My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8063
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:03:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8063
Author
Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council.
Title
Minutes, Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council - April 22-23, 1998.
USFW Year
1998.
USFW - Doc Type
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
1 <br />' The FWS, in their consideration of T&E status looks at <br />' several parameters; status of the populations and habitat, <br />adequacy of regulatory mechanisms, over-utilization, disease <br />and predation. After receipt of the petition, a finding <br />will be made within 90 days as to whether more investigation <br />' is necessary to determine if listing is warranted. <br />Following that the FWS has one year to make a determination <br />as: list the species as T&E; worthy of T&E but precluded by <br />other activities or conditions; or, not warranted for <br />listing. Then, another year after that to make a final <br />decision. The basis of a CRFWC Conservation Plan to be <br />considered in the process is; it must consider all the <br />aforementioned considerations for listing and effectively <br />show how those threats, if present, would be removed; there <br />must be a strong commitment among the parties to the <br />agreement to carry out the plan (funding), and the plan must <br />show things will be done "on the ground". Issues with this <br />particular cutthroat species appear to be mostly issues of <br />genetic purity and genetic standards, and questions of <br />populations and their particularly important groupings. The <br />Council's foresight has placed them well over one year ahead <br />' of the issue and left them in a good position to affect the <br />coming listing process. <br />' The coming together of a listing petition with the <br />CRFWC Conservation Plan finalization makes it all the more <br />important to have this work agreed to and finished by the <br />' CRFWC January meeting so that adequate provision can be made <br />to deal with FWS needs in their findings process. The <br />Council considered it would probably be necessary to have <br />' the lead person for the FWS be present at the CRFWC January <br />staff meeting to work through the FWS "boilerplate" in the <br />draft conservation plan. The secretary was instructed to <br />' prepare the agenda for this eventuality. Mr. Hammil <br />indicated the Council should work through Bruce Roselund for <br />FWS administrative guidelines and other input. <br />' CRFWC and the Concept of a New Marketing of Fishing <br />Program <br />' Mr. Janish provided the group with an update of <br />happenings in the fisheries management field with the <br />concept of marketing fishing similarly to other modern <br />methods of marketing products and activities. During the <br />last year the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, <br />created by the Secretary of the Interior, has been working <br />' on an amendment to the re-authorization of the Wallop-Breaux <br />legislation to strengthen "outreach" and increasing fishing <br />' 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.