

This study was continued by McArthur and Barnes 

(1988), who further examined macroinvertebrate community dynamics in relation to leaf-litter processing. 

Osborn (1981) found that streams with higher alkalinity 

also had higher productions of aquatic invertebrates, 

higher standing crops of attached algae and faster processing of alder leaves.

Algal communities in the GSLB study unit generally are less studied than fish and macroinvertebrates. 

Norrington (1925) published the first comprehensive 

algal survey of sites within the study unit with his dissertation on the phycology of streams in the Wasatch 

and Uinta Mountains. Lawson and Rushforth (1975) 

also published an extensive account of diatoms in the 

Provo River, which emphasized taxonomic identification. More recently, Rushforth and Merkley (1988) 

published a comprehensive list of species and a literature review of algal taxonomy and surveys in Utah. A 

summary of these and other studies conducted on 

aquatic organisms and habitat is provided in table 2.

Species of Special Concern

Four fish and one amphibian species are of special concern in the GSLB study unit. The June sucker is 

listed as Endangered with Critical Habitat (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1986), and Conservation agreements and strategies exist for the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1996; Remmick and others, 1994; Scully, 1994; U.S. Forest Service, 1994), least chub (Perkins and others, 1997), and 

the spotted frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). 

The Conservation agreements implement strategies to 

maintain and increase the population of the species 

without listing them as Threatened or Endangered. In 

addition, the leatherside chub is considered rare and its 

population is being studied by the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, but no management plan is currently in place for this species. 

Many studies have been done to address life history, status, and distribution issues of each of these species (table 3). The cutthroat trout is the most visible and 

well studied of these species, probably because it is of 

interest to anglers. The Bonneville cutthroat trout is a 

subspecies of inland cutthroat trout, of which the Yellowstone, West Slope, Colorado River, and Rio Grande 

also are subspecies. Within the Bonneville subspecies, 

several differentiated groups exist. Two of these occur 

in the study unit: the Bear River form and the main 

Bonneville basin form. The Bonneville cutthroat trout 

interbreeds readily with Yellowstone cutthroat and rainbow trout. The introduction of Yellowstone cutthroat 

and rainbow trout species into Utah’s rivers and lakes, 

in combination with habitat degradation, has led to the 

decline of the cutthroat species (Duff, 1996). The taxonomy of the inland cutthroat trout subspecies is complex and currently being assessed using genetic 

techniques (Shiozawa and Evans, 1995) in addition to 

more traditional, morphological techniques (Behnke 

and Proebstel, 1994). Duff (1996) provides an excellent 

discussion of the history, forms, and status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout. 
18 

Table 3. Selected investigations of aquatic species of special concern in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Reference General description

Cutthroat trout studies

Behnke, 1976 Status of Bonneville cutthroat trout

Behnke, 1979 Biology, taxonomy, distribution of western native trout

Behnke, 1980 Purity evaluation of Bear River cutthroat trout based on morphology; Carter and Mill Creeks

Behnke, 1988 Phylogeny and classification of all cutthroat trout species

Behnke, 1992 Biology, taxonomy, distribution of western native trout

Behnke and Proebstel, 1994 Morphological analysis to determine subspecies of cutthroat trout in the Bonneville basin in 

Idaho

Bernard and Israelsen, 1982 Migration of cutthroat trout between and within the Logan River and Spawn Creek

Binns, 1977 Status and distribution of Bonneville cutthroat trout in Wyoming

Binns, 1981 Status and distribution of Bonneville cutthroat trout in Wyoming

Binns and Remmick, 1994 Response of trout and their habitat to drainage-wide habitat management; Huff Creek

Cope, 1955 Reasons for decline of the cutthroat trout

Cowley, 1994 Survey of forest streams for cutthroat trout and other species of fish

Duff, 1988 Current status and management

Duff, 1996 Current status and management implications

Floener, 1950 Life history of cutthroat trout in Logan River

Griffith, 1988 Competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids

Hickman, 1977 Status of Bonneville cutthroat trout

Hickman, 1978 Study of Bonneville cutthroat trout

Holden and others, 1974 Notes on all threatened fish in Utah

Martin and others, 1985 Electrophoresis study

Martin and Shiozawa, 1982 Electrophoresis study

May and others, 1978 Distribution, systematics and biology

Nielson and Lentsch, 1988 Bear Lake cutthroat trout status and management

Nielson and Tolentino, 1996 Bear Lake cutthroat trout enhancement program progress report, 1990-94

Remmick, 1982 Survey of populations on Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming

Remmick and others, 1994 Five year management plan, Wyoming

Schmidt and others, 1995 Management plan, Utah

Scully, 1993 Status of Bonneville cutthroat trout in Idaho 

Scully, 1994 Habitat conservation assessment and strategy, Idaho

Shiozawa and Evans, 1995 Genetic status (mitochondrial DNA analysis)

Shiozawa and others, 1993 Relations between cutthroat trout populations in 10 Bonneville and Colorado River drainages

Trotter and Bisson, 1988 Documents early observations of cutthroat trout

U.S. Forest Service, 1994 Conservation agreement for the Thomas Fork, Wyoming/Idaho

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

1996

Draft conservation agreement and strategy of Bonneville cutthroat trout in Utah

Wullschleger and Pettengill, 1993 Logan River cutthroat trout spawning study

Wullschleger and Pettengill, 1994 Logan River fish population surveys

Young, 1995 Distribution, status of inland cutthroat trout species

Table 3. Selected investigations of aquatic species of special concern in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit
 19

June sucker studies

Crowl and others, 1995a Trophic interactions of June sucker, gizzard shad, and white bass

Crowl and others, 1995b Various June sucker studies

Eyring Research Institute, 1982 Water quality, hydrology, and aquatic biology assessment of Utah Lake

Gutermuth and others, 1993 Reproductive biology of the June sucker

Lamarra, 1982 Status of June sucker (and webug sucker, now same species) and least chub

Modde and Muirhead, 1990 Emergence patterns and feeding of June sucker

Modde and Muirhead, 1994 Spawning and larval emergence of June sucker

Olsen and others, 1996 Analysis of factors affecting June sucker spawning habitat

Radant, 1986 History, ecology, and management of June sucker

Radant and others, 1987 Instream flow analysis for June sucker; Provo River

Radant and Shirley, 1987 Miscellaneous June sucker investigations

Shirley, 1983 Spawning and larval development of June sucker

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986 Decision to list June sucker as endangered with critical habitat

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995a June sucker recovery plan

Least chub studies

Crawford, 1979 Reproduction of the least chub

Hickman, 1989 Status of least chub in Intermountain West

Lamarra, 1982 Status of June sucker and least chub

Perkins and others, 1997 Conservation agreement and strategy

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995b Proposal to list species as endangered

Leatherside chub studies

Johnson and others, 1995 Life history

Wheeler, 1997 Distribution of fish in western Wyoming and changes in distribution

Wilson and others, 1998 Distribution and abundance in Heber Valley, Provo River

Spotted frog studies

Bissonette and Larsen, 1991 Bibliography of spotted frog literature

Hovingh, 1987 Status of spotted frog in Bonneville basin

Perkins and Lentsch, 1998 Conservation strategy

Ross and others, 1993 Survey for frogs along Wasatch Front, 1991-92

Ross and Peterson, 1998 Habitat requirements and restoration recommendations along Provo River

Shirley, 1993 Translocation of frog egg masses from Jordanelle Reservoir site

Toline and Seitz, 1999 Genetic variations of Utah spotted frog populations

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998 Conservation agreement

Table 3. Selected investigations of aquatic species of special concern in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit—Continued

Reference General description
20 

The June sucker is the only aquatic species designated as endangered in the study unit. Its range is limited to Utah Lake and the lower Provo River, where it 

spawns. The lower Provo River is heavily used for 

water supply, and maintenance of adequate instream 

flow for successful spawning has been a significant 

issue for survival of the June sucker. Spawning and 

instream flow in the Provo River have been examined 

by Radant and Sakaguchi (1981), Modde and Muirhead 

(1994), Shirley (1983), Gutermuth and others (1993), 

and Olsen and others (1996). The dynamics of the population in Utah Lake have been and continue to be 

examined (Crowl and others, 1995b; Eyring Research 

Institute, 1982; Radant and Shirley, 1987).

The least chub is a member of the minnow family 

that is endemic to the Bonneville basin. Historically, it 

was widely distributed in streams, lakes, springs, and 

wetlands but now is reduced almost entirely to the 

Snake Valley in western Utah. One small population 

has been located in Juab County, south of Utah Lake, 

the only population occurring in the study unit. Habitat 

loss and degradation caused by urbanization and livestock trampling and grazing have been cited as the 

major reasons for the species’ decline. The species was 

proposed as Endangered with Critical Habitat by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995 (1995b).

The leatherside chub also is a Utah species of 

special concern and is Federally listed as a candidate 

species, although no interagency conservation agreement currently exists for this species. Historically, this 

species occurred in the eastern and southern drainages 

of the Bonneville basin, including the Utah Lake, Great 

Salt Lake, and Sevier River drainages. It also was found 

in the upper Snake and Bear River drainages in Wyoming and the Little Wood River in Idaho. Its range has 

been greatly reduced, but it is still found in the Sevier 

and Provo River drainages in the Bonneville basin, as 

well as some areas in the Colorado River Basin (Holden 

and others, 1996).

The spotted frog in Utah is a highly aquatic 

amphibian that lives in springs in the Wasatch Front and 

West Desert mountains. Utah and Nevada are at the 

southern extent of the range of this species, which 

extends north to the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Populations in Utah differ from those in the Pacific Northwest and have been proposed as a separate species, but 

no standardized designation has been accepted (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). Populations of the 

spotted frog in Utah have been fragmented historically, 

but are now threatened by urban and water development 

projects and the introduction of exotic species. The species was proposed to be listed as Threatened in 1989 

under the Endangered Species Act but the designation 

was precluded by higher priorities. Bissonette and 

Larsen (1991) provide an annotated bibliography of 

spotted frog literature, and the Conservation Strategy 

(Perkins and Lentsch, 1998) provides background 

information on the life history, status, and management 

of the species.

Aquatic Habitat and Riparian Wetlands

Studies of aquatic communities often contain 

limited information about stream habitat but studies 

that focus solely on the characterization of stream habitat are not as common. Many of the studies included in 

this report examine the effects of channel or flow 

changes on aquatic communities (table 4, fig. 7). Dunstan (1951) found that invertebrate communities were 

adversely affected by dredging in the Provo River 

where the channel was enlarged to accommodate 

increased flows. However, Winger (1972) and Reger 

(1980) found that macroinvertebrate communities, 

although initially depleted, recovered fairly quickly following habitat alterations, depending on the severity of 

the alteration and time required for the substrate to stabilize. Winger also found that the distribution of species 

differed upstream and downstream from impoundments 

and speculated that the impoundments had more effect 

on the distribution of species than habitat alterations.

