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 />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />A peer review and ro~ndtable discussion was conducted in Grand Junction, <br />Colorado, February 6-7, 1995, on the relationship of streamflow, <br />geomorphology, and food web studies related to the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />Recovery Program. This review was based on FY 1994 scopes-of-work and 1993 <br />annual reports for current ongoing Aspinall Unit and Flaming Gorge studies <br />funded through the Upper Colorado.River Basin Recovery Proqram. Two <br />objectives were achieved through this review: (1) Projects related to <br />streamflow, geomorphology, and food web studies were reviewed and (2) <br />Recommendations were provided on overall strateqic planninq for the Recovery <br />Program, strategies to improve research proposals and annual reports, and <br />considerations for conducting future peer reviews. <br /> <br />.A thorough review for integration of streamflow, geomorphology, and food web <br />studies was not possible with available documentation and within the timeframe <br />of this review. However, the peer reviewere aqreed that integration of study <br />designs and results from various related disciplines would be beneficial in <br />decision-making related to recovery of the endangered fishes. They commended <br />the Recovery Program participants for initiating studies (i.e., geomorphology <br />and food web studies) that will help to understand ecosystem relationships and <br />better define streamflows for recovery. <br /> <br />Recommendations. This review provided an opportunity to develop. <br />recommendations for (1) applying a systems approach to recovery efforts, (2) <br />improving research proposals (i.e., scopes-of-work), (3) improving the content <br />of annual reports, and (4) conducting future peer reviews of proposed research <br />to be initiated under the Recovery Program in the upper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />1. AODlication of an .Overall Systems ADDroach to the Recovery Proaram. This <br />review identified a need for improved communication between technical <br />scientists and decision-makers in the Recovery Program for endanger~d fishes <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin. There appears to be a lack of overall <br />strategic planning through a systems approach that focuses on the five <br />recovery elements identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1987). A <br />comprehensive systems approach involves four basic planning steps: <br />(1) inventory and scaping to answer the question of "Where are we?n, <br />(2) strategic planning to answer the question of "Where do we want to be?", <br />(3) operational planning to answer the question of "How do we get there?", and <br />(4) evaluation to answer the question "Did we make it?". A systems approach <br />is a dynamic process of adaptive management where refinements are made through <br />a continuous process of application and evaluation. <br /> <br />2. ImDrovina Research ProDosals. The format used by the Recovery Program for <br />research proposals contains relevant topics. However, the information <br />provided in the study proposals that were reviewed was too vague or incomplete <br />for evaluation by the peer reviewers as to scientific merit or how the results <br />may be integrated with other disciplines. It is recommended that scopes-of- <br />work for initiating new studies should be written as research proposals that <br />will contain adequate information for a peer review. Specifically, (1) The <br />objectives need to be written as measurable outpute with a target date for <br />completion; (2) The relation of the study to the Recovery Proqram should <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.