Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />The proposed changes inclUde a recommended new principle (on the page immediately <br />following this memo). several recommended changes in wording of INs. and <br />recommended categories for all but one Information Need. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Per direction of the AMWG. these recommendations are coming to you for you to <br />conSider for a recommendation to the AMWG. The TWG and the Ad Hoc Committee <br />may have two separate recommendations for the AMWG, or you may be able to agree <br />to common language at your meeting In May. <br /> <br />This item was on your agenda for your May 28 and 30. 2003 meeting; however. you did <br />not have a quorum at the time the report was considered and you decided to reconsider <br />the report at your upcoming June 30. 2003 meeting. When you last saw this document, <br />there was no category specified for RINs 2.6.1 or 2.6.2. The committee has since <br />agreed that the category for RIN 2.6.2 should be A. However. the committee was <br />unable to agree whether these RiN 2.6.1 shouid be classified as Category A or <br />Category B. The reasons to support each choice. plus some other information from <br />members of the committee. are included below In this cover memo. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />M.D. 2.6 Maintain mannelmouth sucker. bluehead sucker and speckled dace) <br />abundance and distribution in the Colorado River ecosvstem below Glen Canvon <br />Dam for viable populations. <br /> <br />RIN 2.6.1 What is a viable population? <br /> <br />Reasons 10 SUDDOn C;lfel!orv Bore for RIN 2..6.2 (bv Randv Seaholm): <br />In RIN 2.6.1. concernmg what is (] viable population. we are okay with the AMP. through <br />the monitoring program. collecting cenain data for use in helping to make an estimate of <br />what a viable population IS. However. once the infonnation is collected. we are of the <br />opinion that it is then the responsibility of the Arizona Fish and Game orthe National <br />Park Service if appropriate. to delermme what the viable population value is. There are a <br />number of ways to establish what a viable population is. again. we believe it is the <br />responsibility of either ATlzona Fish and Game or the National Park Service to describe <br />the methodology that they believe is sufficient for determining what a viable population <br />of any native fish species which is not endangered is. We are opposed to doing a full <br />"Population Viability Analysis" absent a fully justified and demonstratable need for <br />such. We understand that the AMP needs a value to use when it comes to setting targets, <br />but it is not the responsibility of AMP to establish this value. Therefore. this is at least a <br />Category B and likely a Category C task. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Reasons to suooort Category A for RIN 2.6.1 (by Pam Hyde): <br />The AMP has an interest In keeping native fish species in Grand Canyon off the <br />endangered species list. And in fact, we wish to do more than that - we wish to maintain <br />viable populations of these native species. <br /> <br />Since these species are not listed. it is not the exclusive responsibility and jurisdiction of <br />the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recover these species. and. in the process. set <br /> <br />AHCIO memo <br /> <br />ii <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />'. <br />