Effects of channel alterations on fish were examined by Dunstan (1951), Wilson (1984), and Wydoski 

and Helm (1980). All three studies agree that fish, especially trout populations, were adversely affected by 

dredging, mostly because of a loss of pool habitat and 

instream cover. Peters (1974) found that fish communities in a channelized section of the Weber River did 

return to prechannelized conditions when artificial habitat structures were put in place. A series of reports 

examined microhabitat requirements of brown trout 

and their response to channel alterations (Gosse and 

Helm, 1979; Gosse, 1981; Helm, 1982). Chrostowski 

(1972) and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(1975b) examined instream flow requirements of game 

fish for management of the Provo River system.
 21

Table 4. Selected investigations of aquatic habitat and riparian wetlands in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit[Subbasins: 1, Bear River Basin; 2, Weber River Basin; 3, Jordan River Basin; 4, Provo River/Utah Lake Basin]

Map 

number

(fig. 7)

Reference Sub- basin Wetland Channel stability Habitat Restora- tion Fish Algae or inverte- brates General desc

107 Bailey and Larson, 1968 4 x Channel deterioration and stability problem108 Binns and Eiserman, 1979 1 x x Quantification of trout habitat; Wyoming109 CH2MHill, 1992 3 x Channel stability analysis and management110 Chrostowski, 1972 4 x x x Analysis of minimum and maximum flows 

habitat; Diamond Fork and Sixth Water 

111 Dunstan, 1951 4 x x x Effects of dredging to increase channel capa

Provo River above Deer Creek Reservo

112 Gosse, 1981 1 x x Microhabitat requirements of brown trout a

Logan River

113 Gosse and Helm, 1979 4 x x Effects of flow alterations on trout microha114 Halpin, 1987a 3 x Vegetation survey of wetlands along the Jor115 Halpin, 1987b 3 x Survey of birds, mammals, reptiles, and am116 Helm, 1982 1 x x Method to predict distribution of brown trou

Fork

117 Jensen, 1989 3 x Functional assessment and prioritization of 118 Jensen, 1993 3 x Ecological and functional assessment of Alb

Creek

119 Jensen, 1995 3 x Management plan for hydrologic modificat120 Nabrotzky, 1987 3 x x Survey of macroinvertebrates associated wi121 Olsen and others, 1996 4 x Analysis of flow, habitat, and algae cover fo

River

122 Peters, 1974 2 x x x Success of fish habitat restoration in channe123 Radant, 1976 4 x x Survey of fish and their habitat; Provo Rive124 Reger, 1980 1 x x Effect of habitat alterations on macroinverte

River, Oregon

125 Shaw, 1986 all x x Habitat requirements for cutthroat trout; Wa126 Smith and Maderak, 1993 1 x Channel stabilization of Bear River near Ev127 Stephens and Gerner, 1996 all x Utah's wetland resources, types of wetlands128 Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality, 1996

1, 2, 3 x x Analysis of water quality and wetland resou

Bear River, Weber River, and Jordan Ri

129 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1957 4 x x Effects of channelization on fish and habita130 West, 1984 3 x Survey of wetlands in Salt Lake County131 Wilson, 1984 2 x x Effects on fish populations from loss of hab132 Wilson, 1987 3 x x x x Suggestions for restoring fish populations d133 Winger, 1972 2 x x Effects of channelization and impoundment134 Wydoski and Helm, 1980 1 x x Effects of channel alterations on brown trou

and Blacksmith Fork
22 

 
 23

 Wetlands in the study unit have not been studied 

extensively. An Advance Identification Study of the 

Jordan River wetland system was conducted in the late 

1980s and included surveys of vegetation (Halpin, 

1987a), wildlife resources (Halpin, 1987b), macroinvertebrates (Nabrotzky, 1987), fisheries (Wilson, 

1987), and functional assessment (Jensen, 1989). 

Jensen also examined wetlands in the Albion basin of 

the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed (Jensen, 1993), 

and West (1984) conducted a survey of wetlands in Salt 

Lake County. Wetlands along Great Salt Lake are 

important habitat for migratory waterfowl, but studies 

in this regard are not included in this report because 

waterfowl is not a focus of the NAWQA program.

Contaminants

Early studies of contaminants in the GSLB study 

unit generally dealt only with water quality. Many of 

the studies that relate water quality to species diversity 

and abundance were done in the 1950s and 1960s as 

part of a program established by Dr. Arden Gaufin and 

other faculty members of the University of Utah. 

Resource assessment and planning studies done within 

the Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin in the 1970s were 

funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

as an outgrowth of the Clean Water Act. 

 As the human population grew and the level of 

water-borne contaminants increased, studies expanded 

to include bottom sediment and biota as accumulators 

of contaminants. With the exception of a few pioneering water-quality studies, the review and synopsis of 

studies of contaminants transported in water within the 

study unit is limited to bottom sediment and biological 

tissues. Additional studies are referenced that show 

generalized effects of pollutants on organism distribution (table 5, fig. 8). Studies are presented in reverse 

chronology by location, according to drainage basin. 

Utah Lake—Jordan River Basin

A report that describes contaminant levels in 

stream-bottom sediment, fish, aquatic plants, and some 

waterfowl in the Spanish Fork-Nephi area that drains to 

Utah Lake or Mona Reservoir was completed by CH2M 

Hill (1995). Levels of environmental exposure and bioaccumulation of contaminants were associated with 

water quality for the area. Projected effects of the Central Utah Project Completion Act irrigation facilities on 

water-quality condition were then used to estimate the 

potential contaminant effects on the biota of the area. 

Concentrations of trace elements, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs in bottom sediment and biota tissues 

were evaluated using effect-level criteria from the literature. 

The ability of submersed aquatic plants to accumulate metal ions from bottom sediment was investigated by Lytle (1994). Sago pondweed in particular was 

found to concentrate high levels of manganese, zinc, 

and iron. Submersed aquatic plant species from the 

Provo River drainage, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, and Utah Lake-Provo Bay were significantly 

higher in heavy metals than aquatic species from 

remote wetlands. Heavy metal concentrations in submersed aquatic plants from the Great Basin were higher 

in wetlands affected by urban, industrial, and agricultural activities.

An extensive study of trace metal distribution in 

four Utah lakes was done to determine if sources were 

anthropogenic (mining) or atmospheric in origin (Kada 

and others, 1994). Bottom-sediment cores were collected from Panguitch Lake in southern Utah, Mirror 

Lake in the Duchesne River drainage, and in two reservoirs in the GSLB study unit: (1) Echo Reservoir in the 

Weber River drainage, and (2) Deer Creek Reservoir in 

the Provo River drainage. Cores were age dated using 

cesium 137 and lead 210. Panguitch Lake and Mirror 

Lake had very low concentrations of copper, cadmium, 

lead, thallium, tin, and zinc that were believed to represent background levels or input from atmospheric 

sources. Echo and Deer Creek Reservoirs had higher 

concentrations of the metals and mining was believed to 

be the source in both basins. Echo Reservoir profiles 

showed peak inputs of the metals during 1950-51 that 

are believed to be associated with the Park City mining 

complex upstream. Deer Creek Reservoir had concentrations of copper, lead, thallium, and zinc that were 

orders of magnitude greater than could occur from 

atmospheric deposition. Mining was believed to be the 

source of the contaminants because it was the dominant 

anthropogenic activity in the Deer Creek basin.

Geochemical and lead isotope data were collected at nine sites along the Jordan River from Jordan
24 Table 5. Selected investigations on the presence and effects of contaminants in sediments or fish tissue in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit

Map 

number

(fig. 8)

Reference Water quality Organic conta- minant Inorganic conta- minant Aquatic com- munity General description

1 Adams and others, 1975 x x Effects of natural organic compounds on biota; Hyrum Reservoir2 Anderson, 1963 x Effects of geology on productivity; Smith-Morehouse Creek3 CH2M Hill, 1995 x x x Description of contaminants in sediments, fish, macrophytes, and waterfow4 Carter, 1971 x x Effects of new causeway on biota of Farmington Bay5 Eldredge, 1967 x x DDT and isomers of fish from Utah Lake6 Environmental Dynamics, 1975 x x Baseline conditions of fish, invertebrates, and algae in Jordan River are esta

taminants

7 Gaufin, 1957 x Water quality of Weber, Jordan, Provo, and Price Rivers8 Henderson and others, 1972 x x National Pesticide Monitoring Program results, mercury in fish; Utah Lake9 Hinshaw, 1967 x x Compared water quality and aquatic insect communities in Jordan River in 

10 Hydroscience, 1977 x Water quality of major Jordan River tributaires in valley reaches11 Jorgenson, 1961 x x Relation between basic water-quality characteristics and macroinvertebrate 12 Kada and others, 1994 x Trace elements in sediment cores from lakes and reservoirs; Echo Reservoi13 Lemke, 1954 x x Examined loading to stream from organic material; Mill Creek14 Lindvall and Low, 1979 x x Organic contaminants in Grebes; Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge15 Lytle, 1994 x x Trace-metal concentrations in macrophytes; Provo River, Utah Lake, Bear 16 Qi and Heckmann, 1995 x Microscopic examination of parasite on Mottled sculpin; Provo River17 Quinn, 1958 x x Effects of sugar beet wastes upon the periphyton of the Jordan River18 Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990 x x National contaminant biomonitoring program, trace metals in fish; Bear Ri19 Schmitt and others, 1990 x x National contaminant biomonitoring program, organochlorine in fish; Bear 20 Schmitt and others, 1983 x x National Pesticide Monitoring Program, organochlorine in fish; Bear Rive21 Schmitt and others, 1981 x x National Pesticide Monitoring Program, organochlorine in fish; Bear Rive22 Smith, 1959 x x Water quality and aquatic communities in Weber River and Silver Creek23 Squires, 1977 x x Algal response to a thermal effluent; Provo River24 Stephens, 1984 x x Toxic substances in water and sediment; Jordan River, Big and Little Cotto25 Thompson, 1983 x x Water-quality assessment, sediments; Weber River Basin and sloughs26 Thompson, 1984 x x Toxic substances in water and sediment; Jordan River, Big and Little Cotto27 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1973

x x Bacteriological study of Jordan River and Emigration Creek

28 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

1975b

x x Survey of fish and habitat; Provo River, Deer Creek Dam to Olmstead pow

29 Waddell and Coyner, 1990 x x Evaluation of contaminants in water and sediments; Utah Lake wetlands30 Waddell and others, 1990 x x Evaluation of contaminants in sediments and water; Bear River Migratory B31 Waddell and Stephenson, 1992 x x Trace elements in biota; Utah Lake, Provo Bay32 Way, 1980 x x Examines fishery potential of Jordan River based on differing wastewater t
 25

Narrows to Cudahy Lane in Davis County to assess 

heavy-metal contamination of the bottom sediment 

(S.E. Church, S.A. Wilson, R.B. Vaughn, and P.H. 

Briggs, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

1993). Sediment and soils from the Bingham pit area 

and Sharon Steel Mill and smelter sites showed a high 

concentration of labile metals, particularly copper, lead, 

and zinc. Labile metals are those that are sorbed to clays 

or other sediments and are thought to be more readily 

bioavailable than metals in silicate or sulfide minerals. 

