8063

• 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

' APPENDIX G
' Annual report Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation
Aoril 21, 1998
pure populations within the tri-state area, and to identify populations in each GMU
which could be used for translocation or broodstock development activities.
On March 2, 1998, the Biology Committee met to begin these tasks. During that
meeting, it became clear that the viability definitions developed as part of the
overall Conservation Strategy (and described above in #2) were not workable for
establishing the tri-state baseline population. It was apparent that the
discrepancies among participants between the goals (what is wanted in the future)
and the baseline (what is here today) required another level of decision-making. As
a result, representatives from each of the three states were assigned to develop a
' listing of populations in their states with descriptors of important variables relating
to each population.
' Following this meeting, a joint, two-day meeting of the Colorado-Wyoming and
Bonneville (Utah) Chapters of the American Fisheries Society was conducted and
featured special sessions on research and conservation for Colorado River cutthroat
' trout. This met a Coordination Committee objective for initiating an annual
conference for information transfer among CRN experts and stakeholders.
Draft baseline lists of existing CRN populations with purity, adult population size,
habitat area, stocking and barrier data have been prepared in tabular form for
Colorado (Bruce Rosenlund) and Wyoming (Ron Remmick). These lists are to be
used to develop the summary of pure populations by consensus rather than a
definitional process. Rationale behind the inclusion of each population will be
included. Implied in this process is a consistent application of available results
' from five standardized information sources: morphometrics-meristics, mitochondrial
DNA, nuclear DNA, stocking history, presence of barriers; but application of a
single set of criteria is unlikely. What has emerged from group discussions are the
concepts of "restoration" and "conservation" designations for pure populations of
CRN, and these designations have been applied to the Colorado and Wyoming
1 population lists. Utah has yet to provide a similar baseline list or participate in any
of the discussion surrounding development of these tables. At this time we must
assume Utah wants the CRN populations listed in their existing conservation
strategy to serve as their proposed baseline list for group review. A major effort
will be necessary to resolve questions of how the various kinds of information
related to purity should be used in developing the baseline and for the listing of
potential source populations for restoration. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
offered some definitions of "conservation" and "restoration" populations, and how
both serve to preserve the remaining CRN genetic diversity.

3