Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in a way where integration of various studies could be easily accomplished. <br />The present manner in which research proposals are solicited by the Recovery <br />Program was qusstioned by the peer reviewers. Priorities in selecting studies <br />may serve the principal investigator(s) interest but may not serve the <br />Recovery Program's goals. Also, the best person or group, based on expertise <br />or credentials, may not be conducting the research. It was evident to the <br />peer reviewers that the same individuals (who were not the principal <br />investigators) appeared on numerous studies. This observation indicated that <br />thrusts for continuing research on the endangered fishes were being directed <br />by a few persons rather than through a comprehensive strategic plan. <br /> <br />While it is impossible to cover the roundtable discussion in detail, some of <br />the relevant comments that were made by the peer reviewers to individual <br />studies are summarized in this paragraph. Recommended streamflows were <br />established based on fish use so that optimal streamflows required by the <br />endangered fish remain unknown. In addition, there appears to be uncertainty <br />about defining streamflows that will be sufficient to recover the fish. <br />Proposed test streamflows have no controls for evaluating physical changes and <br />biological responses and the Recovery Program does not appear to be able to <br />arrange for recommended test streamflows. Also, the responses of the <br />endangered fish may be related to factors other than the test streamflows <br />(e.g., habitat loss and nonnative fish interaction). Responses of the <br />endangered fishes and nonnative fishes to enhanced or restored habitats might <br />be a better criterion for evaluation than the actual test flows.. The ehort- <br />term study of physical changes is not indicative of streamflow effects. <br />Studies such as sediment and channel dynamics (Recovery Program Project 37) <br />provide an eseential first step to understanding geomorphological effects in <br />Upper Basin rivers. <br /> <br />Backwaters that have been shown to be important to the early life stages of <br />the endangered fishes will change in relation to discharge and channel <br />morphology. It is crucial to consider the hydrological and geomorphological <br />processes-responses upstream and downstream of reaches that are critical to <br />producing suitable habitat for the endangered fishes. This approach was not <br />apparent in the present scopes-of-work. The current method used in the food <br />web study may not adequately describe the energy flow through the ecosystem. <br />The food web study is largely limited to describing the distribution snd <br />relative abundance of invertebrates. The use of stable isotope analyses is <br />effective in separation of organic matter sources and food web components <br />(Angradi 1994; Peterson and Fry 1987) that would provide a more comprehensive <br />method for food web dynamics. Little effort appears to be devoted to <br />collecting data on the status and trends of nonnative fishes. Yet predation <br />and competition by nonnative fishes on the endangered fishes during the early <br />life stages appear to be important factors related to the absence of or low <br />recruitment. [NOTE: The present Recovery Program thrust on control of <br />nonnative f~BheB and changes in management of aportfishes (i.e., stockin9 <br />procedures) were not initiated when this review was made.] During the <br />roundtable discussion, it became apparent to the peer reviewers that Recovery <br />Program participanta are beginning to integrate the design and results of the <br />various disciplines. However, the expected results of proposed studies and a <br />discussion of how the results would be integrated were not clearly documented <br />in the scopes-of-work. <br /> <br />7 <br />