Sampling of these stream sites clearly identified them 

as substantial point sources of heavy metals to the Jordan River.

A survey of contaminants in water and bottom 

sediment completed in 1988 (Waddell and Coyner, 

1990) indicated the presence of high concentrations of 

some trace elements in Spring Creek, a tributary to 

Utah Lake. In 1990, samples of waterbird eggs and livers, and aquatic vegetation were collected at the five 

sites sampled in 1988 to determine if elevated concentrations of trace elements were present in the biota 

(Waddell and Stephenson, 1992). The concentration of 

mercury was elevated in one bird egg from Benjamin 

Slough and selenium in most waterbird eggs was 

present at concentrations that exceeded levels of concern. Lead concentrations in vegetation at Provo Bay 

(mouth of Spring Creek) were measured at levels hazardous to wildlife.

Waddell and Coyner (1990) investigated the 

potential for contaminants in an area of Utah Lake proposed for a National Wildlife Refuge. Water and sediment from four tributaries discharging to Utah Lake and 

from the lake outlet to the Jordan River were sampled 

for selected inorganic elements and pesticides. Sediment from most sites did not contain elevated concentrations of contaminants. However, a sediment sample 

from Spring Creek had high concentrations of arsenic 

(9 μg/g), cadmium (8 μg/g), copper (51 μg/g), lead (500 

μg/g), manganese (550 μg/g), and zinc (1,600 μg/g). 

Metabolites of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane 

(DDT) were present at a concentration of 3.7 μg/kg at 

the same site.

Water-quality studies were done by the U.S. Geological Survey on the Jordan River between 1980 and 

1982 to investigate specific problems involving dissolved oxygen, toxic substances, sanitary quality and 

turbidity. A summary of these individual studies is 

listed in Stephens (1984). Results of the contaminant 

part of the study are in Thompson (1984). Toxic substances in water and bottom sediments were investigated at five sites along the Jordan River (Jordan 

Narrows and downstream) and in inflows from three 

tributaries (Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks and Mill 

Creek). Water concentrations of ammonia, cadmium, 

copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, and zinc were elevated, especially in storm water. Concentrations of metals in bottom sediment increased substantially at sites 

downstream of 5800 South Street compared with two 

sites upstream. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, 

and chromium were twice as high at downstream sites, 

copper and zinc were six times, and lead was eight 

times higher at downstream sites when compared to 

upstream sites.

Concentrations of metals in bottom sediment 

from the tributaries were similar to the downstream Jordan River sites. Nine of 18 organic constituents were 

detected in bottom sediment with PCBs most common. 

Concentrations of PCBs were highest at Jordan Narrows (320 μg/kg) and declined downstream. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were found at most sites, 

but with the exception of a 2,4-dinitrophenol (2,4-D) 

concentration of 320 μg/kg at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Creek, concentrations did not exceed 15 μg/kg.

The effects of urbanization on the incidence of 

external and internal parasites of sculpin were reported 

by Qi and Heckmann (1995). Samples of 160 sculpin 

were collected from two sites on the Provo River: (1) 

within the Provo City municipal area, and (2) in a relatively pristine area near Jordanelle Reservoir. High 

numbers of two species of ciliated protozoa were found 

on the gills of sculpins from both areas. For one species 

of the protozoa Trichodina, the incidence of infestation 

was greater on fish from the Provo residential area during the spring. This infestation is believed to be caused 

by chemical and physical stressors resulting from 

urbanization of the area.

Several water-quality studies done in accordance 

with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) are summarized by 

Environmental Dynamics (1975). In addition to baseline conditions of aquatic species, the report includes 
26 
 27

baseline information on organic contaminants and dissolved oxygen. 

The need for specific treatment procedures for 

wastewater discharged to the Jordan River was 

addressed by Way (1980) as part of long-range planning for Salt Lake County. Instream “safe levels” of 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorine, ammonia, and 

detergent are summarized for seven species of resident 

fish. Way concluded that the cold water and warm water 

fishery in upper and lower reaches of the river would 

not be constrained by poor water quality if denitrification and dechlorination were included as part of 

planned wastewater treatment. Habitat restoration also 

was believed to be necessary to obtain self-supporting 

populations. Way (1980) does not address pesticides, 

herbicides, and heavy metals that could have a substantial limiting effect on the fishery.

As part of water-resources management in Salt 

Lake County, Hydroscience, Inc. (1977) reported on 

water quality in the valley segments of five streams in 

the Wasatch Mountains. This report also investigated 

modeling of storm-water runoff for Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks. Much of the information presented on 

local fisheries was gathered from a limited study by the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in 1975 (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, 1975a). In all five of 

the Wasatch tributaries, fish populations were either 

precluded by water-quality problems or were limited by 

them. Future sedimentation was predicted to be a problem in several of the streams.

The effects of a hydroelectric power plant on periphyton in the Provo River were investigated by Squires 

(1977). During spring and summer, species diversity of 

reaches affected by heated effluent and unaffected control areas was similar. During fall and winter, species 

diversity increased in control areas, but not in effluentaffected areas. The composition of species in effluent 

and control areas differed at all times.

The fishery of the Provo River was described in a 

study done by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(1975b). The fishery was formerly of a world class 

nature throughout its length but has been adversely 

affected by human activity in the last few decades. 

Descriptions are given for the fishery in one section of 

designated Class I trout stream and two sections of designated Class II stream. All three sections supported a 

self-sustaining brown trout population and were 

stocked with rainbow trout. However, the Class I section had limited reproduction of rainbow trout and 

mountain whitefish. 

The Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin was studied 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973) in 

a series of short-term, intensive water-quality studies 

during August 1972. General water quality was examined in 23 canals and tributaries that discharge to the 

Jordan River and at numerous sites on the river. In addition to measuring common water-quality constituents, 

surveys also were done for coliform bacteria, algae, 

benthic organisms, and fish at selected sites in the Jordan River from Utah Lake to Cudahy Lane in Davis 

County. 

The aquatic, terrestrial, and sociological effects 

of a causeway completed in 1968 connecting Syracuse, 

Utah, to Antelope Island and the establishment of a 

State park on the island were investigated by a student 

group at the University of Utah (Carter, 1971). The 

aquatic ecosystem of Farmington Bay was examined to 

determine the effects of salinity, nutrients, and detergents on the biota. The causeway effectively created a 

less saline estuarine area where the Jordan River enters 

Great Salt Lake. 

A survey of DDT and its isomers in fish from 

Utah Lake was reported by Eldredge (1967). Fish fat, 

flesh, and intestinal contents collected from white bass, 

black bullhead, common carp, and walleye were analyzed for DDT and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloro-ethylene (DDE). White bass was the most common species 

and was used as an indicator of periodic introductions 

of DDT and metabolites to the lake. The maximum concentration of total DDT in fish tissue was 2.87 parts per 

million (wet weight) from fish collected in August 

1966.

The effects of organic material on benthic invertebrates in the Jordan River were examined by Hinshaw 

(1967) in one of the early water-quality studies. Physical and chemical water-quality data and samples of 

aquatic insects collected from the Jordan River in 1965 

were compared to equivalent data collected during 

1956-58. Communities of benthic invertebrates were 

not as diverse and numbers not as abundant in 1965 as 

they were earlier, so Hinshaw concluded that water 

quality declined from 1958-65. This was likely caused 
28 

by an increase in biological oxygen demand (BOD) that 

correlated closely with a decrease in dissolved oxygen 

and the presence of unstable and fine-grained sediments.

Quinn (1958) studied the effects of waste from a 

sugar beet processing plant on periphyton in the Jordan 

River. A low concentration of dissolved oxygen was 

believed to be the most limiting factor. Diatoms and 

most other periphytic algae disappeared from the reach 

downstream from the plant in the fall and winter 

months when it was in operation; however, periphyton 

growth in the reach upstream from the plant was unaffected. After cessation of plant operation, the periphyton community recovered.

A comprehensive study to identify sources of 

pollution and the chemical and bacteriological quality 

of the Jordan, Price, Provo, and Weber Rivers was done 

by Gaufin (1957). At that time, the Jordan River was 

considered to be the most heavily polluted stream in the 

state. The upper and middle reaches of the Jordan River 

supported fish; however, the lower reach supported 

only the most tolerant fish and macroinvertebrates. Fish 

in the Provo River were not limited by the water quality, 

and the diversity of invertebrates was found to be “well 

balanced” at all sites. Conditions in the Weber River 

were considered to be “satisfactory to excellent” for 

fish and macroinvertebrates at most sites. However, 

water-quality problems did occur from raw sewage or 

seepage from refuse dumps, feed lots, and stables from 

a number of towns along the river. In the Weber River, 

downstream from Echo Reservoir, whitefish and suckers were dominant. The upstream reaches of Silver 

Creek, a tributary to the Weber River, were devoid of 

aquatic biota owing to contamination by mining waste 

from Park City. Trace-element concentration data for 

fish tissue were not presented.

The effects of organic loading to Mill Creek, a 

tributary of the Jordan River near Salt Lake City, were 

evaluated by Lemke (1954). Measurements of pH, 

alkalinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen were 

taken along with a semiquantitative evaluation of the 

benthic biota. Sites with an abundance of organic material were characterized by a low concentration of dissolved oxygen and reduced diversity and abundance of 

benthic organisms. 

Weber River Basin

Pesticide concentrations (chlordane, DDD, DDE, 

DDT, dieldrin, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) 

in bottom sediment at three sites in the lower Weber 

River drainage were reported by Thompson (1983) as 

part of a water-quality study. The sites (Hooper Slough, 

Howard Slough, and Weber River at 1150 South Street) 

were located in agricultural areas near the discharge of 

the Weber River to Ogden Bay. Chlordane concentration at the Weber River site was 6 μg/kg and PCB concentration was 5 μg/kg. PCB concentration in sediment 

from Hooper Slough was 1 μg/kg.

The effects of basin geology on the biological 

productivity of Smith and Morehouse Creek were 

investigated by Anderson (1963). Caddisflies were the 

most common macroinvertebrate, and diatoms the most 

common periphytic algae. Anderson concluded that the 

productivity of Smith and Morehouse Creek was low in 

comparison with other streams as a result of low bicarbonate levels attributed to quartzite rock and spring 

flushing of nutrients from the stream.

Jorgenson (1961) studied the productivity of 

macroinvertebrates in the Weber River upstream of the 

newly created Rockport Reservoir. He reported a significant positive correlation between carbonate/bicarbonate concentrations in the stream and abundance of 

macroinvertebrates along a downstream spatial gradient. Human activities were believed to be the most 

important factor controlling productivity of the stream.

