My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09463
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09463
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:53:49 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:39:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.14.F
Description
UCRBRIP Biology Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1995
Author
USFWS
Title
Peer Review and Roundtable on Relationship of Streamflow, Geomorphology and Food Web Studies in Recovery of the Endangered Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Summarization of available information through Recovery Program efforts <br />may be close to a success story. The. Colorado squawfish and humpback chub <br />populations in the Upper Basin are considered to be stable by Recovery <br />Program participants (Wydoski 1994b) and these species appear to have <br />responded to modifications in streamflows through water releasBs from <br />dams. However, measurable recovery objectives should be identified to <br />evaluate Program success in recovery of the four endangered fishes (i..e., <br />development of self-eustaining populations). Only then can Program <br />efforts be directed at expanding the range of ths Colorado squawfish into <br />unoccupied historic habitat or recovery/reintroduction of razorback sucker <br />populations and reintroduction of the bonytail into designated critical <br />habitat within their former ranges. <br /> <br />4. Inteoration of Available Information. Information that has been collected <br />from a variety of disciplines should be carefully examined to determine if <br />integration is possible to make informed decisions on the Upper Basin <br />ecosystem. The Recovery Program attempt to determine the relationship of <br />streamflow, geomorphology, and food web dynamics demonstrates the correct <br />approach.. However, researchers should make the first integration of this <br />information since they are most familiar with ths objectives of their <br />respective studies, the methods or approaches used, the data available for <br />analyses, and the results of their studies. The interpretation of how <br />information from various disciplines was integrated by Recovery Program <br />researchers can then be evaluated by peer reviewers. The peer reviewers <br />could provide recommendations for consideration in experimental study <br />designs or the final integration of data. It was recommended that future <br />research proposals be developed so that basin-wide procssses are examined <br />rather than site specific processes. The integrated approach identified <br />by Stanford (1994) should be implemented more fully in future research <br />thrusts, emphasizing integration of data from ths various disciplines. <br /> <br />5. Identification of Research Gaps. Many of the early studies were <br />concentrated on the ecological requirements of the Colorado squawfish. <br />Although this information will be beneficial for management of the <br />Colorado squawfish (a species considered to be stable by Recovery Program <br />participants), it will be inadequate for making recovery and management <br />decisions on the other three endangered fishes. Future emphasis should be <br />placed on critical life stages of the other species. <br /> <br />The Interagency Standardized Monitoring Program should be evaluated and <br />revieed, as necessary, to monitor all endangered fishes as well as <br />nonnative fishes, including critical life stages of these fishes. Such <br />monitoring will be key to evaluating the responses of the endangered and <br />nonnative fishes to various recovery efforts.. Emphasis should be placed <br />on reaches of rivers where critical field experiments are occurring and be <br />confined to priority fish species so that the monitoring can be <br />acccomplished within available resources (e.g., personnel, funds, .and <br />equipment). <br /> <br />6. Considerations for Future Peer Reviews. Recovery Program documentation <br />provides the justification for an independent peer review process (U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) but the process is not fully.defined. <br /> <br />II <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.