9576 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 45 though we will manage the species based on the larger management units, we will implement activities on a smaller scale. Next, assessment metrics and criteria with which to evaluate the ~ overall effort were chosen based on the number of populations and the size of those populations within each HUC (note: this provision is supportive of elements of Objective 2 in the Range- wide Agreement, which requires partners to "establish measurable criteria to evaluate the number of populations necessary to maintain the three species throughout their respective ranges" and "establish measurable criteria to evaluate the number of individuals necessary within ~ each population to maintain the three species throughout their respective ranges"). To afford additional flexibility, numbers of populations deemed necessary to reach conservation objectives within a given 4-digit HUC maybe distributed among drainages within the management unit such that the probability of achieving success within that management unit is optimized. Finally, it is recognized that the number of individuals per population will likely be dependent upon the ~ size and characteristics of each stream. If enumeration of effective population size is too arbitrary or difficult for a stream or stream segment, the Three Species Conservation Team can discuss the applicability of other measures of population status such as relative abundance as a substitute for numbers of individuals. . Prioritization Three species cooperators will prioritize conservation actions on an annual basis far inclusion in annual work plans. Determination of Utah's management prioritization for the three species on a drainage-by-drainage basis will require careful consideration of 1) the extent of knowledge regarding the status and distribution of the species within each management unit, 2) the degree of ~ risks to the biology, life history, and stability of the species within that management unit (takes into consideration population viability, metapopulation dynamics, and genetic diversity, among others), and 3) the opportunity to adequately provide for the needs of the species within that management unit, including whether funding exists, whether landowners and communities are supportive, etc. (see Figure 3-2). This prioritization can be done for individual projects, 8-digit ~ HUCs, or the 4-digit HUC management units, depending on the needs of the cooperators, though it will most likely be used for 8-digit HUCs as most projects have been identified on that scale. If done initially at the 4-digit HUC or management unit scale, leaving a final result other than a list of high priority projects (i.e. a list of high priority management units), the prioritization will be performed again at the next level to clearly identify the highest priority projects. The initial prioritization step will require the cooperators to consider how much is known for the population (or 8-digit HUC) in question (Table 3-1). Upon completion of the knowledge assessment, managers will have a score assigned to the HUC between zero and five. Scores of 0, 1, and 2 will direct the manager to complete baseline surveys or research within the management . unit to gain more knowledge of the system. Scores of 3, 4, and 5 will direct the manager to move to the risk assessment portion of the priority analysis. If a management unit overall scores a 0, 1, or 2, but contains smaller streams that would score a 3, 4, or 5, those particular HUCs can be removed from the overall management unit and moved into the risk assessment portion of the prioritization. The Team acknowledges that implementation of conservation actions is a high priority and will emphasize implementation over baseline surveys and monitoring, where ~ feasible and practicable. C~