Laserfiche WebLink
4.00 <br /> contribute to the survival and recovery of those species, and human-considerations factors that <br /> may affect the listed species or be impacted by efforts to protect the species. That new <br /> information may include survey data that contribute to time series; analyses that show linkages <br /> among the species, their habitats, and the river ecosystem, including its human uses; <br /> interpretation of monitoring data; and model outputs presented with mechanistic explanations <br /> for phenomena of conservation concern. That new information should be accompanied with an <br /> explanation of its management relevance, describing the pertinence of the information in <br /> addressing the priority management hypotheses that guide the Missouri River Recovery Program <br /> Adaptive Management Plan (and may include any non-priority hypotheses that can be linked to <br /> the survival and recovery of the listed species). <br /> The AMP Technical Team in consultation with the Bird Team, Fish Team, and/or HC Team (as <br /> appropriate), and in consultation with ISAP/ISETR, will consider whether the new information <br /> provided is reliable (constitutes best available science) that warrants consideration in the AM <br /> program planning process. Only if so, then the Technical Team decides whether more data <br /> should be gathered or if directed studies to substantiate the phenomenon of concern are <br /> warranted, or whether initiating deliberations to identify a management response is necessary. <br /> The ISAP/ISETR should be engaged early, either upon the Technical Team receiving the new <br /> information (and provide a complementary assessment of that information), or review the written <br /> response of the Technical Team to that new information. The Technical Team may propose new <br /> or supplementing studies, suggest adjustments to monitoring protocols, or propose new or <br /> amended management actions in the Work Plan update process. The expert panel(s) should be <br /> engaged at appropriate stages in review of such studies,protocols, or actions. <br /> References <br /> Cade, B. S., J. W. Terrell, and B. C. Neely. 2011. Estimating geographic variation in allometric <br /> growth and body condition of blue suckers with quantile regression. Transactions of the <br /> American Fisheries Society 140:1657-1669. <br /> Randall, M., M. Colvin, K. Steffensen, T. Welker, L. Pierce, R. Jacobson. 2016. Assessment of <br /> adult pallid sturgeon fish condition, lower Missouri River: application of new information to the <br /> Missouri River Recovery Program. <br /> Shuman, D. A., and 11 others. 2011. Pallid sturgeon size structure, condition, and growth in the <br /> Missouri River Basin. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27:269-281. <br /> ISAP Comments on Draft Pallid Sturgeon Condition Assessment Page 4 of 4 <br />