My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7926
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 5:28:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7926
Author
Annear, T. C. and A. L. Conder.
Title
Relative Bias of Several Fisheries Instream Flow Methods.
USFW Year
n.d.
USFW - Doc Type
Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />the riffle and all-habi.tat categories (methods 3 and 6) greatly <br /> <br />.~,~jtk . <br />excee4.i~i\... <br />}/i;~:~~f[~"; <br />ins trea.m' <br /> <br />available late summer flows. This could create rather than resolve <br /> <br />flow conflicts by damaging a biologist's credibility or falsely implying a need <br /> <br />for upstream storage of water. <br /> <br /> <br />Estimates of MF based on statistical documentation methods showed generally <br /> <br />similar levels of bias with from four to six unbiased recommendations. J!t?i1:h the <br /> <br />exception of Method 5 (AF minus LSD for riffles) I no significant trends were <br /> <br />observed when es timates were not unbiased. <br /> <br />All of the biased recommendations <br /> <br />for Method 5 were biased low. Combining all unbiased and upwards-biased recom- <br /> <br />mendations for each method showed that methods 7 and 4 generateds~.&~ificant <br />-....... .... <br /> <br />numbers of recommendations that were not biased low. <br /> <br />Although none of the wetted perimeter methods provided consistently unbiased <br /> <br />recommendations, statistical documentation of MF recommendations offers certain <br /> <br />ad van tages over sub j ec tively identified recommendations. <br /> <br />Mos t obvious among <br /> <br />these is precise documentation of estimates through the use of defensible sta- <br /> <br />tis tical tools and the removal of investigator bias. <br /> <br />Though we found none of <br /> <br />the wetted perimeter methods to be cons.istently unbiased.(according to our defi- <br /> <br />nition) or different from each other, statistical documentation methods (such as <br /> <br />methods 7 or 4) may be preferred over subjective methods where the wetted peri- <br /> <br />meter approach is the only method that will be used and an objective MF selec- <br /> <br />tion technique is desired. <br /> <br />Habitat Retention <br /> <br />Methods 10 and 14 (where all three 'criteria were met for the average of all <br /> <br />riffles and where two of three criteria were met for a critical riffle respec- <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.