|
<br />tegory III criterifl atte~pt
<br />; by factoring out the ll1I~-
<br />ability. G:ategory IV cn-
<br />[led curves developed for
<br />IS such as cover or season.
<br />ent of 51 curves for the
<br />pback chub in the Upper
<br />asin came primarily from
<br />[ criteria. Some field ob-
<br />available for most life
<br />II), but little or no data
<br />r others (category I). Hab-
<br />dex curves for humpback
<br />ously developed by Hol-
<br />faldez and Nilson (1982).
<br />past curve development
<br />orporated into the present
<br />a population of humpback
<br />\e Little Colorado River of
<br />data from this population
<br />1 this project.
<br />k chub is one of four en-
<br />1 fishes of the Colorado
<br />ltened with extinction. The
<br />:olorado squawfish (Ptych-
<br />)()nytail (Gila elegans), and
<br />!r (Xyrauchen texanus). All
<br />:k sucker, currently a can-
<br />re listed as endangered un-
<br />!'red Species Act of 1973 (16
<br />~3, as amended). The pres-
<br />:overy of these endangered
<br />lpted a need to ac~urat~ly
<br />needs of their vanous hfe
<br />, shown to be a formidable
<br />shery biologists in the U p-
<br />tiver Basin because of the
<br />rence of the species, high
<br />, and severe turbulence and
<br />me occupied habitats.
<br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
<br />se to implement IFIM to as-
<br />leeds of these endangered
<br />their endangered status and
<br />nce of water use and water
<br />o the people of the Upper
<br />r Basin, an integrated sys-
<br />!ss was initiated to quantify
<br />rarious water management
<br />l the quality and quantity of
<br />rle aspect of this process was
<br />!nt of 51 curves for the Col-
<br />sh, humpback chub and ra-
<br />~r. It was determined that
<br />1fficient information on the
<br />levelop 51 curves for that
<br />
<br />species. Although 51 curves were devel-
<br />oped for all three species, this paper deals
<br />with only the humpback chub. 51 curves
<br />for the other two species will be presented
<br />in subsequent papers. The objectives of the
<br />overall curve development project were to:
<br />(1) assimilate a database for the endan-
<br />
<br />gered fishes in the upper basin, (2) conf
<br />with species experts to determine whi(
<br />data were suitable for 51 curve develo
<br />ment, (3) analyze the selected data for;
<br />curves, (4) identify data gaps, and (5) attai
<br />a consensus by species experts on all pha
<br />es of the project.
<br />
<br />METHODS
<br />
<br />In 1986, the FWS contracted BIO/WEST,
<br />Inc. to coordinate the development of 51
<br />curves for the endangered fishes in the U p-
<br />per Colorado River Basin. The basic ap-
<br />proach of the project was to assimilate a
<br />database of previously-collected microhab-
<br />itat data and through a series of two work-
<br />shops, attain a consensus of species experts
<br />on developing accurate and meaningful 51
<br />curves; Six species experts were invited by
<br />the FWS to participate in each of two week-
<br />long workshops. The project was divided
<br />into five tasks: (1) database assimilation, (2)
<br />workshop 1, (3) preliminary 51 curve de-
<br />velopment, (4) workshop 2, and (5) 51 curve
<br />refinement.
<br />
<br />Task 1: Database Assimilation
<br />
<br />~ost data used for this project were re-
<br />ceIved from the FWS as computer files that
<br />had been previously assimilated by that
<br />agency. Some information not included in
<br />this database was also secured and entered
<br />as compatible files. The data represented
<br />the period 1964-1986 and had been col-
<br />lected by 17 different principal investi-
<br />gators for various purposes. In order to or-
<br />ganize the data and facilitate data
<br />evaluation and selection by the experts, a
<br />study narrative was developed for each of
<br />ne~rl~ 100 investigations describing study
<br />obJectIves, methodologies, collection sites,
<br />dates and gear types. Also, a summary table
<br />was ~eveloped for each investigation pre-
<br />sentmg the number of observations (point
<br />measurements for individual fish) associ-
<br />ated wit~ water depth, velocity, substrate,
<br />and h~bItat for each life stage. These study
<br />narratIves and summary tables were sent
<br />to each .species expert prior to workshop 1
<br />to prOVIde familiarity with the database.
<br />
<br />Task 2: Workshop 1
<br />
<br />The purpose of workshop 1 was to eval-
<br />uate the data, determine which partitions
<br />
<br />January 1990 I
<br />
<br />[ R. A. Valdez et a1.
<br />
<br />to use for preliminary 51 curve develoJ
<br />ment, and decide on specific analysE
<br />methods. The week-long workshop was a
<br />tended by 17 people, including 3 wod
<br />shop organizers, 5 species experts (a 6t
<br />was invited but unable to attend), and
<br />participants. The three workshop orgar
<br />izers included a chairman, a facilitator, an,
<br />a database manager/analyst. The role e
<br />the chairman was to conduct the worksho
<br />and ensure equal input from all partici
<br />pants. The facilitator served to moderato
<br />the workshop and ensure consensus de
<br />cisions. The database manager /analys
<br />presented and described the database anc
<br />available data analyses. The species expert
<br />were invited to participate in the projec
<br />by the FWS because of their professiona
<br />expertise and working knowledge of tht
<br />three target species. Only the species ex
<br />perts had decision-making authority, anc
<br />a consensus was considered to be approva.
<br />by four of the five experts. The participanh
<br />represented a cross-section of interests ana
<br />were encouraged to contribute to thE
<br />workshop proceedings, but they had ne
<br />decision-making authority.
<br />The workshop was conducted primarily
<br />by the chairman using a series of large
<br />charts with dendrograms to facilitate the
<br />selection of suitable data (Figure 1). Each
<br />dendrogram was represented by nine cri-
<br />teria or decision points used to determine
<br />the type of data to be included or excluded
<br />from 51 curve development. The nine cri-
<br />teria developed by BIO/WEST and agreed
<br />upon by the experts included life stage,
<br />river, strata, year, gear, time of year, time
<br />of day, sample design, and habitat param-
<br />eters. Each criterion became a decision
<br />point where the panel of experts was asked
<br />if there was a need to sort or partition data.
<br />If the answer was no, the evaluation pro-
<br />ceeded to the next criterion. If the answer
<br />was yes, all possible options were pre-
<br />sented and evaluated. A consensus was
<br />
<br />33 II~
<br />
<br />
|