Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GJ25J8 <br /> <br />G6, 001) do not support populations of these species. The geographical distribution <br />of the endangered fish was .an important determinant of control strategies. <br /> <br />Within each of the four small groups of the workshop, there was extensive <br />discussion regarding the assignment of priority for recovery to each of the geographic <br />reaches. The rankings presented in Table 3 reflect the outcome of some negotiations <br />that occurred within each small group. Groups differed somewhat in terms of the <br />criteria on which priorities were based. For example, one group attached a higher <br />ranking to an upstream reach or a tributary if it provided flows or influenced water <br />quality in a manner beneficial for the maintenance of one or more life history stages of <br />the endangered species. The importance of physicochemical parameters such as <br />flow, temperature, and sediment was also recognized in terms of their effect on <br />possible reintroductions. Some participants assigned recovery priorities mainly on the <br />basis of the current distributions of the endangered species, while others included <br />reaches with potential for recovery. Because the small groups employed somewhat <br />different evaluation strategies, the authors have had to exercise some judgment when <br />summarizing the information for the Strategic Plan. <br /> <br />Concern for the presence of non natives in various locations was governed by <br />some of the same geographical considerations that influenced priorities for recovery of <br />natives, but other factors also came into play. Discussion at the workshop revealed a <br />pragmatic assessment of priorities. The predominant approach involved assigning <br />priorities on the basis of the following question: "If you were going to kill nonnative fish <br />today, where would you go?" Not surprisingly, the ranking of reaches on the basis of <br />control prospects shows a somewhat narrower scope than priorities for recovery (Table <br />4). Concern for nonnative fishes occurred chiefly, but not exclusively, where the listed <br />species are most abundant. In general, there was much less concern about the <br />potential for interactions than for those interactions that are likely to be occurring now. <br />There were also two reaches (Y3 and 01) where the concern for interactions exceeded <br />priorities for recovery. These selections are significant because they acknowledge <br />importance of upstream reservoirs as sources of nonnatives that should be controlled. <br /> <br />The importance of geographic areas for fish control were assessed after the <br />workshop was over. Each participant received copies of tables summarizing workshop <br />results and was asked for additional comments. Workshop results and supplemental <br />comments were used to prepare a summary (Table 5) for each geographic area <br />addressed in Tables 2-4. For information given in tables 3 and 4, a Low score was <br />assigned if three or four of the small groups had given the geographic area a low <br />priority. In cases where three or four small groups assigned a rank of High or <br />Medium/High, a score of High is given in Table 5. Other combinations of small group <br />scores resulted in a summary score of Medium. In case of even divisions among the <br />work groups (e.g., 2 medium and 2 high rankings), the summary score would include <br /> <br />27 <br />