Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 1 

APPENDIX B - 3 

Aquatic Diversity and Viability 

Introduction 

This section describes the viability assessment that was conducted for fish species. 

Amphibians and aquatic invertebrate species are addressed in the “Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Aquatic Invertebrate Species Viability” section. 

Planning regulations at 36CFR 219 require: “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed 

to maintain viable populations of existing native and desirable non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded 

as one which as the estimated number and distribution of reproductive individuals to 

insure it continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.” The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, McElhany et al. 2000) defines a viable salmonid 

population as “an independent population of salmonid that has a negligible risk of 

extinction due to threats from demographic variation (random or directional), local 

environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes (random or directional) over a 

100-year time frame.” 

In assessing a population, it is important to consider time frame and how individual risks 

may change over short and long time frames. A population that 15 years ago may have 

survived well under the threats of that day may not survive with increased threats that 

have been added over the past 10 years. For this analysis, threats are considered for two 

time frames, 15 years and 100 years. Fifteen years is being used because this is the 

maximum potential time frame for a Forest Plan and two to three generations of a fish. 

One hundred years is being used because it is long enough to allow for natural processes 

to occur. NMFS also suggests evaluating risks and threats over a 100-year time frame 

(McElhany et al. 2000). NMFS (McElhany et al. 2000) identifies four key parameters for 

evaluating populations status. They are abundance, productivity, population spatial 

structure and diversity. They believe that the general life history and habitat interactions 

are reflected in these factors. Although we have not directly related our process of risk 

and threat evaluation directly on NMFS parameters, we have addressed them through the 

analysis and will be identifying them in the steps that follow (Figure B-3-1). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 2 

Figure B-3-1. Population status flow chart to assess risks and threats as part of the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 3 

Viability Assessment Process 

This fish species viability assessment comprises the selection of fish species used in the 

analysis, including identification of fish species-at-risk and, if possible, focal species that 

could serve as indicators for effects on others. These species were then reviewed for 

existing risks at the 4th and 6th level Hydrological Unit Codes (HUC), potential threats 

and general trends. Viability for these species was assessed according to the likelihood 

of persistence of the species and their habitat through the alternatives given the risks and 

threats occurring for each. The specific steps used in this assessment are as follows: 

Viability Assessments 

1. Identify species to be used in analysis 

a. Identify all fish species known to historically be on the Wasatch-Cache 

NF, those that currently exist on or near the Wasatch-Cache NF, and those 

known to be downstream of lands managed by the Wasatch-Cache NF 

b. Identify species-at-risk selection criteria 

i. Those listed as Forest Service “Sensitive”, “Threatened”, 

“Endangered”, “Candidate” or “Proposed”. 

ii. Those of limited distribution 

c. Identify potential focal species that can be indicators for ecological 

conditions that affect viability for other species, and provide rationale 

d. Identify species and rationale for not addressing a species either directly or 

through an indicator 

2. Provide ecological context for the species and their habitat. 

a. Ecosystems 

b. Species-wide 

c. Forest-wide 

3. Provide background on data used in analysis 

a. Ecosystem information 

b. Species Status 

i. Extinction Risk Factors 

ii. Potential threats 

4. Assess potential for extinction of a species at the 6th and 4th level HUC 

a. Potential for extinction by 6th level HUC 

i. Extinction risks by 6th level HUC 

ii. Potential threats by 6th level HUC 

iii. Likelihood of population persistence for 15 years and 100 years 

b. Assess potential for extinction by 4th level HUC 

i. Extinction risks by 4th level HUC 

ii. Likelihood of metapopulation persistence for 15 years and 100 

years 

5. Develop conservation approaches 

6. Assess likelihood of species persistence across the Wasatch-Cache NF for 15 

years and 100 years 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 4 

The goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and monitoring and evaluation guidance in 

the proposed revised Forest Plan for these species and their habitats were reviewed for 

adequacy in addressing risks and threats. The effects analysis for these species is 

documented in the Aquatic Resources section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Step 1. Identifying Species Used in the Analysis 

Step 1(a). Identify all species historically known to the Wasatch-Cache 

N.F. 

Numerous fish species occur on the Wasatch Cache National Forest (WCNF, Table B-3-

1). Fish native to the Forest are presented here. The distribution of fish species was 

identified through review of survey information and discussions with the Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources. Much of this data was developed during the Inland West 

Watershed Initiative (IWWI). Species downstream of the Forest that could be affected by 

management of the Forest were also considered. Habitat descriptions are also presented 

for all fish species except those for which effects on viability by WCNF management 

actions are a concern, as determined in Step 1(b), below. Unless otherwise specified, 

description of range and habitat is based on species range-wide information.

Mottled and Paiute Sculpin (Cottus sp.) –Sculpin are found on the Forest. These 

fish are well distributed across the Forest (Table B-3-2) and are not viewed at risk 

based on their distribution and densities. Both sculpin need cool, clean, welloxygenated water for survival. This is identical to the cutthroat trout. A number of 

streams on the forest contain sculpin (Table B-3-2). By maintaining habitat to 

support cutthroat trout, it assumed thatthe likelihood of supporting the viability of 

mottled and Paiute sculpin would be maintained. 

Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) – This species occurs in much of the 

western United States. The species is native to Utah, and can be found in both the 

Bonneville Basin and Colorado River system. The primary habitat for the mountain 

sucker is found off the WCNF with only fringe habitat being found on the Forest. 

The locations where mountain sucker have been found on Forest vary greatly; but are 

similar to those for mountain whitefish (Table B-3-2). The primary exception is that 

they are found in some lakes on the Forest. The mountain sucker population of 

greatest concern is the stream population located up Big Cottonwood Canyon. 

During surveys in 1998 only 2 suckers were captured near Brighton Ski Resort in Big 

Cottonwood Creek. No other suckers have been captured in Big Cottonwood Creek 

over the past 10 years, although much of the drainage has been surveyed for fish 

species. These fish may however just come downstream from Twin Lake, which 

contained mountain sucker when surveyed in 1981. Cook (1999) suggests that the 

suckers in Big Cottonwood Creek may be Catostomus Pantosteus, subgenus Acomus 

generosus. This was based on a review of what appears to be incomplete records of 

fish collected in the mid 1850’s,when researchers identified the site as Cottonwood 

Creek. For this analysis, the mountain sucker in Big Cottonwood Creek will be 

grouped with mountain sucker in general because of the lack of any scientific data 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 5 

suggesting they are a unique subspecies. This species is wide ranging and is not 

viewed as at risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. By 

maintain habitat to support trout, it assumed that mountain sucker would be viable. 

Sigler and Sigler (1996) state, “Prevent of habitat degradation is the primary 

protection requirement.”. In this plan, this is accomplished by providing habitat for 

the Bonneville and Colordo River cutthroat trout. 

Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus) – Bluehead sucker are distributed in the 

Green River, upper Colorado River and upper Bear River drainages south to Arizona. 

They are also found in the Snake River above Shoshone Falls (Sigler and Sigler 

1996). This species was identified as being present in the Analysis of the 

Management situation for forest planning revised in February 1984 page 50-46. It 

was then dropped from the Draft Forest Plan published in 2001. A recent review of 

the Natural Heritage database currently being developed by the, State of Utah, 

identified that bluehead sucker had been collected from the East Fork of Smiths Fork 

in 1967. Surveys have not been conducted recently to verify presence or absence of 

this species in the East Fork Smith Fork. This species has not been found in streams, 

adjacent to the East Fork Smith Fork, which have been survey. Bluehead sucker 

prefer cold stream of 68o

F or less, but they prosper in arm small stream tolerating 

waters as warm as 82oF (Sigler and Sigler 1996). They are found in moderately 

swift moving water with a substrate of rocks, gravel or boulders mixed with mud and 

sand (Summerfelt 1983). This species is wide ranging and is not viewed as at risk by 

actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. There is a difference 

between the general habitat of this species and the Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

The bluehead sucker generally lives in larger, warmer streams, which would be 

downstream of most of the trout habitat. By maintaining habitat to support trout, 

conditions to support the bluehead sucker should be maintained and the populations 

on forest would remain viable. Sigler and Sigler (1996) identify predation and 

hybridization as the primary threats to the species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 6 

Table B-3-1. Fish believed to have been found pre-settlement (1845) on the land 

currently administered by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Fish found downstream 

from the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that may be affected by land management 

activities. Fish introduced on the land administered by the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest that continue to persist as of January 2002. 

Fish Scientific Name Historically Downstream Introduced

Cutthroat Trout, 

Bonneville 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

utah 

X 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Colorado 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus 

X 

Long Nose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi X 

Paiute sculpin Cottus beldingi X 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X 

Mountain Sucker Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

X 

Bluehead Sucker Catostomus discobolus X 

 

Colorado 

Pikeminnow 

Ptychocheilus lucius X 

Colorado River 

Roundtail Chub 

Gila robusta robusta X 

Humpback Chub Gila cypha X 

Bonytail Chub Gila elangas X 

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus X 

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus 

mictus 

 X X 

 

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus X 

Black Crappie Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus 

 X 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X 

Brown Trout Salmo Trutta X 

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio X 

Golden Trout Oncorhynchus 

aguabonita 

 X 

Kokanee 

(lacustrine sockeye 

salmon) 

Oncorhynchus nerka X 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides X 

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss X 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu X 

Tiger Muskie Esox ♀masquinongy 

X ♂lucius 

 X 

Yellow Bullhead 

Catfish 

Ameiurus melas X 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X 

Yellowstone 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri

 X 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 7 

Table B-3-2. Stream and lakes surveyed on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

that containing native fish other then cutthroat trout. There are many additional 

lakes and some streams that have not been surveyed and/or summarized. The 

information presented in the table comes from surveys conducted by Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources, Wyoming Game and Fish and the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest.

Stream Drainage County Whitefish Sculpin 

Mt. 

Sucker Dace 

East Fork Bear River Bear River Summit No Yes Yes Yes 

Hayden Fork Bear River Summit Yes Yes No No 

Mill City Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Mill Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

North Fork Mill Creek Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Ostler Fork Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Stillwater Fork Bear River Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Teal Lake Trib. Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

West Fork Bear River Bear River Summit No Yes No No 

Hidden Lake Beaver Creek Summit No No Yes No 

Middle Fork Of Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Summit No Yes No No 

East Fork Of Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes Yes No No 

Little East Fork Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes No No No 

Little West Fork Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit No No Yes No 

West Fork Of Blacks Fork Blacks Fork Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Curtis Creek Blacksmith Fork Cache No Yes No No 

Rock Creek Blacksmith Fork Cache No No Yes No 

Henrys Fork Henrys Fork Summit No Yes Yes No 

Big Cottonwood Creek Jordan River Salt Lake No No Yes No 

West Fork Muddy Creek Muddy Creek Summit No Yes No No 

Left Fork, South Fork Ogden Ogden River Weber No Yes No No 

Right Fork, South Fork Ogden Ogden River Weber No Yes No No 

Boulder Creek Provo River Summit No Yes No No 

North Fork Provo River Provo River Summit No Yes Yes No 

Upper Provo River Provo River Summit No Yes No No 

China Lake Smiths Fork Summit No No Yes No 

Steel Creek Smiths Fork Summit No Yes No No 

West Fork Of Smiths Fork Smiths Fork Summit No Yes Yes No 

Beaver Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Coop Creek Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Gardners Fork Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Redpine Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Shingle Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes Yes No 

Slate Creek Weber River Summit Yes Yes No No 

South Fork Weber Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

Yellow Pine Creek Weber River Summit No Yes No No 

W.F. Beaver Burnt Fork Summit No Yes No Yes 

W.F. Smiths Fork Smiths Fork Summit Yes Yes Yes No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 8 

Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

The primary habitat for the dace is found off the WCNF with only fringe habitat 

being found on the Forest. The two locations where dace have been found on Forest 

are at the Forest boundary in Beaver Creek (Weber River Drainage, Summit County) 

and the East Fork of the Bear River (Table B-3-2). These species are wide ranging 

and are not viewed as at risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest and will not be discussed further. Sigler and Sigler (1996) identify predation 

as the primary limiting factor and also state that water quality is important 

management factor. Bonneville cutthroat trout are found in all of the locations where 

the long nose dace is found. By maintain habitat to support trout, it assumed that the 

longnose dace would be viable. 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Ochorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) – The Colorado 

River cutthroat trout has been petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. This species has been identified as a “Species-at-Risk” under step 1(b) 

and will be discussed further under the “Species-at-risk” section (Step 1(a,b)) and 

Species status (Steep 2a, 3a). 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Ochorhynchus clarki utah) – The Bonneville cutthroat 

trout has been petitioned for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is 

also listed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species. This species has been identified as a 

“Species at Risk” under step 1(b) and will be discussed further under the “Species at 

Risk” section (Step 1(a,b)) and Species status (Step 2a, 3a).

Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) – In general, this species is wide 

ranging and is viewed as at minimal risk by actions occurring on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. The primary habitat for the mountain whitefish is found off the 

National Forest with only fringe habitat being found on the Forest. The locations 

where mountain whitefish have been found on Forest are at the Forest boundary in the 

upper Bear River, Beaver Creek (Weber River Drainage, Summit County) and the 

Blacks Fork River (Table B-3-2). They are also found in the Logan River Drainage 

and the Blacksmith Fork. Monitoring of the Logan River population by the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (Thompson et al. 2000) in 1999 suggest that no 

change has occurred in these isolated populations. Sigler and Sigler (1996) in Fishes 

of Utah state that, “Mountain whitefish appear to be prospering throughout their 

range.” Cutthroat trout are found in all streams containing mountain whitefish. By 

maintaining habitat to support cutthroat trout, it is assumed that mountain whitefish 

would be viable. This is assumed because the two species are found occupying 

similar habitat where they coexist and their basic habitat requirement are similar. 

Whitefish are fall spawners and so some of the threats would be reduced as the 

potential for trampling is reduced. 

There are a number of fish not historically found on the WCNF, but which were 

historically found in Utah, that could potentially be impacted by management actions. 

These species live in streams, rivers, lakes and/or reservoirs within a reasonable distance 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 9 

downstream of the Wasatch-Cache NF. These include the following Species at Risk, as 

identified in Step 1(b), and are as follows: 

Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) – This federally endangered species, 

previously known as the Colorado squawfish, historically occurred in large rivers 

throughout the Colorado River system. The remaining populations are largely limited 

to Utah. Threats include habitat alterations, especially construction of large dams, 

which are believed to prevent spawning migrations and to change the flow and 

temperature regimes are critically important to the species. Another probably threat is 

predation from exotic game fish species. The primary WCNF concern has been with 

water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific projects 

are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the Forest. No 

viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) –This Federally Endangered species is 

endemic to large rivers of the Colorado River system. Alterations in water flow and 

temperatures, due to damming; and possibly predation by introduced fishes have been 

identified as potential threats to this species. The primaryWCNF concern has been 

with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Humpback chub (Gila cypha) – This Federally Endangered species is endemic to the 

Colorado River system, where it is uncommon and locally concentrated, usually in 

deep, swift-river, canyon-shaded segments. Damming has eliminated and altered 

habitat and favored exotic fish predators and competitors. The primary WCNF 

concern has been with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. 

No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water 

flows from the Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this 

species. 

Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans) – This Federally Endangered species is endemic to the 

Colorado River system, and has now been extirpated from much of its range. It 

possibly survives only in the Green River in eastern Utah. Habitat alteration is 

considered the greatest threat to this species. The primary WCNF concern has been 

with water withdraws on the Forest in the Green River Drainage. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) – The June Sucker is currently listed as an 

Endangered species. It historically inhabited Utah Lake and migrated up large 

tributary streams to spawn. Historically, commercial fishing, dewatering ofthe Provo 

River, and severe drought decimated this species. Pollution, predation by nonnative 

species, and hybridization with other species has been identified as current threats.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 10 

June suckers were stocked in Red Butte Reservoir, on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, in 1992. The purpose of this stocking was to provide a holding area for the 

fish. Since then the fish have successfully reproduced. It is suspected that there are 

currently more juvenile fish in the reservoir then its natural habitat of Utah Lake. Red 

Butte Reservoir is currently within a Research Natural Area and will not be impacted 

by the Forest’s land management actions. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is also upstream of the native habitat of the June 

Sucker. The primary concern has been with water withdraws on the Forest in the 

Prove River Drainage. Other Forest land-management impacts would be eliminated 

as the water passes through Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs. No site-specific 

projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict water flows from the 

Forest. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

In addition, several fish species not historically found on the WCNF or in Utah, inhabit 

streams, lakes and reservoirs on the WCNF. Many of these are valued for providing a 

sport fishery, but none are considered rare. These fish are well distributed across their 

range, are very common, and are not considered to be at risk based on their distribution 

and population levels. Habitat for the trout and kokanee are similar to those of cutthroat 

trout. As we provide habitat conditions for the cutthroat trout the conditions for these 

species should be met. These species include: 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – The rainbow trout is an extremely popular 

sport fish. Although native to western North America, it is not native to Utah. This 

species has been introduced to many Utah, and WCNF, coldwater streams, rivers, 

lakes and reservoirs. Only a few streams contain naturally reproducing populations 

of rainbow trout. Many of the accessible lakes are stocked to provide for local 

fisheries. It is anticipated that the stocking of sterile rainbow trout will be focused on 

lakes and reservoirs over the next 15 years as the importance of protecting and 

enhancing native fish expands. 

Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) – This sport fish species is native to Europe and western 

Asia. Over the last 100 years, the species has been stocked in many streams in Utah 

and is common in many WCNF streams. Brown trout populations have remained 

relatively stable on the Forest over the past 15 years. Brown trout are not currently 

stocked on the Forest, and populations are maintained by natural reproduction. 

Brown trout are not viewed at risk on the WCNF. 

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) – This sport fish is native to eastern United 

States and Canada. Although not native to Utah, the species is common in many of 

Utah’s cold high-elevation lakes and streams. In Utah, successful reproduction of 

brook trout often leads to overcrowding. The species is present in several WCNF 

streams and lakes. Brook trout in streams and some lakes are maintained by natural 

reproduction and through stocking or natural reproduction in local lakes. Brook trout 

are not viewed at risk on the WCNF. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 11 

Kokanee Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) – The kokanee is a landlocked form of 

sockeye salmon. The kokanee is a popular non-native game fish. This species has 

been introduced into many reservoirs in the western United States, including several 

in Utah. Kokanee are currently found only in Causey Reservoir on the WCNF. This 

population appears to be able to sustain it’s self. If the cutthroat trout populations are 

provided for in the drainage there should be little need to analyze the kokanee. The 

species will not, therefore be considered for viability analysis. 

Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) 

Grayling are able to reproduce in lakes and appear to do well in a variety of 

conditions. All known populations on Forest appear to be self sustaining and capable 

of supporting sport fisheries. 

Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita) 

Golden trout have occurred in a limited number of lakes on the Forest. They require 

streams to reproduce and are thus limited by spawning habitat in the areas where they 

have been stocked. Golden trout are used as a management species to provide a 

diversity of fishing opportunities. These populations will only be maintained or 

expand through stocking by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. General land 

management actions will not affect the viability of these species throughout the 

planning area. 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) 

It is currently undetermined if Yellowstone cutthroat trout migrated into the Bear 

River during presettlement times. The fish in the Bear River are viewed as 

Bonneville cutthroat trout as identified in the conservation plans. Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout populations have been maintained primarily through stocking. 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout stocking has been reduced as the need to preserve and 

expand existing native cutthroat trout populations was emphasized. Because these 

fish are stocked, they are not viewed at risk on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Warm Water Species 

Black crappie, bluegill, common carp, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, tiger 

muskie, yellow bullhead catfish and yellow perch are only found on the Forest at 

Pineview Reservoir. Management activities in the area are predominately 

recreational boating, swimming and fishing. The greatest impact to these fish is 

water withdraws which are outside the control of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

It is beyond the ability of the Forest to directly alter the viability of these species 

through our management activities. These fish will not be address further. 

Step 1(b): Identify Species-at-Risk 

Fish Species-at-Risk (SAR) and their distribution within the planning area were identified 

(Table B-3-3). The planning area includes lands within the administrative boundary of 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Of the known fish species on or near the WCNF that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 12 

management activities could impact, fish species-at-risk were identified (Figure B-3-1) 

and selected based on the following criteria from other known lists: 

1. Occurrence on the Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

lists (USDI 2000), 

2. Utah State Sensitive Species List and Natural Heritage Database (UDWR 1998) were 

used to identify S1 and S2, and G1, G2, and G3 species. Wyoming Fish Species of 

Concern (http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/fish/fish.htm)

3. Intermountain Region Forest Service Sensitive Species List (USDA 1995), 

Table B-3-3. The fish species at risk on or downstream of the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah. 

Fish Scientific Name Comments 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Bonneville 

Oncorhynchus clarki utah FS Sensitive 

Cutthroat Trout, 

Colorado River 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus 

FS Sensitive 

Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FWS Endangered 

Humpback Chub Gila cypha FWS Endangered 

Bonytail Chub Gila elangas FWS Endangered 

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus FWS Endangered 

June Sucker Chasmistes liorus mictus FWS Endangered 

(Adapted from Lentsch et al. 1995) 

For consideration in this viability analysis, the species listed were then evaluated for the 

extent of potential habitat or occurrence on the WCNF based on any known historic or 

current collections. The potential of Forest activities in affecting their status and 

condition of their habitat was reviewed. 

This list of SAR, from a viability perspective, will likely change in the future, with 

species added and possibly others being deleted. The revised Forest Plan will incorporate 

adaptive management to allow for appropriate changes to revised goals, subgoals, 

objectives, standards and guideline. 

Species-at-Risk: Bonneville and Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout were the only fish identified by this 

analysis as species-at-risk for which a viability assessment was conducted (Table B-3- 

4). These two subspecies are viewed at risk not because of their existing condition on the 

Forest but because of their current range-wide condition and their status as a sensitive 

species (30CFR219.36). Both of these subspecies have been petitioned for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 13 

Table B-3-4. Fish species of concern for viability on or potentially affected by 

management of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Habitat Federal Status State Rank Global Rank 

Colorado River cutthroat 

trout (Ochorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus)

Native to and presently 

found on Wasatch-Cache 

NF 

FS Sensitive S2 G4T2T3 

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

utah) 

Native to and presently 

found on Wasatch-Cache 

NF 

FS Sensitive S1S2 G4T2 

Proposed FS Sensitive: Proposed for addition to the Intermountain Region Sensitive 

Species List, per draft list dated 07-20-1999. 

** Natural Heritage Program conservation rankings 

G: Ranking based upon “global” or range-wide distribution and abundance 

T: Range-wide ranking for a sub-specific “taxon,” such as a variety or subspecies. 

S: “State” ranking, i.e., within Utah. 

G1/T1/S1: Indicates extreme rarity or other factor(s) making the species especially vulnerable to extinction or 

extirpation (typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres). 

G2/T2/S2: Indicates rarity or other factor(s) making the species very vulnerable to extinction or extirpation (6-20 

occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres). 

G4/T4/S4: Indicates a species that is widespread, abundant, and apparently secure, though it may be quite rare 

in parts of its range, especially at the periphery (usually more than 100 occurrences). 

Step 1(c): Species-at-risk for which viability analysis will be based on 

assessment for Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout 

Several native species-at-risk found on or are adjacent to the Forest will be analyzed 

for viability through the analysis for Bonneville or Colorado River cutthroat trout as 

an indicator of their viability requirements. The assumptions is made that by meeting 

the biological needs of the cutthroat trout, the biological needs of these species will 

also be met. These species, for which the cutthroat trout would be considered their 

“focal species”, are mountain whitefish, mountain sucker, bluehead sucker, sculpin, 

arctic grayling and rainbow, brook, brown, and golden trout. 

Step 1(d): Species-at-risk for which viability analysis was not conducted 

because of no effect or because viability requirement are addressed by 

aquatic ecosystem management 

Colorado River Fishes 

The Colorado River fishes that may be a concern include the bonytail chub (Gila 

elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), 

razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta). All of 

these fish, with the exception of the roundtail chub, are listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. These species reside off-Forest, and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is required only for 

water withdraw projects on the Forest (personal communication from Michael M. 

