|
<br />on both NFS lands and other lands, has occurred only within the last 149 years, since settlement of
<br />the basin began. The protection of BCT occupied habitats and its genetic integrity should become,
<br />with a sense of urgency, a priority for agencies and managers accountable for species conservation
<br />and land stewardship.
<br />
<br />Most of the 67 BCT populations on NFS lands have been genetically verified by one or more methods.
<br />Meristic analysis accounted for 87% of verification while electrophoresis accounted for 46%, and
<br />mDNA validation was completed on only 28% of the total BCT populations (Table 7). Origin of
<br />populations indicated 66% were from remnant BCT stocks and 34% represented transplanted popu-
<br />lations from remnant stocks (Table 8). Most BCT populations were stream residents (94%). Stream-
<br />flow depletion and habitat fragmentation are causal factors in elimination of the once prevalent
<br />populations of fluvial and adfluvial BCT. Abundance of BCT population numbers was indicated to be
<br />69% common, 17% abundant, and 13% rare.
<br />
<br />The presence of exotic fish in sub-basins with BCT populations continues to be a threat (Table 9).
<br />Exotic fish presence within sub-basins was based on visual observation, creel census, electrofishing,
<br />and stream restoration treatment. The exotic species present were: rainbow trout 67%, brown trout
<br />51 %. brook trout 9%, and other cutthroat trout (hatchery stock) 61 %. The State of Utah is conducting
<br />a state-wide assessment of hatchery operations and stocking programs to assess the cumulative
<br />effects, by sub-basins, on indigenous cutthroat, i.e. BCT and Colorado River cutthroat trout (URMCC
<br />1995). Utah and the FS are currently developing joint cooperative fish stocking policies on NFS lands,
<br />including wilderness areas, in order to ensure no further compromise of indigenous fish populations
<br />and habitats.
<br />
<br />Partner conservation groups, like Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, Wilderness Watch,
<br />Utah Wilderness Association, Native Utah Cutthroat Association, and others continue to challenge
<br />state and federal agencies to change policies in order to protect indigenous cutthroat trout and other
<br />aquatic biota in threatened stream ecosystems (Duff 1995, Murray 1995, McGurrin, Ubert and Duff
<br />1995) .
<br />
<br />Habitat condition and trend information was omitted in some questionnaire responses due to unavail-
<br />able survey information. However, available condition and trend information linked to land-use
<br />activities indicated BCT habitat condition on NF's was 13% excellent, 49% good. 18% fair, 11 % poor,
<br />and 2% extremely degraded. Where condition was reported for adjacent land ownership, within the
<br />watershed, only 3% was good condition, 6% fair, and 28% in poor to extremely degraded condition,
<br />and 63% in unknown condition. Trends in NF habitat condition indicated 19% in increasing stability,
<br />58% stable, 7% decreasing stability, and 16% unknown. Adjacent land ownership indicated 21% in
<br />stable trend and 22% in declining trend and 57% in unknown trend. Condition and trend information
<br />is identified in tables for each specific BCT population by major geographic area.
<br />
<br />Factors contributing to stream habitat condition and trends as a result of land-use activities, and
<br />specific causative activities were identified on most of the NF's. Those contributing to primary habitat
<br />degradation were sedimentation 68%, changes in channel morphology and lack of woody debris
<br />28%, and dewatering 19%. Land-use activities causing these factors were identified as grazing 58%,
<br />roading 34%, and mining-logging, 4% each. Tables shown under specific populations identify these
<br />factors and activities by NF. While some ratings appear low when reported basin-wide, they indicate
<br />proportionally higher and more severe ratings for sub-populations, i.e. some NF's indicate 75-100%
<br />impact from sedimentation 44-89% impact from dewatering and channel morphology changes, up
<br />to 100% impact from grazing, 50% impact of mining and roading, and a 22% impact of logging.
<br />
<br />43
<br />
|