WCT Multi-state Assessment February 10, 2003 



Table 9. Look-up table for relative population density of adults and sub-adults (excludes YOY and yearlings). 

 Density expressed as a qualitative characterization based on mapping segment site potential. 

 Projected number of adults and sub-adults, excluding YOY and yearlings for each WCT mapping 

 segment. 



Mapping Segment Density 



At or above site potential 

 |(habitat has been enhanced) | 



Somewhat below site potential | 



Substantially below site potential! 



Unknown j 



Part 3 — Change in Focus - Identification of Individual Conservation Populations and Application of Risk 

 aluations for each Population 



At this point the assessment will change from the focus on population mapping segments to a level of 

 assessment related to conserv ation populations and the risks that influence the well-being of the identified 

 populations. At this point, a determination will be made relative to which population mapping units will be 

 combined into a conservation population having a conser\'ation objecti\'e and which mapping units will be 

 assigned to a recreational fishery objective. Those segments identified as having a recreational objective, 

 only, will not be carried forward in the genetic and population risk assessments. Population mapping units 

 having a conservation objective will be further sub-divided based on connectedness or isolation into meta- 

 populations or isolated populations (isolates). Both meta-populations and isolates can serve as conservation 

 populations. Conservation populations can be genetically unaltered or they can reflect a focus on unique traits 

 and characteristics in the presence of hybridization. From this point, only conservation populations will be 

 evaluated for genetic, disease and general population risks. Information on conservation activities, land-use and 

 fishery management will be identified for each conservation population. 



Genetic Risk Assessment 



A genetic risk assessment will be made for each conservation population (e.g meta- or isolate) using a ranking 

 of 1 to 4 to indicate low to progressively higher levels of possible risk (Table 10). The level of risk should not 

 be viewed as an absolute but rather as a indicator of possible or potential risk. Take into consideration 

 those actions and activities (Tables 13 and 14) that may have an influence on genetic risk. 



Page - 59 