Long, 22 March 2000). No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 14 

would restrict water flows from the Forest; therefore, no effects from Forest activities 

are expected. No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

June Sucker 

This species historic habitat is off-Forest, and Forest Service consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service is similar to the Colorado River fishes. Water withdraw 

projects are the only projects that may impact the June suckers found in their historic 

habitat. No site-specific projects are identified in the Forest Plan that would restrict 

water flows from the Forest; therefore, no effects from Forest activities are expected. 

No viability analysis will therefore be conducted for this species. 

Other Fish Species 

No desirable non-native species have been identified as being at risk. 

Step 2. Ecological Context for the Species and Their Habitat 

Step 2(a) Ecosystem 

An important viability consideration for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is the 

role that National Forest lands contribute to habitat for the Bonneville and Colorado 

River cutthroat trout. This includes considering the connectivity of populations of 

cutthroat trout within and between watersheds. The ecological systems on which 

these species depend on the WCNF are the stream systems of the Forest. The 

description of the watersheds, conditions, ecological processes, and land uses is 

presented in the Preliminary Analysis of the Management Situation (PAMS) and 

summarized in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan. Other fish species on the Forest are 

previously described in Step 1 of this assessment. 

The IWWI database, along with other sources, was used to define the ecological 

context for the cutthroat trout (Figure B-3-3). The data for the Rocky Mountain and 

Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service were developed in 1999 through a joint 

effort between the state wildlife and fish agencies and the Forest Service. The 

WCNF data was then checked by the Forest Fish Biologist to identify potential errors 

in the datasets. Data for the other forests were to be reviewed by their staff. The 

ecological context contains a number of parts and logic paths (Figure B-3-2). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 15 

Figure B-3-2. Factors considered as part of the overall ecological context of a species. 

Ecological Context – Biota – Fish 

Biotic information is the primary factor used from the IWWI to define the Ecological 

Context (Figure B-3-2). Biotic Information was collected at each 6th-field subwatershed 

and rated for the status of the cutthroat trout subspecies. The status calls for the 6th field 

subwatersheds were then combined to formulate a range wide and a Forest wide 

discussion for Ecological Context. Other reports and information were also used to 

supplement the data for this discussion. Data for the biotic part of the Ecological Context 

were obtained on 9 November 2000. It was downloaded from 

(Htttp://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html). The value of the streams on the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, for cutthroat trout, is described at the subspecies level. 

This provides the context for the discussion of land management in the planning area. 

During this analysis, the only time private lands or other national forest lands are 

discussed is at the range wide level. Streams where cutthroat trout populations have been 

extirpated are reviewed for their restoration potential. Generally, streams identified for 

cutthroat trout restoration are those where (1) existing populations in the drainage could 

be expanded, (2) restoration work is technically feasible, and (3) where meta-populations 

could be strengthened. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 16 

Figure B-3-3. The flow chart to develop the ecological context for fish species-atrisk on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, at the species wide and Forest wide. 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki utah) [Imperiled Status: Petitioned for 

listing as “Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of Utah, “Native 

Species Status 2”—State of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank]

Step 2(b) Species Range-Wide: For the range of the Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, the Snake River Drainage forms the boundary on the north, the Colorado River 

on the east and south and the Nevada desert lands and drainages on the west. 

Historically, Bonneville cutthroat trout occupied approximately 90% of the 

Bonneville Basin (Duff 1996). May, in a rough estimate, suggests that Bonneville 

cutthroat trout are presently found in about 5% of their historic habitat (Personal 

Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation Coordinator, April 

12, 2000). 

Step 2(c) Forest Service and Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Eighty to ninety percent of the remaining populations currently reside on National 

Forest Lands (Personal Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout 

Conservation Coordinator, April 12, 2000). If Bonneville cutthroat trout were 

spread throughout what are now National Forest lands, within its historic range, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had Bonneville cutthroat trout in 92 

sixth level HUCs. Rangewide, Bonneville cutthroat trout are found in 134 (20%), 

sixth level HUCs, of their historic 686 sixth code HUCs found on National Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 17 

lands. Of the 134 HUCs where Bonneville cutthroat trout are present, they are strong 

in 48 (36%), depressed in 75 (56%) and present with the strength being unknown in 

15 (11%) of the HUCs. It is unknown what is in 45 HUCs. If all of the 6th level 

HUCs on National Forest Lands, within their historic range, were counted, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had 17 percent (Figure B-3-4). The 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest has 65 (49%) of the existing 134 HUCs in which 

cutthroat trout are present (Figure B-3-4). 

Figure B-3-4. Historic and current distribution of Bonneville cutthroat trout between 

forests by the number of6th level HUCs. 

Historic Distribution of Bonneville Cutthroat 

Trout on NF Lands (686 hucs)

Uinta

6%

BridgerTeton

6%

Dixie

25%

HumboltToiyabe

3%

Caribou

11%

Manti-La 

Sal

4%

Fishlake

28%

WasatchCache

17%

Current Distribution of Bonneville Cutthroat 

Trout on NF Lands (134 hucs)

WasatchCache

49%

Uinta

5%

BridgerTeton

16%

Fishlake

9%

Caribou

15%

Manti-La 

Sal

3%

HumboltToiyabe

1%

Dixie

2%

Other lands: The above analysis does not take into account the populations on 

private, tribal or of Bureau of Land Management lands (BLM). The main population 

known of on private lands is in the Chalk Creek Drainage, a tributary to the Weber 

River. The Chalk Creek Drainage was surveyed in 1999 and was found to contain 

103 stream miles of habitat occupied by cutthroat trout believed to be the Bonneville 

subspecies (Thompson 2000). The BLM and the Goshute Indian Tribe manages 

approximately 36 miles of stream containing Bonneville cutthroat trout. These 

populations are primarily found in the Deep Creek Mountains (USFWS 2000). 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (O. clarki pleuriticus) [Imperiled Status: 

Petitioned for listing as “Threatened”—ESA; “Conservation Species”—State of 

Utah, “Native Species Status 2”—State of Wyoming, S2-Natural Heritage Rank] 

Step 2(b) Species Range-Wide: The range of the Colorado River cutthroat 

trout is bounded by the Missouri, Snake, and Bonneville drainages and then the 

temperature gradient of the Colorado River it’s self. Historically Colorado River 

cutthroat trout occupied all accessible cool waters of the Upper Colorado River 

Drainage, including the Green, Yampa, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan, Duchesne, and 

Dirty Devil rivers (Young et al. 1996). May, in a rough estimate, suggests that 

Colorado River cutthroat trout are presently found in about 1-2% of their historic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 18 

habitat (Personal Communication, Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation 

Coordinator (April 12, 2000). Ninety-five to one hundred percent of the remaining 

populations currently reside on National Forest Lands (Personal Communication, 

Bruce May, Inland Cutthroat Trout Conservation Coordinator (April 12, 2000). This 

subspecies was found on eight national forests in the states of Wyoming, New 

Mexico, Colorado and Utah. 

Step 2(c) Forest Service and Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Historically, if a person were to assume that Colorado River cutthroat trout were 

spread throughout what is now National Forest Lands, within its historic range, the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had cutthroat trout in 15 sixth level 

HUCs. If all of the 6th level HUCs on National Forest Lands, within the historic 

range, were counted the Wasatch-Cache National Forest would have had 1 percent. 

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has 11 (3%) of the existing 364 HUCs in which 

cutthroat trout are present (Figure B-3-5). Colorado River cutthroat trout are found in 

364 (26%), sixth level HUCs, of their historic 1,357 sixth level HUCs found on 

National Forest lands. Of the 364 HUCs whereColorado River cutthroat trout are 

present, they are strong in 56 (15%) of which 10 (18%) are on the WCNF (Figure B3-6). Populations are depressed in 129 (35%) HUCs, of which 1 in on the WCNF. 

Range-wide on National Forest Lands Colorado River cutthroat trout are present with 

the strength being unknown in 179 (49%) of the HUCs. It is unknown if cutthroat 

trout are present in 520 HUCs. 

Figure B-3-5. Historic and current distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout between 

forests by the number of HUCs. 

 Historic Current 

WRIV

26%

GMUG

18%

SANJUA

N

24%

WC

1%

UINTA

2%

ASHLEY

15%

BTET

6%

MANTI

8%

WC

3%

SANJUAN

21%

UINTA

4%

ASHLEY

22% BTET

8%

WRIV

22%

GMUG

17%

MANTI

3%

WC= Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

UINTA= Uinta National Forest 

ASHLEY= Ashley National Forest 

BTET= Bridger-Teton National Forest 

MANTI= Manti-LaSal Naitonal Forest 

GMUG= Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests 

WRIV= White River National Forest 

SANJUAN= San Juan National Forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 19 

Figure B-3-6. Current strong population distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout 

between forests by the number of HUCs. 

WC

18%

UINTA

11%

ASHLEY

30%

BTET

23%

MANTI

0%

GMUG

0% WRIV

18% SANJUAN

0%

WC= Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

UINTA= Uinta National Forest 

ASHLEY= Ashley National Forest 

BTET= Bridger-Teton National Forest 

MANTI= Manti-LaSal Naitonal Forest 

GMUG= Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests 

WRIV= White River National Forest 

SANJUAN= San Juan National Forest 

Step 3. Data Used in the Analysis 

A number of existing and newly developed databases were used in the analysis. The 

data used in the analysis is listed below. 

Step 3 (a) Ecosystem Information 

1. Lakes, Reservoirs, and Streams: The Forest GIS data base was used to identify 

intermittent and perennial streams, and lakes and reservoirs. 

2. 4th through 6th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Sixth (6th) level HUCs were 

used as a primary analysis layer in the IWWI analysis (Figure B-3-7). The watershed 

layer on the Forest’s GIS system identifies watersheds at varying scales and this data 

was used in the viability assessment. 

3. Forest Boundary: The WCNF administrative boundary was used in the analysis. 

This allowed the information to be applied on lands managed by the Forest. 

 

4. Land Ownership: Existing land ownership was used. All alternatives project some 

land adjustment (amount does not vary by alternative); however, the alternatives do 

not identify what tracts would be acquired or disposed of. It would be highly 

speculative to project where this might occur. Existing land ownership is displayed in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 20 

the Forest’s GIS system and this was used for all analyses. Lands not managed by the 

WCNF were not included in the analysis. A review of the land ownership GIS layer 

verified that all of the latest land purchases or exchanges had been identified and 

included. 

Figure B-3-7. Forth and sixth level HUCs found on the Wasatch-Cache, Ashley and Uinta 

National forests in Utah and Wyoming. 

14040106

14060003

16010203

16020202 14060004

16020102

14040107

16020203

16020101

14060002

16010101

16020305 16020204

16020201

16010204

16020304

16010202

14060005

16030005 14060007

14040108

16010201

14060001

Subbasins (4th field HUCs) in the Wasatch-Cache, 

Uinta, and Ashley National Forests

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING

COLORADO

5. Fish Survey Data: For the WCNF, fish survey data is located in the “Locations.xls” 

database and includes fish species distribution, fish densities, sample locations and 

some general notes about the sample sites. Also included in the review are the yearly 

reports compiled by the Forest Service and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

This information covers the years 1993 through 2001 and includes surveys 

throughout the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

6. Grazing Allotment Boundaries and Head Months: Existing grazing allotment 

boundaries were used for the analysis. Head months for animals were pulled from the 

INFRA Forest database. A headmonth is one animal spending 30.416667 days on an 

allotment (365 days/12 months = 30.4 days per month). If 365 days divided by 12 

months = 30.416667 days per month. Chapter 3 Topic 7 contains the head month 

data used in the analysis. It is recognized that grazing threats may be reduced by a 

number of management actions (ie. herding, off channel water development, grazing 

rotations, fencing etc.). In this analysis these management actions are not taken into 

account because examples exist across the Forest where such actions have not been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 21 

fully successful in preventing impacts to aquatic ecosystems. These are considered at 

the project level analysis. 

7. Capable Grazing Lands: This is a GIS map layer of the lands capable of being 

grazed by sheep and/or cattle on the WCNF. 

8. Timber Boundaries: This is a GIS map layer of the lands capable of providing 

harvestable timber on the WCNF. 

9. Alternative Maps: Alternative maps were used to identify management 

prescriptions. 

