1. Bonneville Cutthroat Trout and Bluehead Sucker
in the Weber River: Endangered Species Act Implications?
Paul Thompson
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

2. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
UDWR Mission
 To serve the people of Utah as a trustee and guardian of the state’s wildlife
UDWR Resource Goal
 Expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving
wildlife habitat
My Responsibility
 Keep any species from being listed as federally threatened or endangered. If a species was
to become listed:
o We are not doing our job
o The state loses management authority
o Landowners, water managers, municipalities and counties can be negatively
impacted
UDWR Core Belief
 Wildlife is valuable to everyone

3. Structure of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Northern Region Office
 Manage wildlife and aquatic resources including their habitat in the entire Weber River
Watershed
 Two, unique fish species occur
o Bonneville cutthroat trout
o Bluehead sucker
o Conservation actions are directed at both species to preclude the need for listing
under the Endangered Species Act

4. Bonneville Cutthroat Trout
Distribution
 Historically occurred throughout the Bear River and Bonneville Basin
 Stronghold populations still occur in the Weber River:
 Lower Weber River
 Lost Creek
 Chalk Creek
 Upper Weber River
 Ogden River (South and North Forks)
Conservation Efforts
 UDWR and others have been actively managing and
implementing conservation actions since the early 1970s
 Was petitioned to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1979,
1992, and 1998
 USFWS found not warranted for federal listing
 Sufficient number of populations
 Active conservation of the species through partnerships
Future Petition/Listing under ESA?
 Unlikely with the amount of conservation actions previously taken, currently underway
and planned in the future
 Still potential for petition of an unique life history form - fluvial

5. Bonneville Cutthroat Trout
Resident versus Fluvial Life History
 Resident
 Majority of remaining populations
 Populations occur in smaller stream reaches where they complete their entire life cycle
 Fish are often smaller in size
 Fluvial
 Few populations with this life cycle remain
 Individuals grown larger and need to travel to complete its life cycle
 A population of fluvial fish were recently discovered in the Lower Weber River
 Significant challenge - number of barriers
Resident Fluvial

6. Lower Weber Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Population

7. Lower Weber River BCT Fluvial Population
• Identified mainstem (n=5) and tributary (n=10) barriers
• Have provided passage at one mainstem barrier (mouth of Weber
Canyon) and two tributary barriers (Gordon and Jacobs creeks)
• Have secured funding to provide passage at one additional tributary
barrier (Strawberry Creek)
• Have screened two mainstem diversions

8. Bluehead Sucker
Distribution/Background
 Historically occurred throughout the Green, Colorado, Bear, Snake and Weber rivers
 Recent genetic work has determined that two species exist (Hopken et al. 2013; Unmack
et al. 2014)
 Green/Colorado
 Bear/Snake/Weber
 Remaining populations in Utah:
 Weber River – small population (<1,000)
 Snake River – Raft River and Pole Creek
 Bear River – none found, surveys still needed
Conservation Efforts
 UDWR and others have been actively managing and implementing conservation actions
since the early 2000s
 No federal petitions to date
Future Petition/Listing under ESA?
 Very likely, anticipating a petition to list possibly within the next 3-5 years
 When new genetic information arises and splits a species into two groups
 The weaker of the two is often petitioned
 The Bear/Snake/Weber populations is the weaker of the two groups

9. Bluehead Sucker Distribution in the Weber River
Adjacent map created from 2003-2013
inventories
Monitoring indicates the strongest
populations remain from Ogden upstream
into Weber Canyon and from Morgan to
Henefer

10. Threats to Bluehead Sucker in the Weber River
Loss of habitat connectivity (e.g., dams/diversions)
Habitat Degradation (e.g., channelization leading to loss of juvenile rearing habitats)
Alteration in stream temperature (e.g., colder water between Echo/Rockport Res.)
Alteration of the hydrograph
 Reduced peak in spring runoff
 Timing
 Duration
 Reduced or increased base flows
Predation/Competition from other fish species

11. Partnerships Making a Difference
Diversion at the Mouth of Weber Canyon
• Project cost >½ million dollars
• 15 Cooperators
•Solidified an aging irrigation structure that had the potential to fail
• Realized quantifiable water savings through modernizations and efficiencies
•Modified and screened irrigation intakes on south and north sides
• Easier to obtain water and reduced debris in ditches
• Fish passage channel constructed
• First fish to pass upstream at this diversion since the 1930s

12. Partnerships Making a Difference
Fish Salvage below Echo Dam
• Received a call from the Weber River Water Users Association
• The spillway pool was to be drained for repairs
• Did we have interest in salvaging fish?
• Moved 10 bluehead sucker (9 juveniles) and 7 fluvial Bonneville cutthroat trout

13. How will the USFWS Evaluate a Bluehead Sucker Petition?
• Receive a Petition
• Evaluate petition for new and substantial information
• If no, dismiss petition
• If yes, complete a 12 month status review
• Pull all information together and evaluate threats
• Not warranted
• Warranted
• Define Critical Habitat (areas under a microscope and heavily regulated), in
Utah:
• Snake River
• Bear River (at least downstream of Cutler Dam)
• Weber River (at least downstream of Rockport Dam)

14. How will the USFWS Evaluate a Bluehead Sucker Petition?
We need to show positive conservation efforts through partnerships
Win
Rangewide Conservation Plan (2006)
Conservation Target in Weber River Plan
Reconnected habitat at mouth of canyon
Screened two irrigation ditches
Determined population size
Mitigation - one mainstem barrier
Collaboration saved 10 bluehead suckers
We still have much work ahead of us
Loss
Lack of awareness
Other diversions were constructed/fortified
>30 mainstem barriers
Remaining ditches still open
Populations are small
Populations are declining
Minimal recruitment
Spawning locations unknown
River is channelized
Hydrograph has been altered
18 million recently spent on flood control
Every day actions take place with negative
consequences

15. How Should We Move Forward?
Communication
Collaboration
Cooperation
We need to have a good track record with real results and we can achieve this
through partnerships

16. Questions