WSP09463 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TODic of Review Too Broad. The three major etudy areae of this review would have required much more time to evaluate their relationehipe and how they ehould be integrated. It wae evident that the Recovery Program evolved from early etudiee that focused on the ecological requiremente of the endangered fish, particularly inetream flow and habitat requirements. Theee studies were initiated without developing an understanding of how the physical processes produced and maintained habitate required by the various life stagee of the endangered fishes. Many of the p~esent studies appear to be redundant because the eame or eimilar information is still being collected on the biology of the endangered fishee. Much of the emphaeis has been and continues to be on the Colorado squawfish. Management decisions for the Colorado squawfish will be inadequate for recovery of the other three endangered fishee. The relatively recent expansion of studies that include various disciplinee demonstrated that early overeight by the Recovery Program is being corrected. An ecoeystem spproach integrating the disciplines of biology, hydrology, and geomorphology for the entire Upper Basin is clearly the best way to underetand and effectively manage the Upper Colorado River System. Past work eeems to be segregated by. focusing on either the Colorado or Green rivere rather than the entire Upper Basin ecosystem, including tributaries. Recommendations by Stanford (1994) to diversify research studies to resolve critical uncertainties, implement a peer review process, and adopt an adaptive management approach are being initiated by the Recovery Program. Implementation of Stanford's recommendations was considered by the peer reviewers to be a beneficial move that should improve the effectiveneee of the Recovery program. Pocumentation for Peer Review Not Adeauate. The baeic outline used for individual projecte by the Program provides a format with relevant information for preparing Bound study propoBals~ However, the scopes-af-work that were reviewed were not very detailed so that scientific evaluations by the peer reviewers was impossible. Specifically, the objectives, methode or. approach, and references in most individual scopes-of-work were not adequate for a compreheneive peer review. The intended outputs of the objectives were usually not measurable as written and did not identify a target date. The methods or approaches were written in general terms BO that they were extremely vague. A brief description of the methods or approachee with references would provide peer reviewers with the information required for adequate evaluation of the different disciplines. Many of the project outlines did not contain any references indicating that literature reviews had not been completed. Finally, the person identified in the project outlinee were, in some C&BeB, not the principal investigator but the person who submitted the project. The principal investigator, organization, and paet experience in similar studies should be clearly identified in proposed studies. The annual progress reports were too vague or sketchy in deecribing accomplishments for adequate evaluation by the peer reviewers. Perception of Individual Studies. Past and present studies do not appear to be developed eystematically. Various researchers appear to pursue their own interests and do not appear to integrate their study proposals and results in annual reports with other related studies. Although related to the overall thrusts of the Recovery Program effort, research projects were not developed 6