Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VAl. <br />V.A.2. <br /> <br />Conduct standardized monitoring program. <br />Conduct interagency data management program to compile, manage, and <br />maintain, all research and monitoring data collected by the Recovery <br />Program. <br /> <br />VI. Accomplishment ofFY 02 Tasks and Deliverables, Discussion ofInitial Findings and <br />Shortcomings: <br /> <br />Database Management <br /> <br />P1T tags have been distributed as researchers and hatchery managers have requested <br />them. <br /> <br />The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker tagging lists were updated through <br />200 I. The chub tagging list is updated through 2000 and will be updated through the <br />present as soon as field workers finish with compiling tagging lists associated with <br />work on population estimates. Data on fish tagged during 2002 will be submitted by <br />researchers this winter and added to the lists. <br /> <br />The Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker tagging lists were provided to <br />several researchers who requested them. Checks for specific fish were made for <br />several individual researchers. Cross checking with tag distribution lists were also <br />made for several researchers who needed to verify tag numbers that could not be . <br />matched up. Further work needs to be done on the razorback sucker list to ensure that <br />recaptured hatchery fish are accurately represented in the database. A separate list is <br />maintained for stocked fish until they are recaptured by field investigators. That fish <br />is then added to the tagging list as stocked and then subsequently recaptured. <br /> <br />All PIT tag numbers received were checked for possible errors by comparing the list <br />of incoming PIT tag numbers with a list of all PIT tags issued: Several minor errors <br />were found and clarified with the original investigators. In the past, the only checking <br />done was to check validity of PIT tag numbers. Beginning in 2000, checks were <br />made on major codes included with the data to ensure consistency with established <br />guidelines. A few inconsistencies were found and corrected. However, by and large <br />the tagging data submitted by researchers is in very good shape when received for <br />inclusion in the data base. <br /> <br />Although the data are checked as they are entered into the database, some errors can <br />not be detected until someone works directly with the data. Several problems were <br />detected by researchers working with the data, including some possibly missing data. <br />After considerable checking with different researchers, it was discovered that two <br />small data sets had been inadvertently excluded when data were submitted. Those <br />data will be added to the 2001 version of the tagging lists. There are undoubtedly <br />other small amounts of data that might still remain to be submitted. <br /> <br />FY 2002 Annual Report 16 Page - 3 <br />