A general survey of pollution in the Weber River 

was conducted by Smith (1959). Water and macroinvertebrates were sampled at four sites on Silver Creek 

downstream from Park City, and seven sites on the 

Weber River from Wanship to Uintah. Water-quality 

and benthic habitat conditions in Silver Creek were 

unsuitable for most aquatic life. Within the Weber 

River, sewage outfalls from several small towns were 

present, but aquatic life appeared to be relatively unimpaired, probably because of dilution of wastewater 

effluents by the river. Overall, it was found that the most 

detrimental impact to aquatic life in the Weber River 

was from habitat degradation, resulting from siltation, 

dredging of the stream bottom, and flow diversions.
 29

Bear River Basin

The National Pesticide Monitoring Program was 

established by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries (forerunner of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in the mid1960s to determine organochlorine insecticide residues 

in fish nationwide. Initially, 50 monitoring sites were 

established. In 1967, the program became the National 

Contaminants Biomonitoring Program and was 

expanded during the next 8 years to include a total of 

115 sites, and PCBs and trace elements were added to 

the contaminant list. Two sites within the GSLB study 

unit were monitored: (1) Utah Lake at Provo (1960 

through 1986), and (2) Bear River at Preston, Idaho 

(1970 through 1973) and at Brigham City (1976 

through 1986). Typically, fish were collected every 2 

years as composite samples of three to five whole fish, 

and analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc, and up to 22 chlorinated pesticides 

and PCBs. Tissue-concentration data for the two sites in 

the study unit area are summarized by Henderson and 

others (1972), Schmitt and others (1981), Schmitt and 

others (1983), Schmitt and Brumbaugh (1990), Schmitt 

and others (1990), and Schmitt (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, written commun., 1990).

Waddell and others (1990) collected sediment 

and water samples from areas north of the Bear River 

Migratory Bird Refuge to determine the presence of 

contaminants. Samples were collected from Black 

Slough, Chesapeake Gun Club, Public Shooting 

Grounds, Sulphur Creek, Whistler Canal, and an area 

near the refuge headquarters and were analyzed for a 

suite of trace elements and chlorinated pesticides. Concentrations of pesticides and organochlorine compounds in bottom sediment were generally below 

detection limits or at very low levels except for DDT 

and its metabolites. The highest concentrations of DDD 

(13 μg/kg) and DDE (17 μg/kg) were found at Black 

Slough. Concentrations of trace elements in water from 

each of the sites were less than applicable water-quality 

standards.

Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs were monitored in tissues and eggs of western grebes and wholebody fish at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 

(Lindvall and Low, 1979). This report provides a good 

background on organochlorine pesticides in marshes in 

the late 1970s. DDE was the predominant contaminant 

found in both birds and fish, and concentrations of DDE 

ranged from 5.4 to 213 ppm wet weight in visceral fat 

of grebes. DDE concentrations in common carp, catfish, and Utah chub did not exceed 0.02 ppm (wet 

weight, whole fish). PCBs (Aroclor numbers 1254 and 

1260) were not detected in fish, but were found at concentrations of 5.4 ppm (wet weight) or less in grebe 

eggs. No direct mortality of birds from pesticide poisoning was documented at the refuge.

Adams and others (1975) completed a field study 

of naturally occurring organic compounds and their 

effects on aquatic biota in Hyrum Reservoir in the Bear 

River drainage. Naturally occurring organic compounds (acetaldehyde, methanol, ethanol, propanol, 

acetone, and 2-propanol) were identified and monitored 

in the reservoir. No effects on aquatic biota were 

observed at the concentration levels found in water 

from the reservoir.

Lakes

The two principal lakes in the study area are Utah 

Lake, at the head of the Jordan River, and Bear Lake in 

the Bear River drainage, on the Utah-Idaho border. 

Selected studies on these lakes are included in this 

report (table 6). 

Utah Lake

Utah Lake, like Great Salt Lake, is a remnant of 

ancient Lake Bonneville, which covered much of Utah 

until about 9,000 years ago. Utah Lake is a shallow, 

freshwater lake, which frequently experiences high turbidity and extensive algal blooms. It is a popular fishing 

resource and numerous non-native game fish have been 

introduced which have reduced the native assemblage 

of fish species in the lake. Both Cope and Yarrow 

(1875) and Jordan (1891) noted that Bonneville cutthroat trout, whitefish, and suckers from Utah Lake 

were abundant and important food sources for the early 

settlers. These species have now declined or been eradicated from the lake. The current assemblage consists 

of carp and various warm water game fish, including 

white bass, walleye, channel catfish, bluegill, large 

mouth bass, yellow perch, and black crappie. 

In the late 1970s and early 1980s Utah Lake was 

the subject of many studies, in part to evaluate the
30 

Table 6. Selected investigations of Utah Lake and Bear Lake in the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit

Reference Utah Lake Bear Lake Fish Inverte- brates Algae/ plankton General description

Barnes and Toole, 1981 x x Literature review of macroinvertebrate and zooplankton commBirdsey, 1989 x Limnology literature reviewBrigham Young University, 1975 x Review of environmental studies for Jordanelle Reservoir site

dan Rivers

Carter, 1969 x x History of commercial fishing in Utah LakeEldredge, 1967 x x Concentration of DDT and its derivatives in fish tissuesEnvironmental Dynamics, 1975 x x x x History of fish stocking, populations, and other biological infEyring Research Institute, Inc., 1982 x x x x Water quality, hydrology, and aquatic biology assessment of UHarding, 1971 x x Description of algae populationHeckmann and Merritt, 1981 x x x x Geology, setting, hydrology, and biotic communities of Utah Kemmerer and others, 1923 x x x x Description of fish, plankton, and algae and examination of sLamara and others, 1986 x x x x Hydrology and impact on trophic stateLowder, 1951 x x Taxonomic study of catostomidae (suckers)Moreno, 1989 x x Seasonal variations in zooplankton communityNielson and Lentsch, 1988 x x Status and management of Bear Lake cutthroat troutNielson, 1994 x x Sport fish stocking activities, 1975-89Perry, 1943 x x Biology and significance of peaknose ciscoRadant and Sakaguchi, 1981 x x Fish inventoryRuzycki and Wurtsbaugh, 1995 x x Forage fish populationsRuzycki, 1995 x x Habitat of Bear Lake sculpinSmart, 1958 x x Ecology of benthic faunaWhite, 1974 x x Systematics of Bear Lake whitefish speciesWurtsbaugh and Hawkins, 1990 x x x Trophic interactions in Bear LakeWurtsbaugh and Luecke, 1994 x x Abundance and distribution of forage fishWurtsbaugh and Neverman, 1988 x x Diel vertical migration of juvenile Bear Lake sculpinWurtsbaugh, 1998 x x x x Effects of water diversion on trophic status of Bear Lake
 31

effects of the Central Utah Project, a large reclamation 

project that affected the Provo River drainage. A monograph covering the geology, hydrology, and biotic communities in the lake and surrounding watershed was 

published in 1981 by Heckmann and Merritt. The 

Eyring Research Institute, Inc. (1982) also published a 

document on the water quality, hydrology, and aquatic 

biology of Utah Lake, and Environmental Dynamics 

(1975) published a history of fish stocking in Utah Lake 

as part of an evaluation of the Jordan River system. Barnes and Toole (1981) published a literature review of 

macroinvertebrate and zooplankton studies in the lake, 

and Radant and Sakaguchi (1981) reported on the fish 

populations of the lake. In earlier studies, Harding 

(1971) published an account on the diatom community, 

and Carter (1969) reported a history of commercial 

fishing operations and their effects on the fishery.

Bear Lake

Bear Lake is a large, deep, freshwater lake that is 

formed in a graben valley. It has existed for more than 

28,000 years. At one time, the lake was connected to the 

Bear River, but it was isolated when the river changed 

course after the last glaciation. In the early 1900s, 

humans connected the lake and river again through a 

series of diversions created for water storage purposes. 

The lake is very oligotrophic and an alkaline chemical 

environment has contributed to a unique assemblage of 

fish species in the lake. Four endemic species naturally 

occur in the lake; the Bonneville cisco, Bonneville 

whitefish, Bear Lake sculpin, and Bear Lake whitefish. 

Bear Lake also is a stronghold of the lacustrine form of 

the Bonneville cutthroat trout, and is one of the only 

places this species has survived. Populations of cutthroat trout and non-native lake trout are sustained 

through a stocking program. 

Other introductions of exotic species into Bear 

Lake have not been particularly successful, partly as a 

result of the chemical environment, although many 

introductions have been attempted. A few exotic species, other than the lake trout, still are present in the 

lake, but not in large numbers. The lake is heavily used 

as a recreational resource and is well known for its distinct blue-green color, caused by the precipitation of 

calcium carbonate. The effects of diverting the Bear 

River, which has a high sediment and nutrient load, into 

Bear Lake are a source of great interest on the part of 

both the public and researchers (Wurtsbaugh, 1998).

One of the earliest records of the biology of Bear 

Lake is by Kemmerer in his survey of lakes of the Western United States (Kemmerer and others, 1923). This 

study examined fish populations, made notes on their 

diets, and noted the abundance of zooplankton and phytoplankton. The fish populations of the lake have 

received much attention. The systematics of the whitefish species in the lake, of which two are endemic, were 

summarized by White (1974). The natural histories of 

forage fish in the lake have been the subject of more 

recent studies (Ruzycki and Wurtsbaugh, 1995; Wurtsbaugh and Luecke, 1994; Wurtsbaugh and Neverman, 

1988; Ruzycki, 1995) as part of an overall effort to 

establish the trophic interactions of the aquatic populations (Wurtsbaugh and Hawkins, 1990; Lamara and 

others, 1986). Birdsey (1989) provided a literature 

review of the limnology of the lake, and Moreno (1989) 

examined the zooplankton communities. 

SUMMARY

Investigations of aquatic communities, aquatic 

species of special concern, aquatic habitat, and contaminants in riverine systems, and in Bear and Utah Lakes 

within the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit have been 

summarized in tables and figures. Literature selected 

for inclusion is published in a variety of formats including journal articles and conference proceedings, government reports, university documents, theses, 

dissertations, and books. 

Historically, the fish population of the Great Salt 

Lake Basins study unit was not particularly diverse and 

consisted mostly of forage species with only a few 

predator species. Since the settlement of the study area 

by pioneers in the late 1800s, non-native game and forage species have been introduced for food and sport. 

Many native species in the study unit area have 

declined in numbers or been eliminated as a result of 

the introduction of non-native fishes. Macroinvertebrate and algal communities have been examined in 

many parts of the study unit, but long-term monitoring 

programs are scarce. As such, information on long-term 

trends in macroinvertebrate and algal communities in 

the study unit is lacking. However, the use of macroinvertebrates in water-quality monitoring has gained popularity in recent years and most State agencies now 

incorporate macroinvertebrate studies into their moni-
32 

toring plans. These efforts will greatly augment the 

base of information on macroinvertebrate communities 

in the study unit. Algal populations continue to be 

neglected as a source of water-quality data, although 

some monitoring efforts now include samples of periphyton along with macroinvertebrates.

