WSPC04553 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U025,,7 major questions posed for the next day. The handouts included information sheets to serve as a focus for discussion and for mapping consensus on priorities. Each participant reviewed the materials and marked rankings for those items for which he or she had sufficient expertise. On the next day, participants were assigned to one of four subgroups in which there was a mix of scientists, managers, and interested parties from different parts of the basin. Each group reviewed individual responses to the handouts and produced a single set of responses that was a distillation of group views. Where consensus was easily achieved, a single ranking might be shown, but where group members differed, a range of rankings might be shown. At the conclusion of the small group discussions, the entire group assembled to review and comment on the small group findings, After the worksheets and priorities had been discussed, participants returned to subgroups for developing control solutions that would address priority needs. Each subgroup then presented control scenarios to the whole group and discussed potentials and problems. Workshop Results The tangible products of the two-day workshop consist chiefly of a set of priorities that focused attention on 1) the geographic areas where non natives imperil endangered species, 2) which non natives pose the most serious threats, and 3) what techniques were the most promising for control of the nonnatives. The list of priorities was supported and explained by extensive notes recorded during discussions, and transcriptions of the formal presentations (see Appendix for a brief synopsis of topics). Results of the workshop provided guidance in developing the Strategic Plan (Section VI of this document), but did not cover all areas addressed in the strategic plan, GeoaraDhic priorities The list of river reaches used in the workshop (Figure 2) is only one of the possible classification systems. It reflects years of experience with the fishes and their distributions, and conforms more or less to major geomorphologic features. A more formal geomorphologic scheme is under development, but was not ready for use at the workshop (Frank Pfeifer, USFWS, personal communication, 1996). The correspondence between river reaches identified for the workshop and critical habitat as defined by the USFWS (1994) is also shown in Figure 1. The geographical distribution of life history stages (Table 2) was compiled prior to the workshop (based chiefly on Tyus et al. 1982) and amended by participants based on their experiences. Certain river reaches, for example the lower Yampa (Y1) and the Green River from Split Mountain to Echo Park (G3 and G4), are important for most or all life history stages of the three endangered species. Other river reaches (e.g., Y3, 26