My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9595 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9595 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 5:48:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9595
Author
CRCT Task Force.
Title
Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
USFW Year
1999.
USFW - Doc Type
Fort Collins, CO.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />and manage other areas for increased abundance, <br /> <br />To maintain the genetic diversity of the species, and <br /> <br />To increase the distribution of Colorado River cutthroat trout where ecologically and <br />economically feasible. <br /> <br />The objective of the Conservation Strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout is <br /> <br />To maintain and restore 383 conservation populations in 1754 stream miles and 18 <br />populations in 652 lake acres in 14 GMUs within the historic range. <br /> <br />Objective setting for Colorado River cutthroat conservation will necessarily be a fluid and adaptive <br />process. Although this objective is presented in terms of numbers of populations and the miles or <br />acreages that they occupy, the most meaningful framework for conservation activity is the long-term <br />stability of the at-risk species and ecosystem. This objective embodies the concept that to maintain <br />and restore a population involves work to increase the ecological stability of the population if it is <br />less than optimum. <br /> <br />In Utah, future objectives will be based on historically occupied stream miles categorized <br />by stream order to ensure that all historical stream and watershed types are represented. Colorado <br />has estimated as much as 900 stream miles in 171 streams may be suitable as CRCT habitat (Bennett <br />et al. 1996). All three states should be moving toward objectives set within DPS/ESUs instead of <br />GMUs (see Item A, Definitions and Issues section) and toward an approach that better addresses the <br />issues surrounding long-term st~bility. Until these improvements are implemented, however, the <br />objective above is described in more detail in Table 2. <br /> <br />March 1999 <br /> <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.