Most of the existing biological studies examined 

the population or community structure of fish, invertebrates, or algae, or examined the life history of a species 

or group of species. Although information on fish and 

macroinvertebrates is extensive in some areas of the 

study unit, information on algal populations is generally limited. Among species of special concern, the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout is the most extensively studied. The status of this subspecies of the inland cutthroat 

trout is now largely established, although analyses are 

underway to determine the genetic purity of specific 

populations. The June sucker, least chub, leatherside 

chub, and spotted frog also are species of special concern in the study unit. Aquatic habitat data are sometimes collected in conjunction with the biological data, 

and information is available at some locations about the 

effects of channel modifications on aquatic communities.

Data on contamination of sediments or fish tissues generally is limited to the Jordan River basin and 

areas near Great Salt Lake. Utah Lake has been greatly 

affected by the stocking of exotic fish species and agricultural and urban runoff. Bear Lake has been less 

affected by these problems because of its large volume, 

distance from large population centers, and unique 

chemical environment. The information contained in 

this report will be useful to students and professionals 

studying stream water quality and aquatic biology in 

the Great Salt Lake Basins study unit of the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program. 

REFERENCES

Adams, V.D., Renk, R.R., Cowan, P.A., and Precella, 

D.B., 1975, Naturally occurring organic compounds and algal growth in a eutrophic lake: Utah 

Water Research Laboratory Report PRWG137-1, 

Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 140 p.

Adamus, P.R., 1975, Dynamics of drift and benthos: 

diversity and environmental influences in Mill 

Creek, Salt Lake County, Utah: Salt Lake City, 

University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 136 

p.

Alstad, D.N., 1978, Distributional and community 

ecology of filtering caddisflies (Trichoptera: 

Hydropsychidae): Salt Lake City, University of 

Utah, Ph.D. dissertation, 86 p.

Anderson, M.A., 1963, A study of the productivity of 

macroinvertebrates and periphyton in the Smith 

and Morehouse Creek, Summit County, Utah: Salt 

Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science 

thesis, 70 p.

Andreasen, J.D., and Barnes, J.R., 1975, Reproductive 

life history of Catostomus ardens and C. discobolus in the Weber River, Utah: Copeia, p. 643-648.

Bailey, R.G., and Larson, N.D., 1968, Provo River 

channel deterioration and stability problems associated with the Duchesne tunnel: U.S. Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, Utah.

Bangerter, A., 1966, Blacksmith Fork river fisheries 

investigations: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, 19 p.

Barnes, J.R., and Toole, T.W., 1981, Macroinvertebrate 

and zooplankton communities of Utah Lake: a 

review of the literature: Great Basin Naturalist 

Memoirs, v. 5, p. 101-106.

Baumann, R.W., 1967, A study of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the Wasatch Front, Utah: Salt Lake 

City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 

111 p.

Baxter, G.T., and Simon, J.R., 1970, Fishes of Wyoming (revised): Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bulletin Number 4, Cheyenne, Wyo., 168 p.

Baxter, G.T., and Stone, M.D., 1995, Wyoming Fishes: 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 

Wyo., 129 p.

Beers, G.D., 1969, Rates of algal production and 

Sphaerotilus assimilation in the Logan River, Utah: 

Logan, Utah, Utah State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 73 p.

Behmer, D.J., and Hawkins, C.P., 1986, Effects of overhead canopy on macroinvertebrate production in a 

Utah stream: Freshwater Biology, v. 16, p. 287-

300.

Behnke, R.J., 1976, Summary of information on the 

status of the Utah or Bonneville cutthroat trout, 

Salmo clarki utah: Report to the U.S. Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake 

City, Utah.
 33

———1979, Monograph of the native trouts of the 

genus Salmo of western North America: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

———1980, Purity evaluation of Bear River cutthroat 

trout from Mill and Carter Creeks, Wasatch 

National Forest, Summit County, Utah: U.S. Forest 

Service Report to Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Salt Lake City, 10 p.

———1988, Phylogeny and classification of cutthroat 

trout, in American Fisheries Society Symposium, 

v. 4, p. 1-7.

———1992, Native trout of western North America: 

Bethesda, MD, American Fisheries Society, 275 p.

Behnke, R.J., and Proebstel, D.S., 1994, Analysis of 

cutthroat trout from the Bonneville Basin, Idaho: 

U.S. Forest Service, Caribou National Forest, Pocatello, Idaho, 20 p.

Bergersen, E.P., 1973, Fish production and movements 

in the lower Logan River, Utah: Logan, Utah, Utah 

State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 169 p.

Bernard, D.R., 1976, Reproduction by adfluvial salmonids in Spawn Creek, Cache County, Utah: Logan, 

Utah, Utah State University, Master of Science 

Thesis, 84 p.

Bernard, D.R., and Israelsen, E.K., 1982, Inter- and 

intra-stream migration of cutthroat trout (Salmo 

clarki) in Spawn Creek, a tributary of the Logan 

River, Utah: Northwest Science, v. 56, no. 2, p. 

148-158.

Bickel, D., 1977, A survey of locally endemic Mollusca 

of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North 

Dakota and South Dakota: Submitted to the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species in fulfillment 

of Contract No. 14-16-0006-3030.

Binns, N.A., 1977, Present status of indigenous populations of cutthroat trout, (Salmo clarki), in southwest Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Technical Bulletin 2, Cheyenne, Wyo.

———1981, Bonneville cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki 

utah) in Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Fisheries Technical Bulletin 5, Cheyenne, Wyo.

Binns, N.A., and Eiserman, F.M., 1979, Quantification 

of fluvial trout habitat in Wyoming: Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society, v. 108, no. 3, p. 

215-228.

Binns, N.A., and Remmick, R., 1994, Response of Bonneville cutthroat trout and their habitat to drainagewide habitat management at Huff Creek, Wyoming: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 14, no. 4, p. 669-680.

Birdsey, W.P., Jr., 1989, The limnology of Bear Lake, 

Utah-Idaho, 1912-1988: A literature review: Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources Publication No. 

89-5, Salt Lake City, Utah, 113 p.

Bissonette, J.A., and Larsen, B.C., 1991, Annotated 

bibliography for the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa): 

Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Miscellaneous Report 91 (2), Logan, Utah, 20 p.

Bridges, D.W., 1963, Abundance, movements, harvest 

and survival of brown trout and mountain whitefish 

in a section of Logan River: Logan, Utah, Utah 

State University, Master of Science thesis, 55 p.

Brigham Young University Center for Health and Environmental Studies, 1975, Final phase I, environmental studies of the proposed Jordanelle 

Reservoir site, Provo River, Utah Lake, Jordan 

River and proposed Lampton Reservoir site: 

Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University.

———1976, Survey of macroinvertebrate communities in the Provo River and Diamond Fork systems: 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake 

City, Utah.

Brooks, G.D., 1955, The Chironomidae of the Provo 

River: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master 

of Science thesis, 49 p.

Brown, C., 1935, A survey of the waters of the Cache 

National Forest, Utah: Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 31 p.

Brown, L.G., 1972, Early life history of the Mountain 

Whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni (Girard), in the 

Logan River, Utah: Logan, Utah, Utah State University, Master of Science thesis, 39 p.

Bulloch, E.C., 1969, A comparison of certain aspects of 

the ecological life histories of 2 Dace (Rhinichthys) 

in the Weber River, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 28 p.

Carbine, W.F., 1936, The life history of the chub, 

Tigoma ataria (Girard): of the Great Basin area of 

Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of 

Science thesis, 107 p.

Carter, C.K., 1971, Some ecological considerations of 

the Farmington Bay estuary and adjacent Great 

Salt Lake Park: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

249 p.

Carter, D., 1969, A history of commercial fishing on 

Utah Lake: Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, Master of Arts thesis, 142 p.

Cather, M.R.C., 1974, Life history and ecology of 

selected species of stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Mill 
34 

Creek, Wasatch Mountains, Utah: Salt Lake City, 

University of Utah, Ph.D. dissertation, 175 p.

CH2M Hill, 1992, Jordan River Stability Study - 

DRAFT: Submitted to Salt Lake County, Salt Lake 

City, variously paged.

———1995, Draft environmental contaminants study 

for Spanish Fork Canyon/Nephi irrigation system: 

Report SAC/109164/023.doc, 5 numbered sections.

Christensen, E.M., 1956, Bibliography of Utah aquatic 

biology: Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, v. 33, p. 91-100.

———1962, Bibliography of Utah aquatic biology, 

No. II: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 22, p. 32-53.

Chrostowski, H.P., 1972, Central Utah Project: Stream 

habitat studies on the Uinta and Ashley National 

Forests: U.S. Forest Service Intermountain 

Region, Ogden, Utah.

Clark, W.J., 1958, The phytoplankton of the Logan 

River, Utah, a mountain stream: Logan, Utah, Utah 

State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 95 p.

Coombs, R.E., 1964, A floristic and ecological survey 

of the algal flora of the western Uinta Mountains 

and adjacent areas: Salt Lake City, University of 

Utah, Master of Arts thesis, 76 p.

Cope, E.D., and Yarrow, H.C., 1875, Report on the collections of fishes made in portions of Nevada, 

Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona during the years 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874: 

Report on the geographic and geologic exploration 

and survey west of the 100th meridian (Wheeler 

Survey), v. 5, p. 635-703.

Cope, O.B., 1955, The Future of the cutthroat in Utah, 

in Harrison, G.L., ed., Proceedings of the Utah 

Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 32, p. 

89-93.

Cowley, P.K., 1994, Fish surveys of the Caribou 

National Forest: U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, 23 p.

———1995, Fish surveys on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest: U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, 65 p.

———1997a, Fish surveys on the Uinta and WasatchCache National Forest conducted during 1996: 

U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, 38 p.

———1997b, Fish surveys on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest conducted during 1997: Uinta and 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 14 p.

Crawford, M., 1979, Reproductive modes of the least 

chub (Iotichthys phlegethontis - Cope): Logan, 

Utah, Utah State University, Master of Science thesis, 78 p.

Crist, L.W., and Holden, P.B., 1991, Preliminary annual 

report - 1990 Fishery Investigation of the lower 

Jordan River: BIO/WEST, Inc. submitted to: Central Valley Water Reclamation Board PR-166-4, 

Logan, Utah, 21 p.

Crowl, T.A., Petersen, M.E., and Mellenthin, R., 1995a, 

Trophic interactions of gizzard shad, June sucker 

and white bass: Implications for fishery enhancement and the management of the endangered June 

sucker: Utah State University Report for the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Project F-46-R, 

Segment 6, Logan, Utah, 54 p.

Crowl, T.A., Thomas, H.M., and Thiede, G., 1995b, 

June sucker studies-1995: Provo River and Utah 

Lake fisheries management studies: Utah State 

University, Annual Report to Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Logan, Utah.

Duff, D.A., 1988, Bonneville cutthroat trout: Current 

status and management, in Gresswell, R.E., ed., 

Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries 

Society Symposium, v. 4, p. 121-127.

———1996, Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout, distribution, status and habitat management implications: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Region, 

Ogden, Utah, 96 p.

Dunstan, W.A., 1951, A comparative study of a dredged 

and undredged portion of the Provo River, Utah: 

Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 51 p.

EDAW, Inc., 1979, Jordan River Basin, Utah, Environmental Inventory: prepared for U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Contract No. DACW05-79-D-0017, 

Sacramento, Calif., 62 p.