Landscape conditions: Information used for establishing the landscape conditions for 

the species are based on IWWI classifications at the 6th field HUC for Geomorphic 

integrity, water quality integrity, and watershed vulnerability. The synopsis across the 

Forest is presented below. 

10. Geomorphic Integrity: Each 6th-field subwatershed will be rated for its soilhydrologic function and stream resilience. This information was collected as part of 

the Inland West Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) These calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. The geomorphic integrity was 

identified as moderate for about 73% of the WCNF watersheds analyzed. 

Geomorphic integrity was considered high for about 23%, and low for about 4% of 

the WCNF watersheds (east sides of the Logan and Ogden Districts which drain into 

the Bear River) analyzed (Table B-3-5). In the Colorado River Drainage all of the 6th

level HUCs were “moderate” (Table B-3-5). 

11. Water Quality Integrity: Each 6th-field subwatershed was rated for the water 

quality of its segments. This information was collected as part of the Inland West 

Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) The calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 22 

Table B-3-5. Geomorphic integrity, watershed vulnerability and water quality ratings as 

developed for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, as part of the Inland West 

Watershed Initiative. 

Rating Geomorphic 

Integrity 

Water 

Quality 

Watershed 

Vulnerability 

Forest Wide 

Low 4% 14% 9% 

Moderate 73% 80% 71% 

High 23% 6% 20% 

Bonneville Drainage 

Low 5% 16% 10% 

Moderate 67% 77% 67% 

High 28% 7% 22% 

Colorado Drainage 

Low 0% 6% 0% 

Moderate 100% 94% 89% 

High 0% 0% 11% 

 The water quality integrity was identified across the Forest. Minor parts of stream, 

segment miles are damaged across the Forest (80%, Table B-3-5). About 14% 

(Davis County north along the Wasatch Front) of the WCNF watersheds analyzed 

were considered to have few if any segments damaged, while about 6% (mostly 

Upper Provo River watersheds) of the watersheds analyzed were considered to have a 

major part of the segments damaged. Water quality integrity did not vary greatly 

between the Colorado and Bonneville basins. 

12. Watershed Vulnerability: Each 6th level HUC was rated for its inherent 

vulnerability to disturbance. This information was collected as part of the Inland 

West Watershed Analysis and was obtain on 9 November 2000 from. 

Http://fsweb:r4.fs.fed.us/unit/bpr/iwwi/iwwi.html) The calls were made by the 

Forest Hydrologist, Soil Scientist and Fish Biologist. 

 Across the Forest, 71% of the Subwatersheds (6th level HUC) were rated as 

moderate Watershed Vulnerability. Twenty percent of the Forest had major 

parts (20%) of the watershed in sensitive lands include, the Bear River, Box 

Elder Creek Drainage, the Wasatch Front in Davis County, and Mill Creek 

Drainage. 

 

Step 3(b) Species Status 

Because there are no quantitative models that completely represent risks to salmonid 

populations (McElhany et al. 2000), the viability assessment that follows in Step 4 is 

based on a qualitative analysis of risks and threats. The datasets used for the analysis are 

described below. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 23 

Step 3(b)(i)Extinction Risk: 

Extinction risks are considered those items imposed by the nature of the environment and 

population. Although the impact may be influenced by man these are considered 

biological constraints. Extinction risk factors were reviewed and documented through 

use of local resources. Extinction risk factors include temporal variability, population 

size, growth and survival, and isolation at the 6th HUC level (Figure B-3-8). Replication 

and synchrony at the 4th HUC level, where appropriate for an assumed metapopulation 

(Rieman, B. D. Lee, J. McIntyre, K. Overton and R. Thurow 1993) were also considered 

extinction risk factors (Figure B-3-8). The following six extinction risk factors were 

identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service for the viability of evolutionarily 

significant units of Pacific salmonids (McElhany et al.2000). Conceptually they can be 

applied to any aquatic species. 

Figure B-3-8. Factors included in the four extinctions risk associated with the 6th

level HUCs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 24 

Figure B-8-9. Factors included in the four extinctions risk associated with the 6th

level HUCs. 

1. Population Size: Population size addresses the current population size 

and age structure. The greater the number of breeding adults, the less risk 

of extinction there is. Population size, density dependent factors (e.g. sex 

ratios, etc.) and genetic diversity are critical risk factors (McElhany et al. 

2000) that directly relate to population size. NMFS (McElhany et al. 

2000) also stresses the importance of building in a margin of error on 

population size calls. Populations should on average be able to replace 

themselves and should not exhibit declines in abundance that span 

multiple generations (McElhany et al. 2000). 

2. Growth and Survival: Habitat quality is evaluated by the ability to meet 

all of the life history needs and maintain good juvenile and adult survival. 

The channel is stable with minimum sediment inflow. Habitats are 

recognized as being dynamic, but they should not be decreasing either in 

total size or number of habitat patches (McElhany et al. 2000). Habitat 

patches are those areas that provide important habitat for a population of 

fish (for example rearing habitat or spawning habitat). 

3. Isolation: Populations are reviewed for their ability to commingle with 

other populations and expand into vacated or new areas. This affects the 

potential for reestablishing lost or diminished populations as well as the 

potential for genetic interchange to maintain the genetic variability of a 

metapopulation. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 25 

4. Replication: The number of populations that exist within a potential 

metapopulation, allow for a variety management options to reestablish 

populations if one goes extinct. Widespread replication of populations 

reduces the possibility that a single uncharacteristic event will cause the 

population to go extinct, while geographically close populations allow 

metapopulation dynamics to function (McElhany et al. 2000). 

5. Synchrony: To best provide for the long term survival of populations 

within a 4th level HUC, environmental variation needs to be low and 

habitats complex. If populations within a metapopulation fluctuate 

together their ability to persist amid environment change decreases. 

Concern over environment variation was also identified by NMFS 

(McElhany et al. 2000). 

Step 3(b)(ii) Threats: 

For this assessment, threats are considered those management activities that 

would result in an increased level of extinction risk, as identified Step 3(b)(i). In 

addition, the term threat was used to distinguish between those broad factors cited 

by Rieman et al. (1993) and the more specificland management actions initiated 

locally. A number of threats were reviewed and the most critical ones identified 

and used in this analysis. The primary threats identified were roads, trails, 

motorized trails, grazing, developed recreation sites and special uses authorized in 

riparian zones on National Forest System Lands. Timber harvest allocations and 

the presence of non-native fish have also been included in the analysis. Factors 

eliminated from review because site specific environmental analysis would be 

required prior to implementation included gas and oil drilling, dams and 

diversions, non-timber or grazing forest products, wilderness, and reseeding and 

planting. 

The analyzed threats identified below, primarily affect habitat conditions which in 

turn affect population size, complexity to withstand temporal variability in 

habitats, habitat support for growth and survival and, if passage and connectivity 

are an issue, isolation of a population. If fish passage is an issue in some road 

systems, then the metapopulation may be affected (i.e. through effects to isolation 

and replication). The metapopulation would also be affected by changes in 

habitat because the potential loss of complexity reduces the ability of the habitat 

to support its metapopulation through changing conditions and stochastic events. 

1. Roads Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Roads within 300 feet of a stream were 

included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. This 

increases sedimentation in the stream channel, alters the macroinvertebrate 

community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Roads also provide 

direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 26 

The roads layers, in the Forest’s database, were used to identify existing Forest 

Service classified and other non-Forest Service (e.g. city, county, state) roads. The 

percent of the 300 feet from the stream that has been taken out of properly 

functioning condition because of roads, on the Forest, ranged from 0 to 

approximately 2 percent (Figure B-3-10 and B-3-11). This database also identifies 

maintenance level. The Forest does not currently have an inventory of 

unclassified roads, and therefore, geographic data for these was not available for 

this analysis. Roads were assumed to be 12 feet wide for the analysis. It is 

recognized that a number of paved roads are wider, but the barrow non-paved 

sections would be close to the 12 feet. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Roads

FigureB-3-10. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural 

functioning condition by roads within 6th level HUCs on the WasatchCache National Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage 

starting with the Green River Drainage and ending with the Stansbury 

Mountains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 27 

Rds%300 Variable

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

RDS%300 Variable Values

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 +

Subbasins

Figure B-3-11. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken 

out of naturally functioning condition by construction of a road, by 6th level HUCs. 

These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley, and Wasatch-Cache National 

Forests. Calculations were only completed on National Forest lands within 6th

level HUCs although full HUCs are displayed. 

Roads also affect fish passage. As roads cross streams, populations can become 

cutoff from habitat upstream of the crossing. The potential for these impacts was 

identified in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest’s Road Analysis. There has not been 

broad enough inventory work on this matter to validate these potential problems. 

2.Non-motorized Trails Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Non-motorized trails within 

300 feet of a stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural 

function of the vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the 

channel. This increases sedimentation in the stream channel, alters the 

macroinvertebrates community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Trails 

also provide direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 

The non-motorized trails layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify 

existing non-motorized trails. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of non-motorized trails, on 

the Forest, ranged from 0 to approximately 0.5% Trails were assumed to be four feet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 28 

wide for the analysis and include developed and maintained trail. This analysis does 

not include the user-defined trails. 

Figure B-3-12. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by non-motorized trails within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River Drainage and 

ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed with Trails

3. Motorized Trails Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Motorized within 300 feet of a 

stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. This increases 

sedimentation in the stream channel and alters the macroinvertebrates community and 

causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Trails also provide direct routes for sediment 

to enter the stream. 

The motorized trails layer from the Forest’s GIS data base was used to identify existing 

motorized trails. Trails were assumed to be 4 feet wide for the analysis and include 

developed and maintained trail. This analysis does not include the user-defined trails. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 29 

Figure B-3-13. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of a trail, by 6th level HUCs. These 

calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley Wasatch-Cache National forests. 

Calculations done only for National Forest lands within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs 

are displayed. 

TRL%300 Variable 

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 - 50

Subbasins

TRL%300 Variable Value

N

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

Figure B-3-14 Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by motorized trails within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River Drainage and ending 

with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed with Motorizied 

Trails
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 30 

Figure B-3-15. Percent of the land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of a motorized trail, by 6th level HUCs. 

These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley Wasatch-Cache National forests. 

Calculations done only for National Forest lands within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs 

are displayed. 

COLORADO WYOMING

UTAH

IDAHO

N

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 - 50

Subbasins

TRM%300 Variable Value

TRM%300 Variable 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

4. Suited Timber Harvest Lands Within 300 feet of a Stream: Timber removal along 

a stream course precludes large woody debris from entering the stream and increases the 

complexity of the fish habitat. Timber harvest also reduces shading and increases water 

temperatures. Sediment runoff can also occur in areas where harvest has occurred. 

Suited timber lands where timber harvest may occur (management prescription 5.2) that 

are within 300 feet of a stream course were analyzed. 

5. Domestic Livestock Grazing: Domestic livestock grazing can affect fish and their 

habitat by reducing overhanging cover, destabilizing banks, increasing sedimentation and 

trampling of redds (Chase, 2000). 

Boundaries of allotments, allotment status (active or vacant), and type of livestock 

authorized (sheep or cattle) were reviewed and considered. The number of livestock per 

mile of stream within each 6th level HUC was generated using the Forest’s GIS system, 

and also in the INFRA database. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 31 

Figure B-3-16 Head months per mile of stream in 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, Utah. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

17

131925313743495561677379

6th Level huc

Head Months/Mile of Stream

cattle

sheep

6. Non-native Fish: The distribution of non-native fish was also viewed as a threat to 

the Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout. Non-native fish compete directly with 

the cutthroat trout for habitat and food. . Exotic species pose potential threats to genetic 

purity of the populations through hybridization and introgression. 

7. Develop Recreation Sites Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Developed recreation sites

within 300 feet of a stream were included in the analysis because they can eliminate the 

natural function of the vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the 

channel. This increases sedimentation in the stream, alters the macroinvertebrate 

community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Stream access trails also 

provide direct routes for sediment to enter the stream. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 32 

The recreation layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify existing 

developed and special use sites. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of developed use sites on the 

Forest, ranged from 0 to approximately 28% (Figure B-3-17 and Figure B-3-18). 

