An expert panel approach to assessing potential effects of bull trout reintroduction on federally listed salmonids in the Clackamas River, Oregon

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 450-465

  Marcot, Bruce G ^a   Allen, Chris S ^b   Morey, Steve ^b   Shively, Dan ^b   White, Rollie ^b  

^a PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EXPERT SYSTEM; EXTINCTION; NATIVE SPECIES; PANEL DATA; REINTRODUCTION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SALMONID; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CLACKAMAS RIVER; OREGON; UNITED STATES;

ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH; ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS; ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; SALMONIDAE; SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS;

EID: 84862014979     PISSN: 02755947     EISSN: 15488675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2012.675959     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Armstrong, J. S. 2001. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Springer-Verlag, New York.
2. Barrett, P. J. 2009. Estimating Devils Hole pupfish lifestage ratios using the Delphi method. Fisheries 34:73-79.
3. Beauchamp, D. A., and J. J. Van Tassell. 2001. Modeling seasonal trophic interactions of adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:204-216.
4. Cheung, W. W. L., T. J. Pitcher, and D. Pauly. 2005. A fuzzy expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction probabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biological Conservation 124:97-111.
5. Clark, K. E., J. E. Applegate, L. J. Niles, and D. S. Dobkin. 2006. An objective means of species status assessment: adapting the Delphi technique. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:419-425.
6. Clarkson, R. W., P. C. Marsh, S. E. Stefferud, and J. A. Stefferud. 2005. Conflicts between native fish and nonnative sport fish management in the southwestern United States. Fisheries 30(9):20-27.
7. Converse, S. J., K. J. Shelly, S. Morey, J. Chan, A. LaTier, C. Scafidi, D. T. Crouse, and M. C. Runge. 2011. A decision-analytic approach to the optimal allocation of resources for endangered species consultation. Biological Conservation 144:319-329.
8. Crance, J. H. 1987. Guidelines for using the Delphi technique to develop habitat suitability index curves. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.134).
9. Crist, P. J., T. W. Kohley, and J. Oakleaf. 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool. Landscape Ecology 15:47-62.
10. Dunham, J., K. Gallo, D. Shively, C. Allen, and B. Goehring. 2011. Assessing the feasibility of native fish reintroductions: a framework applied to threatened bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:106-115.
11. Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology and Society [online serial] 9(1): article 13. Available: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13. (September 2011).
12. FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. FEMAT, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
13. Fryer, J. K. 1998. Frequency of pinniped-caused scars and wounds on adult spring-summer Chinook and sockeye salmon returning to the Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:46-51.
14. Fukuda, S., and K. Hiramatsu. 2008. Prediction ability and sensitivity of artificial intelligence-based habitat preference models for predicting spatial distribution of Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Ecological Modelling 215:301-313.
15. Gokhale, A. A. 2001. Environmental initiative prioritization with a Delphi approach: a case study. Environmental Management 28:187-193.
16. Gregory, R., and G. Long. 2009. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis 29:518-532.
17. Hodgetts, R. M. 1977. Applying the Delphi technique to management gaming. Simulation 29:209-212.
18. Holthausen, R. S., M. J. Wisdom, J. Pierce, D. K. Edwards, and M. M. Rowland. 1994. Using expert opinion to evaluate a habitat effectiveness model for elk in western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-RP-479.
19. Hsu, C. C., and B. A. Sandford. 2007. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation [online serial] 12. Available: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10. (September 2011).
20. Huntington, H. P. 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51:237-242.
21. Janssen, J. A. E. B., M. S. Krol, R. M. J. Schielen, A. Y. Hoekstra, and J. L. de Kok. 2010. Assessment of uncertainties in expert knowledge, illustrated in fuzzy rule-based models. Ecological Modelling 221:1245-1251.
