7332 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK B: WORKSHOP #1 TASK OBJECTIVES Workshop #1 was held in Salt Lake City, January 5-9, 1987. It was attended by 17 people, including 3 BIOjWEST organizers, 5 species experts, and 9 participants (Table 3). Of the six species experts identified by FWS, two were unable to attend, but only one designated a substitute. This workshop was held following assimilation of the database to determine what data to use in curve development and how to parti tion these data. The purpose of Workshop #1 was to assemble species experts to make decisions on use of the data assimilated in Task A for curve generation. The specific objectives of Workshop #1 were to: 1. Determine which data should be used for HSI curve development. 2. Determine how those data should be stratified, pooled, and analyzed. DATA FOR HSI CURVE DEVELOPMENT Methods Workshop #1 was conducted by three BIOjWEST organizers, who included a chairman, a facilitator, and a database manager/analyst. These three indi viduals had the primary responsibility of organizing and conducting the workshop (Table 3). The role of the chai rman was to conduct the meeting, describe the database to the experts and participants, and solicit input on da ta use. The primary function of the facilitator was to moderate the workshop, insure equal input from all experts and participants, and promote consensus decisions. The database manager/analyst was responsible for insuring that the database was complete, describing available data analyses and curve development techniques, performing the requested analyses, and recording final decisions. All workshop proceedings were recorded on flip charts and a reel- to-reel tape recorder. These three individuals did not have decision-making authority. All decisions on data partitioning/pooling and analysis were made by a panel of five species experts. These experts were invited to the workshops by FWS because of their professional expertise and working knowledge of the target fishes. These experts mayor may not have a working knowledge of IFIM in its totality. The decisions of four of the five experts were needed for a consensus. The participants represented a cross-section of interests and were encouraged to contribute to the workshop discussions, but they had no decision- making authority. These participants may have influenced decisions of the species experts by their comments. Some participants were called upon as technical advisors, particularly on the IFIM process. 10