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

18

152229364350576471788592

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Develope Use 

Sites

Figure B-3-17. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by developed use sites within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 

8. Special Use Sites Within 300 Feet of a Stream: Special use sites within 300 feet of a 

stream were included in the analysis because they eliminate the natural function of the 

vegetation and prevent the filtering of water as it moves to the channel. These sites can 

also decrease riparian vegetation. This increases sedimentation in thestream, alters the 

macroinvertebrate community and causes direct and indirect mortality to fish. Stream 

access trails from these sites can also provide direct routes for sediment to enter the 

stream. 

The recreation layer from the Forest’s GIS database was used to identify existing 

developed and special use sites. The percent of land 300 feet from the stream that has 

been taken out of naturally functioning condition because of special use sites on the 

Forest ranged from 0 to approximately 2.6 (Figure B-3-19 and B-3-20). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 33 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

DU%300 Variable Values

0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 1

1 - 2

2 +

Subbasins

N

COLORADO

WYOMING

UTAH

IDAHO

Du%300 Variable

Figure B-3-18. Percent of land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by construction of developed uses (trail heads, 

campgrounds, picnic area etc.), by 6th level HUCs. These calculations were done for the 

Uinta, Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National forests. Calculations done only for National 

Forest lands within 6th level HUCs, although full HUCs are displayed. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

17

1319253137434955616773798591

6th Level HUC

Percent of Riparian Zone 

Overlayed by Special Use 

Areas

Figure B-3-19. Percent of riparian zone that has been taken out of natural functioning 

condition by special use sites within 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Utah and Wyoming. HUCs are in order of drainage starting with the Green River 

Drainage and ending with the Stansbury Mountains. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 34 

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

SU%300 Variable 

SU%300 Variable Value

Subbasins

2 - 50

1 - 2

0.25 - 1

0 - 0.25

0

N

IDAHO

UTAH

WYOMING COLORADO

Figure B-3-20. Percent of land within 300 feet of a stream that has been taken out of 

naturally functioning condition by existing special use facilities (summer homes, ski 

resorts etc.), by 6th level HUCs. These calculations were done for the Uinta, Ashley 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests. Calculations done only for National Forest lands 

within 6th level HUCs although full HUCs are displayed. 

Step 4 Assessments for potential extinction 

Step 4(a) Potential extinction at the 6th Level HUC 

The threats identified in Step 3 along with the extinction risk factors, also in Step 3, were 

used to identify the potential for extinction of the populations within the 6th code HUC 

level. Most of the determinations were qualitative using the following basic thought 

processes: 

1. Do we know what the trend has been over the last 15 years? In most cases, the data 

was not available to make this determination. In areas where trend datawas available (ie. 

Logan River Drainage), the confidence intervals were large enough to mask any 

differences that may have occurred over time. 

2. Is there an extinction risk, be it (a) Temporal Variability in recruitment or survival, 

(b) Population Size, (c) Growth & Survival and/or (d) Isolation that is in a high or 

extreme risk to the level thata 6th code HUC may become vacated of native fish over the 

next 10 to 15 years? 

3. Is there a current threat, be it (a) Grazing, (b) Recreation/Special Uses, (c) Roads 

and/or trails, (d) Non-native Species, and/or (e) Timber treatment, that is high enough 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 35 

that a 6th level HUC may become vacated of native fish over the next 10 to 15 years? 

The assumption is that one threat may be sufficient to cause a population to vacate a 6th

level HUC. This also takes into account the Inland West Watershed Initiative 

information of Geomorphic Integrity, Water Quality, and Watershed Vulnerability. 

Data from the above factors have been combined into a single table for easier comparison 

and analysis. For the analysis, the following steps were taken: 

a. All of the risk factors for the 6th level HUCs were combined into a single 

factor. Generally these were averaged unless local information was known 

and could be combined with the averaged risk factor to more accurately reflect 

the overall risks. 

b. The potential impacts from roads, motorized trails and trails were summed 

into one threat factor. 

c. Developed and special uses were summed to generate one threat factor. 

d. Threats for grazing and non-native fish were left separate with cattle and 

sheep grazing densities both being identified. 

e. Trend for 6th level HUCs were then identified. An upward trend was 

identified where addition habitat had been added or habitat improvements had 

occurred. If a stream had been treated to remove non-native fish, the general 

trend was viewed as increasing. A downward trend was identified if the 

population had an overall risk rating of 3 or 4,had lost potential functioning 

condition in over 2.5% of the huc’s riparian zone, and/or had two or more 

non-native fish with potential interbreeding. The population was considered 

stable if there was no evidence of major change from the last Forest Planning 

period. 

It should be recognized that with any data set there are limitations, shortcomings, and 

errors. Risk ratings were used to describe the 6th code HUC area as a whole, although, 

watersheds and their associated environmental conditions vary greatly. One stream may 

run north while another stream runs to the west, or one stream may have a road adjacent 

to it while another may be in wilderness. Fish populations may reflect these differences. 

As a result, their risk rating may differ greatly between streams and even between stream 

sections if evaluated at that level. That level of analysis is beyond the 6th level HUC area 

that is being used for the Forest Planning effort. The results of the analysis at the 6th level 

HUC are presented in Table s B-3-6 through B-3-17. 

Step 4(b) Likelihood of persistence of the metapopulation for 15 and 100 

years 

The trend and potential for extinction, assessment at the 6th level HUC was combined 

with the replication risk factor and synchrony risk factor at the 4th level HUC to make a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 36 

determination on the likelihood of persistence of the metapopulation for 15 and 100 

years. For this assessment, the metapopulation was assumed to be those populations 

within the 4th level HUC that could possibly have connectivity. Persistence at 15 and 100 

years was assumed if any of the individual populations were expected to persist for that 

time period. Changes in the risk factors with expected changes in the 6th level HUC 

populations were described. 

The likelihood of persistence is described below for each of the metapopulations (4th

level HUC). Identification of the more critical threats is also made. 

COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT 

Henrys Fork Drainage 

15 Years It is believe that these populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout, in the 

Henrys Fork Drainage (HUC 14040106) will persist over the next 15 years based on the 

limited risks and moderate threats (Figure B-3-21). The replication risk is 2, with 

multiple strong populations across the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. The 

synchrony risk is 2, with populations being found in moderate quality complex habitats. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The frequency and potential of large-scale 

uncharacteristic events is assumed to be moderate, with fire being the major concern. 

The primary concern in the drainage is the movement of non-native fish coming upstream 

(Table B-3-6). Grazing in the upper Henrys Fork is also a concern, with a large number 

of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th level HUC. The availability of 

water in the drainage may reduce the potential impact from grazing. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Colorado River cutthroat trout will persist over the 

next 100 years also. Again the risks and threats are expected to remain constant. At this 

4th level HUC, it is likely that we may loose some of the range currently occupied by 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. However, based on the limited risks and moderate 

threats, it is believe that they will continue persist in the 4th level HUC. 

Blacks Fork Drainage 

15 Years It is believe that these populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout will 

persist over the next 15 years in the Blacks Fork Drainage, based on the limited risks and 

moderate threats (Figure B-3-22). The replication risk is 2 with major populations in 

Smiths Fork, Blacks Fork, Brush Creek, and Sage Creek. The synchrony risk is 2 with 

impacts from historic tie hacking continuing to affect fish habitat. The frequency and 

potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is assumed moderate. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concern in the drainage is the upstream 

movement of non-native fish. This concern has been addressed with the installation of 

migration barriers in some of these drainages. Grazing in the Gilbert Creek Drainage is 

also a concern with a large number of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 37 

level HUC (Table B-3-6). The availability of water in the drainage may reduce the 

potential impact from grazing. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Colorado River cutthroat trout will persist over the 

next 100 years also. Again the risks and threats are expected to remain constant. 

Muddy Creek 

15 Years The persistence of Colorado River cutthroat trout in the Muddy Creek 

Drainage, over the next 15 years, will be dependent on what occurs off National Forest 

lands (Figure B-3-22). There is very limited mileage of habitat on National Forest lands. 

The replication risk is 4 with a very limited population on the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest. The synchrony risk of 3 is that the fish population could be affected by an 

uncharacteristic event. 

Risks and Threats of Concern Isolation is the primary risk of concern for the WCNF 

population. The risks and threats are expected to remain constant (Table B-3-7). 

100 Years If no changes occur off National Forest Lands, it is anticipated that this 

population will persist over the next 100 years. 

Duchesne River 

15 Years In surveys conducted in 2001 no cutthroat trout were found in the upper 

Duchesne River Drainage on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This upper portion of 

the river contained only rainbow and brook trout. The surveys conducted in 2001 were 

the first know survey conducted in the upper portion of the drainage (Figure B-3-23). 

The replication risk is 5 with no populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The 

synchrony risk is 5 with no populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The assumed risks and threats are low to moderate and 

expected to remain constant (Table B-3-8). 

100 Years With no population currently occurring on the Forest, no population can 

persist over the next 100 years unless a population is transplanted into the area. 

Upper Bear River 

15 Years It is believed that the Bear River populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout, on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, will persist over the next 15 years based on the 

limited risks and moderate threats (Figure B-3-24). The replication risk is 2 with 

metapopulations in Mill, Stillwater and the Woodruff Creek drainages. The synchrony 

risk was 2 with most of the environment being stable and the habitat is very complex 

across the 4 HUC. The frequency and potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is 

assumed low. It is expected that the risks and threats will increase over the next 15 years 

as more land is sold for development. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 38 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the non-native 

fish and some habitat impacts from historic tie hacking and grazing (Table B-3-9). 

Grazing in the Woodruff and the West Fork of the Bear drainages are also a concern with 

a large number of head months per mile of stream occurring in the 6th level HUC. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 

100 years also. The risks and threats are expected to increase over the next 100 years as 

demands for recreational opportunities and water increases. 

North Cache Valley 

15 Years It is believed that most of the populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout will 

persist over the next 15 years even though there are a limited number of isolated 

populations. The High Creek population is expected to be lost because of its limited size 

and the current interbreeding which is occurring. When sampled in 1997, no fish had the 

appearance of being pure cutthroat trout. All fish appeared to be crossed with rainbow 

trout. Follow up surveying in 1998 also found no fish which appeared to be pure. The 

replication risk is 4, with very limited populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The synchrony risk was 3 where habitat could be affected by uncharacteristic natural 

events across the 4 HUC. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the limited 

small populations with no connection between drainages and continued expansion of the 

population along the Wasatch Front. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will not persist in this 4th

level HUC over the next 100 years because of continued declines in population size and 

continued lack of connectivity between drainages. This is because demands for 

recreational opportunities, water and general population growth are expected to increase. 

West Wellsville 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

South Cache Valley 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years based on the limited risks and moderate threats in the 4th level HUC. The 

replication risk is 2, with major populations in the Logan and upper Blacksmith Fork 

Rivers. The synchrony risk was 2 with good habitat complexity and environmental 

variation across the 4th level HUC. The frequency and potential of large-scale 

uncharacteristic events is assumed low. It is anticipated that over the next 15 years the 

population in Saddle Creek will be lost. It is believed that this population will be lost 

because of the cumulative impacts of the natural lack of water found in the area, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 39 

environmental factors (i.e. drought) and habitat impacts in the water including roads and 

grazing. This population is currently excluded from cattle grazing through the use of 

letdown fences. Cattle have been known to trespass in the area. The population is 

currently experiencing year class failures and is confined to a very small segment of the 

stream. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in the drainages are the major 

highway along the river and grazing. Grazing in the Right Hand Fork, Temple Fork and 

Tony Grove HUCs in the Logan River Drainage and Saddle Creek and the Left Hand 

Fork in the Blacksmith Fork drainages are of concern. The risks and threats are expected 

to increase over the next 15 and 100 years as demands for recreational opportunities and 

water increases. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 

100 years. The population in the Left Fork Blacksmith Fork is expected to be lost over 

the next 100 years because of the threats associated with the 6th level HUC. There is a 

road adjacent to the river up the entire length of the stream. There are also two nonnative fish in the stream. Sedimentation from the road and adjacent side hills can reach 

the stream. Grazing numbers are the second highest in this HUC and recreational use is 

high is this drainage. The population is also isolated from other populations. 