22. Lee, D. C. 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on bull trout using Bayesian belief networks. Pages 127-147 in S. Ferson and M. Burgman, editors. Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
23. Lehmkuhl, J., M. Raphael, R. Holthausen, J. Hickenbottom, R. Naney, and J. Shelly. 1997. Historical and current status of terrestrial species and the effects of proposed alternatives. Pages 537-730 in T. Quigley, K. Lee, and S. Arbelbide, editors. Evaluation of EIS alternatives by the science integration team, 2 volumes. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-406.
24. MacMillan, D. C., and K. Marshall. 2006. The Delphi process: an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 9:11-20.
25. Marcot, B. G. 2006. Characterizing species at risk I: modeling rare species under the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecology and Society [online serial] 11(2): article 10. Available: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art10./ (September 2011).
26. Marcot, B. G., P. A. Hohenlohe, S. Morey, R. Holmes, R. Molina, M. Turley, M. Huff, and J. Laurence. 2006. Characterizing species at risk II: using Bayesian belief networks as decision support tools to determine species conservation categories under the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecology and Society [online serial] 11(2):article 12. Available: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art12./ (September 2011).
27. McCarthy, M. A., S. J. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. 2003. Reliability of relative predictions in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 17:982-989.
28. Morgan, M. G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
29. O'Keefe, J. H., D. B. Danilewitz, and J. A. Bradshaw. 1987. An "expert system" approach to the assessment of the conservation status of rivers. Biological Conservation 40:69-84.
30. Pearce, J. L., K. Cherry, M. Drielsma, S. Fierrier, and G. Whish. 2001. Incorporating expert opinion and fine-scale vegetation mapping into statistical models of faunal distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:412-424.
31. Prato, T. 2005. Accounting for uncertainty in making species protection decisions. Conservation Biology 19:806-814.
32. Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-302.
33. Roby, D. D., D. E. Lyons, D. P. Craig, K. Collis, and G. H. Visser. 2003. Quantifying the effect of predators on endangered species using a bioener-getics approach: Caspian terns and juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:250-265.
34. Roemer, G. W., and R. K. Wayne. 2003. Conservation in conflict: the tale of two endangered species. Conservation Biology 17: 1251-1260.
35. Shaw, C. G. 1999. Use of risk assessment panels during revision of the Tongass land and resource management plan. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-460.
36. Steele, M. Z., and C. M. Shackleton. 2010. Using local experts as benchmarks for household local ecological knowledge: scoring in South African savannas. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1641-1646.
37. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Reintroduction of bull trout to the Clackamas River, Oregon. USFWS, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Environmental Assessment, Portland, Oregon.
38. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. Clackamas River bull trout reintroduction implementation, monitoring, and evaluation plan. USFWS, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.
39. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: establishment of a nonessential experimental population of bull troutin the Clackamas River subbasin, OR. Federal Register 76:119(21 June 2011):35979-35995.
40. Vose, D. 1996. Quantitative risk analysis: a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
41. Weisberg, S. B., B. Thompson, J. A. Ranasinghe, D. E. Montagne, D. B. Cadien, D. M. Dauer, D. Diener, J. Oliver, D. J. Reish, R. G. Velarde, and J. Q. Word. 2008. The level of agreement among experts applying best professional judgment to assess the condition of benthic infaunal communities. Ecological Indicators 8:389-394.
42. Wenger, S. J., D. J. Isaak, C. H. Luce, H. M. Neville, K. D. Fausch, J. B. Dunham, D. C. Dauwalter, M. K. Young, M. M. Elsner, B. E. Rieman, A. F. Hamlet, and J. E. Williams. 2011. Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108:14175-14180.
43. Wiese, F. K., J. K. Parrish, C. W. Thompson, and C. Maranto. 2008. Ecosystem-based management of predator-prey relationships: piscivorous birds and salmonids. Ecological Applications 18:681-700.
44. Zohar, A., and J. S. Rosenschein. 2008. Mechanisms for information elicitation. Artificial Intelligence 172:1917-1939.