Edmunds, G.F., Jr., 1954, The Mayflies of Utah: Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts 

and Letters, v. 31, p. 64-66.

Eldredge, J.D., 1967, The effects of time and age on 

DDT concentration in the diet of the white bass, 

Roccus chrysops, of Utah Lake: Salt Lake City, 

University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 20 p.

Environmental Dynamics, 1975, An Environmental 

evaluation of the Utah Lake - Jordan River basin, 

final report: Submitted to National Commission on 

Water Quality WQ5AC071, Los Angeles, Calif.

Erman, N.A., 1968, Occurrence and distribution of 

invertebrates in Lower Logan River: Logan, Utah, 
 35

Utah State University, Master of Science thesis, 80 

p.

Eyring Research Institute, Inc., 1982, Water quality, 

hydrology and aquatic biology of Utah Lake: 

WHAB Phase I summary: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Provo, Utah, 170 p.

Floener, G.G., 1950, Life history of the cutthroat trout 

(Salmo clarkii richardson) in the Logan River, 

Utah: Logan, Utah, Utah State Agricultural College, Master of Science thesis, 82 p.

Gaufin, A.R., 1949, A comparative study of bottom 

fauna of the North and South Forks of the Provo 

River at Stewart's Ranch, Utah: Proceeding of the 

Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 26, 

no. 1.

———1955, The Stoneflies of Utah, in Harrison, G.L., 

ed., Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, 

Arts and Letters, v. 32, p. 117-120.

———1957, Limnological analysis of Jordan, Price, 

Provo and Weber Rivers: Salt Lake City, Utah, 

University of Utah, 7 p.

———1959, Production of bottom fauna in the Provo 

River, Utah: Iowa State College Journal of Science, 

v. 33, no. 3, p. 395-419.

———1964, Systematic list of Plecoptera of Intermountain region: Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 41, no. 2, p. 

221-227.

Gaufin, A.R., Nebeker, A.V., and Sessions, J., 1966, 

The Stoneflies of Utah: University of Utah Biological Series, v. 14, no. 1, p. 1-93.

Geer, W.H., 1981, Assessment of trout fishery conditions in Little Cottonwood Creek: Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gilliom, R.J., Alley, W.M., and Gurtz, M.E., 1995, 

Design of the National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program: Occurrence and distribution of waterquality conditions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, Sacramento, Calif., 33 p.

Gosse, J.C., 1981, Brown trout (Salmo trutta) response 

to stream channel alterations, their microhabitat 

requirements, and a method for determining 

microhabitat in lotic systems: Logan, Utah, Utah 

State University, Ph.D. dissertation.

Gosse, J.C., and Helm, W.T., 1979, Effects of flow 

alterations on brown trout microhabitat in the 

Provo River: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt 

Lake City, Utah.

Graham, J.E., 1950, A preliminary study of the gnats or 

midges of the tribe Tendipedini in northern Utah: 

Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 48 p.

Griffith, J.S., 1988, Review of competition between 

cutthroat trout and other salmonids, in Gresswell, 

R.E., ed., Status and management of interior stocks 

of cutthroat trout: American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, Bethesda, Md., v. 4, p. 134-140.

Gurtz, M.E., 1994, Design of biological components of 

the National Water-Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) program, in Loeb, S.L., and Spacie, A., 

eds., Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems: 

Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, p. 323-354.

Gutermuth, F.B., Lentsch, L.D., and Stranger, M.C., 

1993, June sucker reproductive biology in the 

Provo River, Utah: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 1992 Progress Report (draft), Salt Lake 

City, Utah, 23 p.

Halpin, M.A., 1987a, Jordan River wetlands vegetation 

evaluation: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, 46 p.

———1987b, Jordan River wetlands wildlife evaluation: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, 60 p.

Harding, W.J., 1971, The algae of Utah Lake, Part II: 

Great Basin Naturalist, v. 31, no. 3, p. 125-134.

Harvey, B.C., 1993, Benthic assemblages in Utah headwater streams with and without trout: Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, v. 71, p. 896-900.

Harvey, B.C., and Marti, C.D., 1993, The impact of dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, predation on stream 

benthos: Oikos, v. 68, p. 431-436.

Heckmann, R.A., and Merritt, L.B., 1981, Utah Lake 

Monograph: Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, 169 p.

Helm, W.T., 1982, Defining stream fish microhabitat 

requirements for water project planning: Utah 

Center for Water Resources Research and the Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 

13 p.

Henderson, C., Inflis, A., and Johnson, W.L., 1972, 

Mercury residues in fish, 1969-1970 - National 

pesticide monitoring program: Pesticides Monitoring Journal, v. 6, p. 144-159.

Hickman, T.J., 1977, Status of Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, Salmo clarki utah: Colorado State University, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fort Collins, 

Colo., 12 p.

———1978, Systematic study of the native trout of the 

Bonneville basin: Fort Collins, Colo., Colorado 

State University, Master of Science thesis.
36 

———1989, Status report of the least chub, Iotichthys 

phlegethontis: prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Western Ecosystems, St. George, Utah, 

20 p.

Hinshaw, R.N., 1967, The pollutional degradation of 

the Jordan River as shown by aquatic invertebrates: 

Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 121 p.

Holden, P.B., and Crist, L.W., 1987, Fishery and macroinvertebrate studies of the Jordan River in Salt 

Lake County, November 1986: prepared by 

BIO/WEST, Inc. for Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility Board, Salt Lake City, Utah, 92 p.

Holden, P.B., White, W., Somerville, G., Duff, D., Gervais, R., and Gloss, S., 1974, Threatened fishes of 

Utah: Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 

v. 2, no. 2, p. 46-65.

Holden, P.B., Zucker, S.J., Abate, P.D., and Valdez, 

R.A., 1996, Assessment of the effects of fish stocking in the State of Utah past, present and future: 

Prepared by BIO/WEST, Inc. for the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, Logan, Utah, 104 p.

Hovingh, P., 1981, Leeches, mollusks and amphibians 

in the Intermountain region: Paleobiological and 

biogeographical considerations: University of 

Utah, Department of Biochemistry, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 18 p.

———1987, Current status of the western spotted frog 

(Rana pretiosa) in the Bonneville Basin: Report to 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake 

City, Utah.

Hubbs, C.L., and Miller, R.R., 1948, The zoological 

evidence: correlation between fish distribution and 

hydrographic history in the desert basins of the 

Western United States: Bulletin of the University 

of Utah, v. 38, no. 20, p. 17-166.

Hubert, W.A., 1988, Survey of Wyoming crayfishes: 

Great Basin Naturalist, v. 48, no. 3, p. 370-372.

Hydroscience, Inc., 1977, Water quality review of 

major Jordan River tributaries: Prepared for Salt 

Lake County Council of Governments, Report to 

208 Project, 43 p.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 

Beneficial use reconnaissance project - 1998; 

Wadeable streams workplan: Boise, Idaho, 56 p.

Jensen, S.F., 1985, Assessment of Salt Lake Valley tributaries: Recreational use impairment and opportunities: Salt Lake County Public Works Division of 

Flood Control and Water Quality, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 150 p.

———1989, Jordan River Wetland Advance Identification Study: Salt Lake City-County Health 

Department, Division of Environmental Health, 

Bureau of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

72 p.

———1990, Wasatch Watershed Monitoring Network, 

1989 Season Summary: Salt Lake City-County 

Health Department, Division of Environmental 

Health, Bureau of Water Quality and Hazardous 

Waste, Salt Lake City, Utah.

———1991, Wasatch Watershed Monitoring Network, 

1990 Season Summary: Salt Lake City-County 

Health Department, Division of Environmental 

Health, Bureau of Water Quality, and Hazardous 

Waste, Salt Lake City, Utah.

———1993, Ecological characterization and functional evaluation of subalpine and lower montane 

wetlands in the Albion basin of Utah: Board of Salt 

Lake County Commissioners, commission staff 

office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 45 p.

———1995, Jordan River non-point source management plan for hydrologic modifications: Board of 

Salt Lake County Commissioners, commission 

staff office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 26 p.

Johnson, J.E., 1985, An inventory of Utah crayfish with 

notes on current distribution, in Leppink, J.D., ed., 

Proceedings of the Bonneville Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Utah State University, 

Logan, Utah, January 30-31, 1985: Salt Lake City, 

Bonneville Chapter of American Fisheries Society, 

v. 1985, p. 47-58.

Johnson, J.B., Belk, M.C., and Shiozawa, D.K., 1995, 

Age, growth and reproduction of leatherside chub 

(Gila copei): Great Basin Naturalist, v. 55, no. 2, p. 

183-187.

Jordan, D.S., 1891, Report of explorations in Colorado 

and Utah during summer of 1889, with an account 

of fishes found in each of the river basins examined: Bulletin of the United States Fisheries Commission, v. 9 (1889), p. 1-40.

Jorgenson, S.C., 1961, A limnological study of the 

upper Weber River, Summit County, Utah: Salt 

Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science 

thesis, 83 p.

Kada, J., Heit, M., and Miller, K.M., 1994, Chronology 

of anthropogenic trace element input to four Utah 

lakes reconstructed using sediment cores: Water, 

Air and Soil Pollution, v. 75, p. 353-369.

Kemmerer, G., Bovard, J.F., and Boorman, W.R., 1923, 

Northwestern lakes of the United States: Biological and chemical studies with reference to possibil-
 37

ities in production of fish: Bulletin of the U.S. 

Bureau of Fisheries, v. 39, p. 52-140.

Knowlton, G.F., and Harmston, F.C., 1938, Notes on 

Utah Plecoptera and Trichoptera: Entomology 

News, v. 49, p. 284-286.

Lamara, F., Liff, C., and Carter, J., 1986, Hydrology of 

Bear Lake basin and its impact on the trophic state 

of Bear Lake, Utah-Idaho: Great Basin Naturalist, 

v. 46, p. 690-705.

Lamarra, M.C., 1982, Status report of three Bonneville 

basin endemic fishes: prepared for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 27 p.

Lawson, L.L., and Rushforth, S.R., 1975, The Diatom 

flora of the Provo River, Utah, U.S.A.: Germany, 

Strauss & Cramer, 149 p.

Lemke, A.E., 1954, A pollutional survey of Mill Creek, 

Salt Lake County, Utah: Salt Lake City, University 

of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 61 p.

Lindvall, M., and Low, J.B., 1979, Organochlorine pesticide and PCB residues in Western Grebes from 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah: Bulletin 

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

v. 22, p. 754-760.

Lium, B.W., 1969, The distribution of aquatic insects in 

stream and river provinces as determined by chemical, physical and hydrological factors: Salt Lake 

City, University of Utah, Ph.D. dissertation, 83 p.

Lowder, J., 1951, A taxonomic study of the Catostomidae of Utah Lake with notes on the fish population: 

Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, Master of 

Science thesis, 45 p.

Lytle, C.M., 1994, Heavy metal bioaccumulation in 

Great Basin submersed aquatic macrophytes: 

Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 201 p.