Weber River 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years based on the limited risks andthreats in the 4th level HUC. The replication risk is 2. 

Major populations occur in the upper Weber, N.F. Ogden and Beaver Creek. All of these 

populations are isolated from each other but do contain a number of connected miles of 

stream habitat. The synchrony risk was 2 with some evidence of regional decline with 

good habitat complexity and environmental variation across the 4th level HUC. The 

frequency and potential of large-scale uncharacteristic events is assumed low. The 

population in the South Fork of the Weber River is expected to be lost over the next 15 

years. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in these drainages are non-native 

fish. The risks and threats are expected to increase over the next 15 to 100 years as 

demands for recreational opportunities and water increase. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will probably decline but 

not be lost over the next 100 years. 

Ogden River – Wasatch Front 

15 Years It is believed that the Bonneville cutthroat trout will persist over the next 15 

years in most of these 6th level HUCs, based on the limited risks and limited threats in the 

4th level HUC. The replication risk is 3 with mostly small, isolated populations of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 40 

cutthroat trout. The synchrony risk was 2 with good habitat complexity and low 

environmental variation across the 4th level HUC. The frequency and potential of largescale uncharacteristic events is assumed low. 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns in these drainages are non-native 

fish and the isolated nature of the populations. During the 1982-83 winter, excessive 

snow accumulated across the State of Utah. During spring runoff, debris flows occurred 

in a number of these smaller canyons. Pre and post surveys indicate that cutthroat trout 

were lost from Parish and Willard Creek during this period. Historically, these streams 

may have connected to others allowing for repopulation. Most of these small headwater 

streams have been diverted at the Forest boundary preventing recolonization. The risks 

and threats are expected to increase over the next 15 to 100 years as demands for 

recreational opportunities and water increases. 

100 Years It is anticipated that the Bonneville cutthroat trout, in the 4th level HUC will 

probable decline over the next 100 years, but will not be lost. Some of the smaller 

populations are likely to be lost over the next 100 years due to natural events. 

Salt Lake County Drainages 

15 Years There are four known populations of cutthroat trout in the 4th level HUC with 

two of these being found on National Forest Lands. All of these populations: Little 

Cottonwood, Deaf Smith, Parleys and Red Butte Creeks are limited in size. None of 

these populations are connected. The replication risk is 3, with populations being 

isolated with no potential for interbreeding. The synchrony risk is 2, with populations 

found in moderately complex habitats 

Risks and Threats of Concern The primary concerns for these populations areisolation 

and small population size. 

100 Years The population in Red Butt is expected to persist due to the habitat being 

protected, and no fishing or recreation. The population in Parleys Creek is also expected 

to persist over the next 100 years, although only a limited number of fish in this 

population are on the WCNF. The population inLittle Cottonwood Creeks is not likely to 

persist for 100 years because of inbreeding impacts and a high risk from environmental 

conditions. Little Cottonwood Creek currently has water chemistry problems, primarily 

heavy metals. It is undetermined as to the source of these heavy metals whether they are 

from natural sources or historic mining in the drainage. The Little Cottonwood Creek 

population is very isolated and limited in distribution. A toxicant spill from one of the 

ski resorts or private cabins could easily cause the loss of this population. 

East Side Stansburys 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

West Side Stansburys: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 41 

This 4th level HUC will remain without cutthroat trout. 

Provo River Drainage 

15 Years There are four known populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout in this 4th level 

HUC on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These are Soapstone, Rock, Boulder creeks 

and a population that is found in the upper mainstem Provo River as evidence by the 

capture of a few isolated cutthroat trout. There is a very limited understanding of the 

upper mainstem Provo River population on National Forest lands. The populations are 

considered isolated with no large fluvial fish being captured during surveys. The 

populations in Soapstone and Rock creeks are not expected to persist over the next 15 

years because of the limited population size and the lack of connectivity. In 2001 and 

2002, Soapstone Creek was dry by late June. This would have caused the lost of year 

classes during these years. Rock Creek, when surveyed in 1995 had a population 

estimate of one fish collected in 89 meters of stream. The stream itself is very small. If 

the mainstem Provo River had a population of cutthroat trout in it these two feeder stream 

may be more likely to survival the natural low water years and isolation. A population is 

not believed to exists there. The replication risk is 3 with a very limited number of 

populations of which allareisolated. The replication risk is 2 with the existing 

populations being very dispersed. 

Risks and Threats of Concern Water demand and recreation use is expected to continue 

to increase. 

100 Years The population in Boulder Creek is expected to remain viable for the next 

100 years. The Bonneville cutthroat trout in the 4th level HUC are viewed as viable over 

the next 100 years because the strongest population is expected to persist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 42 Table B-3-6. Risks and threats associated with the Henry Fork Drainage (HUC-14040106) on the Wasatch-Cacwith the identified trend. 

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gra

H

mo

(cow

Upper Burnt Fork 

140401060601 

2,2,2 1 1 1 2 

subwatersheds 

with no 

connection 

1 very 

limited 

isolation 

good 

complexity 

0.383142 0.111691 47

East &Middle Fork 

Beaver140401060602 

2,2,2 1 2 MF= 

64/mile 

2 4 isolated 3 0.357808 0.448796 27

West Fork Beaver 

140401060603 

3,2,2 1 1 1 2 2 0.414233 0.161104 38

Upper Henrys Fork 

140401060604 

2,2,2 1 1 2 2 well 

connected 

2 0.408527 0.115991 699/

Lost, Spring, Poison 

creeks 140401060605 

2,2,2 1 1 211/mile 2 2 well 

connected 

3 Isolated 

limited 

numbers 

0.635677 0.000000 20

Lower part of Burnt 

Fork 

140401060606 

2,1,2 1 1 1 2 2 limited 

and isolated 

0.887314 0.000000 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 43 

140401060101

140401060103

140401060102

140401060105

140401060104

140401060204

140401060301 140401060401 140401060405

140401060303 140401060404

140401060302

140401060403

140401060508140401060304 140401060406 140401060605

140401060501

140401060905

140401060407

140401060707

140401060606

140401060640

140401060408

140401060604

140401060708

140401061004140401060409 140401060705 14040106

140401060706

140401060603 140401060602 140401060704 140401060806

140401060601 140401060808

140401061003 140401060702

14040106100

140401061001

140401060807

140401060802

140401060701

140401060703140401060803

140401060805

140401060801

140401060804

140401061201 140401060809

Henry's Fork River Drainage (14040106)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 10 Miles

Figure B-3-21. Map of the Henry’s Fork River Drainage (4th HUC - 14040106) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache and As
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 44 Table B-3-7. Risks and threats associated with the Blacks Fork Drainage (HUC-14040107) on the Wasatch-Cach

with the identified trend. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Head-mon

(cow/shee

Gilbert Creek 

140401070601 

2,3,2 1 2 treated 

fy2000 

2 4 3 migration 

barrier, 

limited 

population 

0.372141 0.098862 822/453

West Fork 

Smiths Fork 

140401070602 

3,3,3 1 1 557-

1016/mile 

2 tie 

hacking 

1 connected 

stream 

miles = 16 

1 good size 

and stream 

mileage 

0.227125 0.000000 1477/0 

Willow Creek 

140401070603 

3,3,3 3 2 2 4 4 isolation 0.038341 0.000000 648/0 

Little Dry Creek 

140401070604 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 

Cutthroat 

not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

2.123823 1.700436 0/99 

Sage Creek 

140401070606 

2,2,2 3 2 3 4 4 0.398150 0.000000 565/0 

E. F. Blacks 

Fork 

140401070701 

3,2,2 1 1 2 1 1 0.227115 0.005295 61/3240 

W. F. Blacks 

Fork 

140401070702 

2,2,2 1 1 2 1 1 0.263057 0.140805 3/7274 

Lower Blacks 

Fork River 

140401070703 

3,2,2 2 2 2 tie 

hacking 

1 good 

connection 

2 0.215440 0.149231 79/742 

Little West Fork 

Blacks Fork 

140401070760 

3,2,2 2 low 

diversity 

1 998/mile 2 tie 

hacking 

3 Not 

connected 

3 0.528278 0.000000 0/1019 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 45 

140401070907

140401070906 140401070908

140401071008

140401071009

140401070606

140401070604

140 140401080302 401070603

140401080301

140401070601

140401070602

140401070760

140401070703

140401070702

140401070701

Muddy Creek (14040108) 

and Blacks Fork (1404017)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 10 Miles

Figure B-3- 22. Map of the Blacks Fork (4th HUC - 14040107) and Muddy Creek (4th HUC – 14040108) drainages with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatc

National forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 46  (Table B-3-8). Risks and threats associated with the Muddy Creek Drainage (HUC-14040108) on the Wasatch-

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

G

(co

W.F. Muddy Cr. 

140401080301 

3,2,2 2 1 2 4, 1 mile of 

stream on 

Forest 

4 0.088594 0.000000 0/0 

140401080302 2,2,2 5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no 

water on 

Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water 

on Forest 

0.000000 0.000000 5 

o

Table B-3-9. Risks and threats associated with the Duchesne River Drainage (HUC-14060003) on the Wasatch-

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazin

Head-mo

(cow/sh

Middle North 

Fork on w-c 

140600030102 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.330787 1.193287 34/0 

Lower North 

Fork on w-c 

140600030103 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.321923 0.410352 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 47 

140600031201 140600031301 140600031302

140600030901

140600030802

140600030902 140600031202 140600030801

140600030401

140600030903 140600030101

140600031204

140600031303 140600031203

140600030403 140600030904 140600030402 140600031101 140600030803 140600031205 140600031103 140600030905 140600030804 140600031102

140600030102 140600031401

140600031104

140600031304 140600031402 140600030103 140600031206 140600030405

140600031403

140600030404

140600030805

140600030501

140600031501

140600031003

140600030301 140600031107

140600030906

140600030302140600030203 140600031001

140600030304

140600030502 140600030204

140600030202

140600030201 140600030303

140600030601

140600030704 140600030707 140600030702 140600030703 140600030705

140600030706 140600030701

Duchesne River

(14060003)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 23. Map of the Duchesne River Drainage (4th HUC - 14060003) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache, Uinta and Ashley National 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 48 Table B-3-10. Risks and threats associated with the Upper Bear River Drainage (HUC-14040107) on the WasatcForest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Graz

Hea

mon

(cow/s

East Fork Bear 

River 

160101010101 

2,2,1 2 Some 

disturbance 

in drainage 

2 limited 

metapopulation, 

non-natives 

1 limited 

influence 

2 good 

connectivity 

3 0.432246 0.014046 285/7

Stillwater 

Drainage 

160101010102 

2,2,1 1 Mostly in 

wilderness 

1 large 

metapopulation 

322 fish/mile, 4 

miles of stream 

1 habitat 

excellent 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.426281 1.147866 0/10

Hayden Fork 

160101010103 

3,2,1 2 less 

stable 

conditions 

1 large 

metapopulation 

3 tie 

hacking 

impacts 

2 fewer 

main river 

individuals 

3 

population 

is Hayden 

Fork is 

limited 

0.431153 1.832368 0/67

West Fork Bear 

River, Meadow, 

Humpy, Deer C 

160101010104 

3,2,3 2 Dam 

natural 

hydrograph 

disrupted 

1 large 

population 1562 

fish/mile) 

2 dam and 

flow 

alteration 

2 some 

restriction in 

access 

between 

populations 

2 0.590703 0.000000 0/60

Lower Part near 

Guard Station 

160101010105 

2,2,2 1 relatively 

stable 

3 potentially 

connected to 

metapopulations 

seasonally 

3 water 

temperature, 

diversions, 

road impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

3 1.905344 9.799349 0/29

Lower Part of 

Bear River 

160101010106 

Non-Forest 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Mill Creek 

Drainage 

160101010201 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 low population 

number 85-50 

fish/mile 

3 tie 

hacking and 

road 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.826135 0.439950 9/17
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 49 Table B-3-10. conti. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Graz

Hea

mon

(cow/s

Upper 

Woodruff Creek 

160101010501 

3,2,3 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.496641 0.000000 252/2

Sugar Pine 

Creek 

160101010502 

3,2,3 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 grazing 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.171206 0.003036 1428

