Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GeomorDholoav <br /> <br />E.D. Andrew., U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado <br /> <br />Ellen Wahl, Colorado State University, Fort Collins <br /> <br />Laroe River Ecoloav <br /> <br />Ken Lubinski, National Biol. Service, Onalaska, Wisconsin <br /> <br />Jack Stanford, University of Montana, Polson <br /> <br />Food Web RelationshiDs <br /> <br />Mark B. Bain, New York Coop. Fieh and Wildlife Res. Unit, <br />Cornell University, Ithaca <br /> <br />Wendell L. Hinckley, Arizona State University, Tempe <br /> <br />METHODS <br /> <br />The six peer reviewers were provided with Fiscal Year 1994 scopes-of-work for <br />projects under the Aspinall Unit and Flaming Gorge Flow Recommendation <br />Investigation as well as annual project reports for the Aspinall Unit and <br />Flaming Gorge completed during Fiscal Year 1993. These documents served as <br />the basis for the peer review of the relationship between streamflows, <br />geomorphology, and food web dynamics. A review of program efforts and <br />recommendations for instream flows (Stanford 1994) and a description of the <br />physical changes in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers from construction of the <br />Aspinall Unit and related projects (McAda and Kaeding 1991) provided valuable <br />background information. In addition, general background describing the <br />Recovery progam was provided. A new Recovery Program thrust related to <br />habitat enhancement or restoration of off-channel habitats was not covered <br />under Fiscal Year 1994 scopes-of-work. Therefore, the perceived ecological <br />value of flooded bottomland habitats to the endangered fishes, summarized by <br />Wydoski (1994a), was provided to the peer reviewers. <br /> <br />Format for Conductina the Peer Review. The review materials were provided to <br />the peer reviewers in September 1994 for their review and comment. Although <br />written comments on the Flaming Gorge and Aspinall Unit projects were <br />solicited after the materials were provided to the peer reviewers, only <br />general comments were received from several of the reviewers. During followup <br />telephone conversations, it became apparent that the scopes-af-work and annual <br />reports were incomplete and did not provide adequate information for a <br />detailed evaluation. The peer reviewers recommended that a workehop be <br />organized so that they could discuss the study proposals and annual reports <br />with the principal investigators. Therefore, a workshop was arranged by the <br />propagation and Nonnative Fish Program Coordinator so that the projects could <br />be discussed in more depth. <br /> <br />4 <br />