Madsen, M.J., 1931, Aquatic insects of City Creek: Salt 

Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Arts thesis, 113 p.

Mangum, F.A., 1995, Aquatic ecosystem inventory, 

Macroinvertebrate analysis: State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water 

Quality Ambient Streams and Special Project 

Streams, 139 p.

Martin, M.A., and Shiozawa, D.K., 1982, The electrophoresis of isolated trout populations from selected 

Utah streams: Utah State Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Martin, M.A., Shiozawa, D.K., Loudenslager, E.J., and 

Jensen, N., 1985, Electrophoretic study of cutthroat trout populations in Utah: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 45, p. 677-687.

Matthews, J.E., and Neuhold, J.M., 1967, Water quality 

effects on fish movement and distribution: Proceedings of Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and 

Letters, v. 44, no. 1, p. 275-297.

May, B.E., Leppink, J.D., and Wydoski, R.S., 1978, 

Distribution, systematics and biology of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki utah: Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 78-15, 

Ogden, Utah.

McArthur, J.V., and Barnes, J.R., 1988, Community 

dynamics of leaf litter breakdown in a Utah alpine 

stream: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 7, no. 1, p. 37-43.

McConnell, W.J., and Sigler, W.F., 1958, Chlorophyll 

and productivity in a mountain river: Limnology 

and Oceanography, v. 4, p. 335-351.

Merkley, D.R., 1948, The adult caddisflies of the Provo 

River: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master 

of Arts thesis, 105 p.

Meyers, T.F., 1972, Aquatic invertebrate consumption 

by the major fish species in the Blacksmith Fork 

River: Logan, Utah, Utah State University, Master 

of Science thesis, 76 p.

Miller, D.D., 1977, Comprehensive survey of the Bear 

River drainage: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Fisheries Division Completion report, Cheyenne, Wyo., 81 p.

Miller, R.R., 1960, Man and the changing fish fauna of 

the American Southwest: Papers of the Michigan 

Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 46, p. 

365-404.

Modde, T., and Muirhead, N., 1990, Emergence patterns and feeding behavior of larval June sucker: 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, final report 

for contract 90-0081, Salt Lake City, Utah.

———1994, Spawning chronology and larval emergence of June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus): Great 

Basin Naturalist, v. 54, no. 4, p. 366-370.

Moffett, J.W., 1935, A quantitative study of bottom 

fauna in some Utah streams variously affected by 

erosion: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master 

of Arts thesis, 65 p.

Moreno, E.G., 1989, Seasonal variation in the species 

composition, abundance and size frequency distribution of zooplankton in Bear Lake, Utah-Idaho: 

Logan, Utah, Utah State University, Master of Science thesis, 112 p.

Mou-Sheng, C., and Rushforth, S.R., 1977, The algal 

flora of the campus of Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 37, no. 3, p. 

402-406.
38 

Nabrotzky, F., 1987, Macroinvertebrate analysis and 

water quality data for wetlands of the Jordan River 

in Salt Lake County: Salt Lake City-County Health 

Department, Division of Environmental Health, 

Bureau of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, 33 p.

Nebeker, A.V., 1966, The taxonomy and ecology of the 

family Capniidae (Plecoptera) of the Western 

United States: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

Ph.D. dissertation, 197 p.

Needham, J.G., and Christenson, R.O., 1927, Economic insects in some streams of northern Utah: 

Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 

201, Logan, Utah, 36 p.

Newell, R.L., and Minshall, G.W., 1976, An annotated 

checklist of the aquatic insects of southeastern 

Idaho, Part I, Plecoptera: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 

36, no. 4, p. 501-504.

———1977, An annotated list of the aquatic insects of 

southeastern Idaho, Part II: Trichoptera: Great 

Basin Naturalist, v. 37, no. 2, p. 253-257.

Nielson, B.R., 1994, Sport fishing stocking activities at 

Bear Lake, 1975-1989: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt 

Lake City, 39 p.

Nielson, B.R., and Lentsch, L.D., 1988, Bonneville cutthroat trout in Bear Lake: Status and management, 

in Gresswell, R.E., ed., Status and management of 

interior stocks of cutthroat trout: American Fisheries Society Symposium, v. 4, p. 128-133.

Nielson, B.R., and Tolentino, S.A., 1996, Bear Lake 

cutthroat trout enhancement project: January 

1990-December 1994: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Report No. 96-23.

Norrington, A., 1925, Phycological study of some of 

the mountain lakes and streams of the Wasatch and 

Uinta Ranges in Utah: Chicago, Ill., University of 

Chicago, Ph.D. dissertation.

Oberndorfer, R.Y., McArthur, J.V., and Barnes, J.R., 

1984, The effect of invertebrate predators on leaf 

litter processing in an alpine stream: Ecology, v. 

65, no. 4, p. 1325-1331.

Olsen, D.S., Abate, P.D., and Holden, P.B., 1996, 

Flushing flow, algae and habitat studies of the 

lower Provo river, 1996: Prepared by BIO/WEST, 

Inc. for Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Annual report PR-568-1, Logan, Utah, 34 p.

Osborn, T.G., 1981, Stream insect production as a function of alkalinity and detritus processing: Logan, 

Utah, Utah State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

182 p.

Perkins, M.J., and Lentsch, L.D., 1998, Conservation 

strategy for spotted frog: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, 52 p.

Perkins, M.J., Lentsch, L.D., and Mizzi, J., 1997, Conservation agreement and strategy for Least Chub, 

Iotichthys phlegethontis: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, 34 p.

Perry, E.L., 1943, Biology and economic significance 

of the peaknose cisco of Bear Lake, Idaho and 

Utah: Logan, Utah, Utah State University, Master 

of Science thesis, 229 p.

Peters, E.J., 1974, The effects of highway construction 

on the fish population in the Weber River near 

Henefer, Utah: Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, Ph.D. dissertation.

Peterson, B.V., 1955, A preliminary list of the black 

flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) of Utah, in Harrison, 

G.L., ed., Proceedings of the Utah Academy of 

Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 32, p. 113-115.

Pettengill, T.D., 1994, Summary of an angler survey for 

the Logan River, 30 May - 6 September, 1993: 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Poole, W.C., 1981, The ecological bioenergetics of 

Pteronarcys californica (Newport): Idaho State 

University, Ph.D. dissertation, 211 p.

Popov, B.H., and Low, J.B., 1953, Game, fur animal 

and fish introductions into Utah: State of Utah 

Department of Fish and Game, Publication no. 4: 

p. 1-85, figs. 1-21.

Qi, Y., and Heckmann, R.A., 1995, Morphological and 

host-symbiont studies of Trichodina tenuiformis

and Apiosoma campanulatum infesting mottled 

sculpin (Cottus bairdi) from Provo River, Utah: 

Great Basin Naturalist, v. 55, no. 3, p. 258-266.

Quinn, B.G., 1958, The effects of sugar beet wastes 

upon the periphyton of the Jordan River, Salt Lake 

County, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

Master of Science thesis, 91 p.

Radant, R.D., 1976, Fisheries inventory of the Provo 

River system and Main Creek: Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, 258 p.

———1986, History, ecology and management of the 

June Sucker, in Jauhola, C.A., ed., Proceedings of 

the Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 

March 5-6, 1986: Salt Lake City, v. 1986, p. 48-58.

Radant, R.D., and Sakaguchi, D.K., 1981, Utah Lake 

fisheries inventory: Prepared by Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources for U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
 39

tion Contract 8-07-40-S0634, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

244 p.

Radant, R.D., and Shirley, D.S., 1987, June sucker—

Utah Lake Investigations: Prepared by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 8-07-40-S0643, Modification 

no. 5, Salt Lake City, Utah, 46 p.

Radant, R.D., Wilson, M., and Shirley, D.S., 1987, June 

sucker—Provo River instream flow analysis: Prepared by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 8-07-40-

S0634, Modification no. 4, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

45 p.

Rees, D.M., 1945, Supplemental notes on mosquito fish 

in Utah, Gambusia affinis (Baird & Girard): 

Copeia, v. 4, p. 236.

Reger, S.J., 1980, Effects of stream channel alterations 

on aquatic insect communities: Logan, Utah, Utah 

State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 168 p.

Remmick, R., 1982, A survey of native cutthroat populations and associated stream habitats in the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest: Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyo., 168 p.

Remmick, R., Nelson, K., Walker, G., and Henderson, 

J., 1994, Bonneville cutthroat trout interagency 

five year management plan (1993-1997): Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 

Wyo., 19 p.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brookes, J.R., 

Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N., and Scott, W.B., 1991, 

Common and scientific names of fishes from the 

United States and Canada (5th ed.): American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 20, 

183 p.

Ross, D.A., and Peterson, C.R., 1998, A review of the 

habitat requirements of the Columbia spotted frog 

(Rana luteiventris) in the intermountain region and 

recommendations for the restoration of Columbia 

spotted frog habitat along the Middle Provo River: 

Utah Reclamation, Mitiation and Conservation 

Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah, 52 p. 

Ross, D.A., Shirley, D.L., White, P.A., and Lentsch, 

L.D., 1993, Distribution of the spotted frog along 

the Wasatch Front in Utah, 1991-1992: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Native Wildlife Section Report 93-4, Salt Lake City, Utah, 24 p.

Rushforth, S.R., and Merkley, G.S., 1988, Comprehensive list by habitat of the algae of Utah, USA: Great 

Basin Naturalist, v. 48, no. 2, p. 154-179.

Ruzycki, J.R., 1995, Ontogenetic habitat shift of juvenile Bear Lake sculpin (Cottus extensus): Logan, 

Utah, Utah State University, Master of Science thesis, 51 p.

Ruzycki, J.R., and Wurtsbaugh, W.A., 1995, Examination of the factors controlling the abundance of 

Bear Lake forage fishes: Piscivore population and 

consumption estimates: Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, 47 p.

Salevurakis, J.M., 1974, Rates of food digestion by 

brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the Blacksmith Fork 

River, Utah: Logan, Utah, Utah State University, 

Master of Science thesis, 50 p.

Samuelson, J.A., 1950, A quantitative comparison of 

the algal populations in two Wasatch mountain 

streams: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master 

of Science thesis, 45 p.

Schmidt, B.R., Birdsey, P.W., Jr., and Nielson, B.R., 

1995, A conceptual management plan for cutthroat 

trout in Utah: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Publication no. 95-7, Salt Lake City, Utah, 47 p.

Schmitt, C.J., and Brumbaugh, W.G., 1990, National 

contaminant biomonitoring program: Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, 

selenium and zinc in U.S. freshwater fish, 1976-

1984: Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 19, p. 731-747.

Schmitt, C.J., Ludke, J.L., and Walsh, D.F., 1981, Organochlorine residues in fish: National Pesticide 

Monitoring Program, 1970-74: Pesticides Monitoring Journal, v. 14, p. 136-206.

Schmitt, C.J., Ribick, M.A., Ludke, J.L., and May, 

T.W., 1983, National pesticide monitoring program: Organochlorine residues in freshwater fish, 

1976-79: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource 

Publication 152, 62 p.