Birch Creek 

160101010503 

2,2,3 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0.232451 0.000000 0/4

Lower 

Woodruff Creek 

160101010504 

Non-Forest 0 private 

lands 

0 private land 0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private 

lands 

0 private lands

0 private lands

0 privalands

Upper Big 

Creek 

160101010601 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.430222 0.000000 0/42

Dry Canyon 

160101010602 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.844647 0.000000 0/0 

Old/Pole/Spring 

Canyon 

160101010603 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.545517 0.000000 0/4

Otter Creek 

160101010604 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

0.969241 0.000000 0/4
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 50 

160101010604

160101010603

160101010602

160101010601

160101010503

160101010502

160101010501

160101010106

160101010105

160101010104

160101010201

160101010103

160101010101

160101010102

Subbasins (HUC4)Subwatersheds (HUC6)

Upper Bear River Drainage

(16010101)

N

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

Figure B-3- 24. Map of the Upper Bear River Drainage (4th HUC - 16010101) with 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forests. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 51 

160102020403

160102020402

160102020401

160102040501

160102010101

160102040502

160102040503

Wellsville West Side (16010204),

North Cache Front (16010202),

Bear Lake (16010201)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 Miles

Figure B-3- 25. Map of the North Cache Valley, the western Wellsville and the Bear Lake 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National For
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 52 Table B-3-10. Risks and threats associated with the North Cache Valley (HUC-16010202) on the Wasatch-Cach

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

G

m

(co

Cache N. Front 

160102020401 2,2,2 

2 nonnative 

species, 

some 

physical 

disturbance 

3 small 

isolated 

population 

2 road up 

bottom, water 

diversion 

4 very 

isolated 4 0.353667 0.315409 

Cache N. Front 

2160102020402 2,2,2 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 0.139644 0.000000 

High Creek 

160102020403 2,1,2 

1 good 

stability 

3 small 

isolated 

population 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

4 very 

isolated 

4 isolation, 

crossbreeding 0.304283 0.190738 

Table B-3-11. Risks and threats associated with the West Wellsville Mountains (HUC-16010203) on the WasatcForest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

West side of 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102040501 

1,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.064383 0.000000 

Box Elder 

Creek 

160102040502 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

1.299956 4.689932 

Perry area 

160102040503 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.068590 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 53 

160102030101

160102030102

160102030103 160102030105

160102030104

160102030306

160102030202

160102030406

160102030106

160102030107

160102030201

160102030310 160102030307160102030305 160102030309

160102030308

160102030304

160102030405 160102030303

160102030302

160102030301

160102030404

160102030401

160102030402 160102030403

Logan River and Blacksmith Fork

(16010203)

Subwatershed (HUC6)Subbasin (HUC4)

5 0 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 26. Map of the South Cache Valley and West Wellsville Mountain 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 54 Table B-3-12. Risks and threats associated with the South Cache Valley (HUC-16010203) on the Wasatch-Cach

with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Beaver Creek 

160102030101 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.520308 0.000000 343/33

Franklin Basin 

160102030102 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.335658 0.000000 0/0 

Tony Grove 

area 

160102030103 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.576588 1.202126 2567/3

Temple Fork 

160102030104 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 0.446727 0.017268 1726/1

Cottonwood 

Canyon 

160102030105 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road 

causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 limited 

water 

0.380745 0.343881 494/3

Right Hand 

Fork 

160102030106 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road 

causing 

concerns 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 limited 

resident 

population 

0.572908 0.399213 996/88

Lower Logan 

Canyon 

160102030107 

2,2,2 2 power 

and water 

diversions 

1 large 

metapopulation 

2 Road and 

trails causing 

concerns 

2 dams limit 

migration 

2 

Migration 

barriers 

0.699064 4.410107 0/38

Green Canyon 

160102030201 

3,2,2 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 0.413891 0.691854 0/110

Hyde Park 

160102030202 

2,2,2 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 5 No fish 0.105781 0.000000 11/0 

Sheep Creek 

160102030301 

2,2,2 2 some 

physical 

disturbance 

2 moderate 

population 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 Very 

limited 

water on 

Forest 

0.100261 0.000000 0/135
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 55 Table B-3-12. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Mill Creek 

160102030302 

Non-Forest 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.703329 0.000000 Non W

Fore

Land

Upper 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030303 

2,2,2 2 some 

physical 

disturbance 

2 moderate 

population 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 0.406382 0.000000 0/47

Curtis Creek 

160102030304 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 moderate 

population 

2 grazing 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

2 limited 

distribution 

0.172322 0.000000 0/106

Rock Creek 

160102030305 

Non-Forest 1 good 

stability 

2 moderate 

population 

2 grazing 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

2 limited 

distribution 

0.391799 0.000000 233/24

Saddle Creek 

160102030306 

3,2,2 2 channel 

moderately 

variable 

4 small isolated 

population 

3 system 

altered 

upstream 

4 very 

isolated 

4 very 

isolated, 

water 

quality 

0.701763 0.000000 4930/3

Left Hand 

Fork 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030307 

3,2,2 2 high 

impacts 

form a road 

and large 

drainage 

area above 

a narrow 

canyon 

2 limited 

migration 

between 

populations 

3 major road 

up the bottom 

and 

campground 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

3 limited 

population 

0.599150 0.081217 1803/5
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 56 Table B-3-12. continued. 

Middle Part of 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030308 

2,2,2 2 channel 

moderately 

variable 

3 limited 

population 

3 a dam and 

road and 

recreation 

impacts 

2 some 

restriction 

in access 

between 

populations 

3 limited 

population 

0.342149 1.186801 46/0 

South Logan 

Area 

160102030309 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.471315 0.000000 726/3

Lower Part of 

Blacksmith 

Fork 

160102030310 

Non Forest 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Upper East 

Fork Little 

Bear 

160102030401 

2,2,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0.339207 0.000000 0/313

Davenport Cr. 

160102030402 

2,2,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 0 0/0 

Upper Little 

Bear River 

160102030403 

3,2,2 2 low 

habitat 

diversity 

2 moderate 

population 

2 roading and 

diversions 

3 limited 

distribution 

 0.684120 0.000000 246/

East side of the 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102030406 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.207081 0.013714 259/
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 57 Table B-3-12. Risks and threats associated with the West Wellsville Mountains (HUC-16010203) on the WasatcForest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

West side of 

Wellsville 

Mountains 

160102040501 

1,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.064383 0.000000 

Box Elder 

Creek 

160102040502 

3,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat not 

present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

5 cutthroat 

not present

1.299956 4.689932 1

Perry area 

160102040503 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.068590 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 58 

160201010201

160201010202

160201010103

160201010107

160201010102

160201010104

160201010105

160201010106

160201010101

Weber River Headwaters

(16020101)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

N 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Figure B-3- 27. Map of the Weber River Headwaters 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 59 Table B-3-13. Risks and threats associated with the Weber River Headwaters (HUC-16020101) on the Wasatch-Forest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 6th

Field HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

Beaver Creek 

160201010101 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 brook trout 

and stocked 

rainbow 

1 good 

condition 

1 good 

connectivity 

1 good 

overall 

0.566531 1.453240 12

Weber Headwaters 

160201010102 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 limited 

numbers 153 

fish/mile 

1 good 

condition 

2 some 

restriction in 

access 

between 

populations 

2 0.347654 0.037295 0

Upper-Middle Weber 

160201010103 

2,2,2 5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No 

water on 

Forest 

5 No water 

on Forest 

5 No 

water on 

Forest 

0.236504 0.000000 0/

Smith Morehouse 

160201010104 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 limited 2 limited 

juvenile 

habitat 

2 some 

connection 

with other 

tribs. 

2 0.369794 1.409371 10

South Fork Weber 

River (Nobletts Creek) 

160201010105 

3,2,2 1 good 

stability 

3 

interbreeding 

with rainbow, 

brook trout 

present 

2 road 

impacts, 

habitat 

impacts 

2 some 

restrictions 

caused by 

non-native 

fish 

3 cross 

breeding 

concerns 

0.254413 0.083949 5

Lower Beaver Creek 

160201010106 

3,2,2 5 no water 

on Forest 

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

5 no water on Forest

0.347213 0.000000 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 60 

160201020501

160201020606 160201020604

160201020402

160201020502

160201020601

160201020608

160201020605

160201020602

160201020401 160201020603

160201020607

160201020302

160201020205

160201020301

160201020304

160201020203

160201020303

160201020202

160201020201

160201020702

160201020701

160201020703

Ogden River - Wasatch Front

(16020102)

Subwatersheds (HUC6)

Subbasins (HUC4)1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 26. Map of the Ogden River and Wasatch Front’s 4th and 6th level HUCs on the Wasatch-Cache National Fore
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 61 Table B-3-14. Risks and threats associated with the Ogden River – Wasatch Front (HUC-16020102) on the WasForest with the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep

Woods Creek 

160201020201 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 Non-Forest 

Hardscrable 

Area 

160201020202 

1,2,2 1 good 

stability 

1 

1331/mile 

2 moderate 

condition 

2 Connected 

with 

Hardscrabble 

2 limited 

waters on 

Forest 

0.196652 0.000000 0/1239 

Deep Ck. 

160201020203 

2,2,2 1 good 

stability 

2 unknown 2 moderate 

condition 

3 more 

limited 

3 isolation 0.143842 0.000000 0/103 

N.E. Morgan 

160201020205 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Peterson area 

160201020301 

2,2,2 5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.066109 0.000000 0/274 

Strawberry 

160201020302 

2,1,1 5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little 

water on 

Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.064996 0.000000 0/0 

Cottonwood 

Ck. 

160201020303 

2,2,2 NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.270148 0.000000 0/0 

Enterprise 

East 

160201020304 

Non-Forest NonForest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest Non-Forest 0.000000 0.000000 0/0 

Ogden 

Canyon 

160201020401 

2,1,1 3 highly 

regulated 

from 

Pineview 

dam 

3 Limited 

number of 

adult 

cutthroat 

trout 

2 canalized 

stream 

through 

private 

residences 

and the road 

4 very 

isolated 

4 limited, 

isolated 

population 

0.073004 0.007010 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 62 

Table B-3-14. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep

Willard Creek 160201020402 

2,1,2 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.028069 0.391183 0/0 

Upper Part of 

North Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020501 

2,2,2 2 roading 

and 

irrigation 

diversions 

 1 good populations 

2 some 

canalizations 

2 some what 

isolated 

2 overall 0.045420 0.000000 44/0 

North Ogden 

160201020502 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0.343040 0.000000 81/0 

Left Fork 

South Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020601 

1,1,1 1 good 

stability 

1 good 

numbers 

567 

fish/mile, 7 

miles of 

stream 

1 good 

condition 

2 some 

water falls in 

area 

2 good 

overall some 

crossbreeding 

0.045449 0.000000 0/71 

Wheat Grass 

Creek 

160201020602 

3,2,2 1 Overall 

good 

stability 

2 A mix of 

native & 

nonnative 

fish 

2 some 

sedimentation 

and grazing 

and trail 

impacts 

1 good 

connectivity 

2 some 

habitat 

concerns 

0.488347 0.009386 0/4373 

Right Fork 

South Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020603 

1,1,1 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 little water 

on Forest 

0.031915 0.000000 16/0 

Beaver Creek 

160201020604 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non -C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non -C 

Forest Lands 

0.320175 0.000000 0/0 

Middle South 

Fork Ogden 

River 

160201020605 

2,2,2 2 Causey 

Reservoir 

influenced 

2 limited 

numbers 

2 non-native 

species 

2 somewhat 

limited 

3 very 

limited with 

many risks 

0.855498 7.461755 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 63 Table B-3-14. continued. 

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazing 

Headmonths 

(cow/sheep) 

Middle Fork 

Ogden River 

160201020606 

2,2,2 0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non WC Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest Lands 

less than 1⁄2 

mile on 

Forest 

0.076456 0.000000 0/0 

Wheeler 

Creek 

160201020607 

2,2,3 2 

relatively 

stable 

2 limited 

population 

2 some in 

channel impacts 

4 three miles 

of stream 

3 limited 

population 

0.610209 16.679276 0/0 

Pineview 

Reservoir area 

160201020608 

2,2,1 2 

Pineview 

Dam 

regulated 

2 limited 

population 

2 non-native 

species 

2 some 

diversions 

3 very 

limited with 

many risks 

0.335841 2.747821 0/0 

Bountiful area 

160201020701 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.284618 0.727147 5 cutthroat 

not present

Farmington 

Centerville 

area 

160201020702 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not present

0.361340 1.081580 5 cutthroat 

not present

Kaysville area 

160201020703 

2,1,3 5 cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat not present

0.115174 0.161373 5 cutthroat 

not present
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 64 Table B-3-15. Risks and threats associated with the Upper Provo River (HUC-16020203) on the Wasatch-Cache 

the identified trend.

Subwatershed 

and 6th Field 

HUC Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth 

and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Gr

H

m

(cow

Upper Provo 

River 

160202030101 3,3,2 

3 heavily regulated dams 

2 moderate populations very dispersed between lakes 

3 a lot of nonnative fish stocked 

4 extremely isolated by dams and flow and nonnative fish 

4 isolation small populations 0.865851 1.939378 817

North Fork 

Provo River 

160202030102 2,2,2 

2 impacted 

by high 

lakes dams 

3 very limited 

numbers of 

fish 16 

fish/mile 

2 

impacted 

historic 

dam 

runoff 

2 some 

instream 

particular 

barriers 

3 small 

populations 0.454641 0.000000 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 65 

160202040108

160202040107

160202040105

160202040104

160202040103

160202040102

160202030102

160202040101

160202030105

160202030301

160202030202

160202030203 160202030103

160202030303

160202030206

160202030204

160202030302

160202030305 160202030403

160202030205

160202030304

160202030306

160202030101

160202030104

No HUC6 Number

Salt Lake County Drainages (16020204) 

and Upper Provo River (16020203)

Subwatersheds (HUC6) Subbasins (HUC4)

N

5 0 5 Miles

Figure B-3- 29. Forth and sixth level HUCs of the Jordan River and Provo River drainages on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National forests, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 66 

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Head

mont

(cow/sh

Draper Area 

160202040101 

2,1,1 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.408762 0.000000 0/0 

Little Cottonwood 

Canyon 

160202040102 

1 mile of cutthroat 

trout 

2,3,2 4 impacted 

by mine 

drainage, 

chemical 

problems 

4 very 

limited 

population 

3 water 

chemistry 

problems 

3 very 

isolated 

4 0.572512 27.298643 0/0 

Big Cottonwood Ck 

160202040103 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.728849 9.180067 0/0 

Mill Creek 

160202040104 

3,3,3 1 natural 

hydrograph 

2 limited 

native 

population 

2 Road and 

trails 

causing 

concerns 

3 very 

isolated 

3 cutthroat 

present, 

CXR 

0.753913 5.958687 0/0 

Parleys Canyon 

160202040105 

2,1,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non 

W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0.243888 0.000000 0/0 

Red Butte Canyon 

160202040107 

2,2,3 2 some 

natural 

flood 

impacts 

2 good 

population 

2 some 

natural fine 

sediments 

2 entire 

drainage 

in use 

2 in RNA 

doing well, 

habitat 

protected 

0.553078 0.000000 0/0 

City Creek Canyon 

160202040108 

2,1,2 0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non 

W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0 Non W-C 

Forest 

Lands 

0.140571 0.000000 0/0 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 67 

160203050001

160203040403

160203040401

160203050002

160203040402

160203040302

160203040303

160203040301

160203040201 160203040102

160300051101 160203040101

160300051102 160300050902

160300051002

West Side (16020305, 16030005) 

and East Side (16020304) Stansburys

Subwatersheds (HUC6)Subbasins (HUC4)

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

N

Figure B-3- 30. Forth and sixth level HUCs of the Stansbury Mountains on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National forests, Utah. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendices 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 68 Table B-3-16. Risks and threats associated with the East Stansburys (HUC-16020304) on the Wasatch-Cache N

identified trend. 

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazin

Head

month

(cow/she

East Stansburrys 

160203040401 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.220481 0.000000 140/0 

East Hickman 

Canyon 

160203040402 

 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.627181 1.526135 327/0 

Magpie Canyon 

area 160203040403 

 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.361260 0.073273 510/0 

Table B-3-17. Risks and threats associated with the West Stansburys (HUC-16020305) on the Wasatch-Cache N

the identified trend.

Subwatershed and 

6th Field HUC 

Number 

Landscape 

Condition 

GI,WQ,WV 

Temporal 

Variability 

Population 

Size 

Growth and 

Survival 

Isolation Overall 

Extinction 

Risk 

Roads, 

Trails, 

Motorized 

Trails (%) 

Developed 

& Special 

Use (%) 

Grazi

Hea

mont

(cow/sh

Northwest 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

160203050001 

2,2,2 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.151549 0.000000 433/

Southwest Side of 

Stansbury 

Mountains 

160203050002 

2,2,3 5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

5 

cutthroat 

not 

present 

5 cutthroat 

not present 

0.220316 0.000000 0/0 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 69 

Conclusions regarding viability of populations and metapopulations on the WCNF 

under current management: 

The Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout are believed to be able to persist on 

the WCNF under current risks and threats (Alternative 4), although losses of some 

populations and declines in some metapopulations are expected. The small, isolated 

populations appear to be at the greatest risk of extirpation either through physically losing 

the population, or loss through introgressions (i.e. crossbreeding with rainbow trout). 

Some of these populations will probably be lost through the actions or lack thereof of 

man in conjunction with natural events. Other may be lost as a result of natural 

consequences from past actions and/or natural events. There are seven populations of 

cutthroat trout that we expect to lose over the next 15 years (Table B-3-18). A number of 

other populations could be lost due to natural or man caused uncharacteristic events such 

as high intensity fires, debris flow, or even chemical spills. This has occurred in the past 

with limited documentation. 

At the subbasins (4th level hucs) level, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are expected 

to continue to provide habitat for the Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout and 

many other aquatic and semi-aquatic species. There were assumptions made about 

effects to viability through risks and threats described above because of the lack of all the 

data and basic understanding of life history stages. In addition tohaving a limited 

population data set, data is not available for these species’ genetic variability, sex ratios, 

movements within and among populations, or meta-populations. As such, assessments 

were made based on potential threats relative to current risk and status of the populations. 

Table B-3-18. Populations on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest that are believe to be 

headed for extirpation during the next 15 years, the suspected cause and current efforts to 

maintain the population. 

6th Level HUC Population 

Name 

Suspected Cause Potential Additional Action 

160101010103 Hayden Fork Limited population size. 

Non-native fish 

competition. Loss of 

complexity from historic 

tie hacking. 

Treatment to remove non-native 

fish and habitat enhancement to 

restore complexity could decrease 

threats. Habitat survey work 

completed in 2001. 

160102020403 High Creek Interbreeding with nonnative rainbow trout. No 

connectivity with other 

populations. Only 

hybridized 

cutthroat/rainbow trout 

have been found in the 

drainage. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage 

160102030306 Saddle 

Creek 

Lack of water, habitat 

impacts from roads, nonnative fish and grazing 

upstream of the 

population. No 

connectivity with other 

Site-specific analysis to identify 

exact location of the problems and 

potential corrective solutions need 

to be identified. North Rich 

Allotment Management Plan 

currently under revision. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 70 

populations due to 

intermittent stream flows. 

Current year class 

failures. 

160201010105 South Fork 

Weber River 

Limited population size. 

Non-native fish 

competition. Interbreeding 

with non-native rainbow 

trout. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202040102 Little 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

Limited population size. 

Poor water chemistry 

(heavy metals). 

Upstream access to the 

stream and the potential 

for toxic spills are 

moderate. 

Efforts to explore correction of the 

water chemistry problem are being 

made. 

160202030101 Soapstone 

Creek 

The stream has been dry 

by late June in 2001 and 

2002, which would cause 

year class failures. Lack 

of habitat complexity. No 

connectivity with other 

populations. Limited 

population size. 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if all 

native, pure cutthroat trout have 

been lost from this drainage. 

160202030101 Rock Creek Limited habitat and water. 

No connectivity with other 

populations (suspected 

biological barrier). 

Additional drainage wide surveys 

could be completed to verify if a 

biological barrier exists for this 

population. 

Table B-3-19. The 15 and 100 year expectations regarding the likelihood of the species 

to maintain viability at the 4th level HUC under current management. 

Watershed 

Code 

Watershed Name 15 Year Call 100 Year 

Call 

Comments 

14040106 Henrys Fork River Viable Viable 

14040107 Blacks Fork River Viable Viable 

14040108 Muddy Creek Viable Viable Contingent on 

private land 

stewardship 

14060003 Duchesne River No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16010101 Upper Bear River Viable Viable Loss of a 

population 

16010201 Bear Lake Off Forest Off Forest No fish on Forest

16010202 North Cache Valley Viable 

(declining) 

Nonviable Loss of a 

population 

16010203 South Cache Valley Viable Viable Some populations 

nonviable 

16010204 West Wellsville Mountains No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16020101 Upper Weber River Viable Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of a 

population 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 71 

16020102 Ogden Front Viable Viable 

(declining) 

16020203 Provo River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of 

populations 

16020204 Jordan River Viable 

(declining) 

Viable 

(declining) 

Loss of 

populations 

16020304 Rush-Tooele Valleys No cutthroat No cutthroat 

16020305 Skull Valley area No cutthroat No cutthroat 

Step 5. Conservation approaches for species-at-risk to 

maintain existing populations. 

There are a number of guiding documents, directives and processes currently in-place 

that will aid in the long-term conservation of aquatic ecosystems and pertinent to the 

Bonneville and Colorado River cutthroat trout on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

The existing documents that guide the management of the general water quality 

conditions are found in the Desired Future Conditions, Goals, Subgoals, Standards and 

Guideline sections in this Forest Plan and EIS. The existing documents that provide 

direction for the long-term persistence of the cutthroat trout include: 

1. “Fish Stocking and Transfer Procedures” of the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (1997). This document set out the general policy and procedures 

for stocking and transplanting of fish in the State of Utah. In it’s policy 

direction it states, “Fish stocking . . .will only be conducted in a manner that 

does not adversely affect the long-term viability of native aquatic species or 

their habitat, aids native species conservation, and enhances fish populations 

in existing aquatic habitats and aids the efficient and effective management of 

recreational fisheries to provide angling diversity and participation.” 

2. The Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in the 

State of Utah” (Utah Division of Wildlife Resource 1997). This conservation 

strategy identifies the major threats and actions to be taken to preserve this 

species. It is generally a fish management document with minimal emphasis 

on habitat protection and enhancement. 

3. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout in 

the State of Utah” (Utah Division of Wildlife Resource 1997). This 

conservation strategy identifies the major threats and actions to be taken to 

preserve this species. It is generally a fish management document with 

minimal emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement. 

4. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming” (2001) provides a unified direction for the conservation of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest B3 - 72 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

5. The “Conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki utah) in the States of Idaho, Utah, Nevada and 

Wyoming ” (2000) provides a unified direction for the conservation of 

Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

6. The “Range-wide conservation agreement and strategy for Bonneville cutthroat 

trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah)”, (2001) provides a unified direction for the 

conservation of Bonneville cutthroat trout across its range. 

7. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on Rangeland Health (WCNF 1996), 

as ammended with this EIS, provides recognition of the value of waters with 

native cutthroat trout. The waters containing native cutthroat are identified 

with class I riparian values. 

8. The goals, standards and guides in this document also provide conservation 

measures along with the Forest Service Manual section 2600. As part of this 

direction, prior to approval of any ground disturing activity, a biological 

evaluation/assessment must be prepared. This document must then be signed 

by the botanist, terrestrial and aquatic ecologist identifing the consequences of 

those activities. 

9. On the ground actions also continue to occur at site specific locations. Range 

exclosures, monitoring and habitat improvement projects continue to be 

implemented. 

10. A major action that has taken place istherecognition of the value of the streams on 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the long term preservation of the 

cutthroat trout in the states of Utah and Wyoming. In Alternative 7 this had 

been done by designating all areas inhabitated by cutthroat trout as 

perscription 3.1 riparian. This sets forth the objectivers for the area and the 

importance of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in preserving these species. 

The Forest Plan will provide additional direction and conservation measures for reducing 

risks and threats.