Schmitt, C.J., Zajicek, J.L., and Peterman, P.H., 1990, 

National contaminant biomonitoring program: 

Residues of organochlorine chemicals in U.S. 

freshwater fish, 1976-1984: Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 19, p. 

748-781.

Scully, R.J., 1993, Bonneville cutthroat trout in Idaho: 

1993 status: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Administrative Report, Boise, Idaho.

———1994, Habitat conservation assessment and 

strategy, Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki utah): Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

Pocatello, Idaho.

Sessions, J., 1960, A study of the stoneflies of the Provo 

River, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

Master of Science thesis, 145 p.
40 

Shaw, M.A., 1986, Habitat management for classified 

species on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, in

Jauhola, C.A., ed., Proceedings of the Bonneville 

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Utah 

State University, Logan, Utah, March 5-6, 1986: 

Salt Lake City, Utah, v. 1986, p. 1-14.

Shiozawa, D.K., and Evans, R.P., 1995, The genetic status of cutthroat trout from various drainages in the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest based on examination of mitochondrial DNA: U.S. Forest Service 

Interim report to Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Report Number 43-8490-4-0110, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 17 p.

Shiozawa, D.K., Evans, R.P., and Williams, R.N., 1993, 

Relationships between cutthroat trout populations 

from ten Utah streams in the Colorado River and 

Bonneville drainages: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Interim Report, Odgen, Utah.

Shirley, D.S., 1983, Spawning ecology and larval 

development of the June sucker, in Proceedings of 

the Bonneville Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, vpp. 18-36.

Shirley, D.L., 1993, Translocation of spotted frogs from 

the Jordanelle Reservoir basin, Wasatch County, 

Utah: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication Number 93-7, Springville, Utah, 11 p.

Sigler, J.W., and Sigler, W.F., 1994, Fishes of the Great 

Basin and the Colorado Plateau: Past and present 

forms, in Harper, K.T., St. Clair, L.L., Thorne, 

K.H., and Hess, W.M., eds., Natural history of the 

Colorado Plateau and Great Basin: Niwot, Colo., 

University Press of Colorado, p. 163-208.

Sigler, W.F., 1951a, Age and growth of brown trout, 

Salmo trutta fario (Linnaeus), in Logan River, 

Utah: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 81, p. 171-178.

———1951b, Life history and management of the 

mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni

(Girard) in Logan River, Utah: Utah State Agricultural College Bulletin, v. 347, p. 1-21.

———1955, An ecological approach to understanding 

Utah's carp populations, in Harrison, G.L., ed., 

Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, 

Arts and Letters, v. 32, p. 95-104.

——— 1958, The ecology and use of carp in Utah: 

Utah State University Agricultural Experiment 

Station Bulletin, v. 405, p. 1-63.

Sigler, W.F., and Miller, R.R., 1963, Fishes of Utah: 

Salt Lake City, Utah, Utah State Department of 

Fish and Game, 203 p.

Sigler, W.F., and Sigler, J.W., 1987, Fishes of the Great 

Basin, a natural history: University of Nevada 

Press, Reno, Nev. 425 p.

———1996, Fishes of Utah: a natural history: Salt 

Lake City, Utah, University of Utah Press, 375 p.

Simpson, J.C., and Wallace, R.L., 1982, Fishes of 

Idaho: Moscow, Idaho, University Press of Idaho, 

238 p.

Smart, E.W., 1958, An ecological study of the bottom 

fauna of Bear Lake, Idaho and Utah: Logan, Utah, 

Utah State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 42 p.

Smith, G.R., 1959, Effects of pollution on the Weber 

River, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 

Master of Science thesis, 114 p.

Smith, M.E., and Maderak, M.L., 1993, Geomorphic 

and hydrologic assessment of the Bear River in and 

near Evanston, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4032, 

Cheyenne, Wyo., 45 p.

Snyder, J.O., 1924, Notes on certain Catostomids of the 

Bonneville system, including the type Pantosteus 

virescens (Cope): Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., v. 64, p. 

1-6.

Squires, L.E., 1977, Algal response to a thermal effluent: study of a power station on the Provo River, 

Utah: Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University, 

Ph.D. dissertation, 60 p.

Stephens, D.W., 1969, The physical and chemical environmental requirements of Trichoptera in the 

Weber River, Utah: Salt Lake City, University of 

Utah, Master of Science thesis, 72 p.

———1984, Water-quality investigations of the Jordan 

River, Salt Lake County, Utah, 1980-82: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 84-4298, Salt Lake City, Utah, 45 p.

Stephens, D.W., and Gerner, L.G., 1996, Utah, Wetland 

Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2425, Washington, D.C.

Tanner, V.M., 1932, A description of Notolepidomyzon 

utahensis, a new catostomid from Utah: Copeia, v. 

2, p. 135-136.

———1936, A study of the fishes of Utah: Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, v. 13, p. 155-

183.

Thompson, K.R., 1983, Reconnaissance of the quality 

of surface water in the Weber River basin, Utah: 

Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical 

Publication No. 76.

———1984, Reconnaissance of toxic substances in the 

Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah: U.S. Geo-
 41

logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 84-4155, 31 p.

Toline, C.A., and Seitz, A.M., 1999, Mitochondrial and 

nuclear DNA variation within and among populations of Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) 

in Utah: Utah State University, Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Logan, Utah, 73 p.

Trotter, P.C., and Bisson, P.A., 1988, History of the discovery of the cutthroat trout, in Gresswell, R.E., 

ed., Status and management of interior stocks of 

cutthroat trout: American Fisheries Society Symposium, v. 4, p. 8-12.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995, Evaluation of dissolved oxygen enhancement upon trout and macroinvertebrate populations below Deer Creek Dam, 

Provo River, Utah: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Contract 4-FC-40-16050, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, 18 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Jordan 

River Study, Utah, June-August 1972: Report 

S&A/TSB-16, Technical Support Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region 8, Denver, 

Colo., 67 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986, Endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; final rule determining June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) to be an 

endangered species with critical habitat: Federal 

Register, v. 51, no. 61, p. 10851-10857.

——— 1995a, June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) recovery plan: Salt Lake City, Utah, 55 p.

———1995b, Proposal to determine the least chub 

(Iotichthys phlegethontis) an endangered species 

with critical habitat: Federal Register, v. 60, no. 

189, September 29, 1995, p. 50518-50530.

———1998, Conservation agreement for spotted frog: 

Salt Lake City, Utah, 18 p.

U.S. Forest Service, 1994, Conservation agreement, 

Bonneville cutthroat trout, Thomas Fork drainage: 

Caribou National Forest, Pocatello, Idaho, 14 p.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 1996, 

Water quality assessment report to Congress: Division of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, 153 p.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1957, The effects 

of the Provo River channelization program on 

Utah's wildlife resources: River Basins report, 

Project No. FW-5-R-1, 12 p.

———1975a, Tentative fishery evaluation for Jordan 

River tributaries: Prepared for Salt Lake County 

Council of Governments, 208 study.

———1975b, Aquatic environmental inventory summary: Provo River from Olmstead power plant to 

Deer Creek dam: Salt Lake City, Utah, 16 p.

———1996, Draft conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorynchus 

clarki utah) in the State of Utah: Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 75 p.

Waddell, B., and Coyner, J., 1990, Screening evaluation 

of biologically active elements and pesticides in 

Utah Lake wetlands proposed for a National Wildlife Refuge: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, 13 p.

Waddell, B., Dolling, J., Linner, S., Stephens, D., and 

Stephensen, S., 1990, A preliminary evaluation of 

contaminants at the Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge acquisitions: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, 21 p.

Waddell, B., and Stephenson, S., 1992, Supplemental 

sampling for trace elements in biota at proposed 

Utah Lake National Wildlife Refuge: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, 13 p.

Way, T.G., 1980, Fishery potential of the Jordan River 

as affected by wastewater treatment alternatives: 

Salt Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science thesis, 135 p.

West, P.W., 1984, Wetland resources of Salt Lake 

County, Report update: Salt Lake County Department of Public Works, Division of Flood Control 

and Water Quality, Salt Lake City, 119 p.

Wheeler, C.A., 1997, Current distributions and distributional changes of fishes in Wyoming west of the 

continental divide: Laramie, Wyo., University of 

Wyoming, Master of Science thesis, 112 p.

White, R.G., 1974, Endemic whitefishes of Bear Lake, 

Utah-Idaho: a problem in systematics: Logan, 

Utah, Utah State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

209 p.

Whitney, R.F., 1951, A comparison of aquatic invertebrates of Red Butte and Emigration Creeks: Salt 

Lake City, University of Utah, Master of Science 

thesis, 55 p.

Wilson, K.W., Radant, R.D., and Coffeen, M., 1998, 

Current distribution and population abundance of 

leatherside chub (Gila copei) in the Heber Valley: 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 

No. 98-13, Salt Lake City, Utah, 43 p.

Wilson, M.M., 1984, Effects of flood control work on 

fish habitat in the Weber River, in Archer, D.L., 

ed., Proceedings of the Bonneville Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Utah State University, 
42 

Logan, Utah, Feb. 8-9, 1984: Salt Lake City, Utah, 

v. 1984, p. 103-108.

———1987, Jordan River fisheries evaluation: Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 24 p.

Winger, P.V., 1972, The effects of channelization and 

water impoundment on the macroinvertebrates in 

the Weber River, Summit County, Utah: Provo, 

Utah, Brigham Young University, Ph.D. dissertation, 112 p.

Winger, P.V., Peters, E.J., Donahoo, M.J., Barnes, H.R., 

and White, D.A., 1972, A checklist of macroinvertebrates of the Provo River, Utah: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 32.

Wullschleger, J., and Pettengill, T.D., 1993, Logan 

River fish population surveys; evaluation of special 

regulations: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, 14 p.

———1994, Logan River cutthroat trout spawning 

study: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, 7 p.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., 1998, Bear Lake's trophic status 

and food web: A review of the effects of Bear River 

diversions: Report for Ecological Consultants for 

the Public Interest, North Logan, Utah, 17 p.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., and Hawkins, C.P., 1990, Trophic 

interactions between fish and invertebrates in Bear 

Lake, Utah-Idaho: Utah State University Ecology 

Center, Special Publication, Logan, Utah, 167 p.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., and Luecke, C., 1994, Examination 

of the abundance and spatial distribution of forage 

fishes in Bear Lake: Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources Progress Report, Project F-47-R, Study 

5, Salt Lake City, Utah, 144 p.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., and Neverman, D., 1988, Post-feeding thermotaxis and daily vertical migration in a 

larval fish: Nature, v. 333, p. 846-848.

Wydoski, R.S., and Helm, W.T., 1980, Effects of alterations to low gradient reaches of Utah streams: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-80/14, 159 p.

Young, M.K., 1995, Conservation assessment for 

inland cutthroat trout: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

General Technical Report RM-256, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, 61 p.

Zarbock, W.M., 1951, Life history of the Utah sculpin, 

Cottus bairdi semiscaber (Cope), in Logan River, 

Utah: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 81, p. 249-259.