Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A roundtable discussion bstwsen the peer reviewers and principal investigators <br />was held on February 6-7, 1995 prior to the 1995 Annual Meeting of Upper <br />Colorado River Basin Researchers in Grand Junction, Colorado. <br /> <br />Primarv Goal of Present Studies That were Reviewed. To develop <br />recommendations for reoperation of Flaming Gorge Dam and Aspinall Unit dame <br />for streamflows that would be adequate for recovery of the endangered fishes <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />Obiectives of the Peer Review: <br /> <br />1. Review selected streamflow, geomorphology, and food web projects. <br /> <br />2. Obtain conseneus on whether present projects will provide the essential <br />information needed for developing scientifically sound streamflow <br />recommendations to benefit the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />3. Pet ermine if the correct methods are being used to obtain essential <br />information. <br /> <br />4. Identify critical gaps in data being obtained with present studies. <br /> <br />s. Provide recommendations on how to integrate data from streamflow, <br />geomorphology, and food web projects. <br /> <br />Deliverable. A written report summarizing highlights of the review of <br />Recovery Program documentation and the roundtable discussion between the Peer <br />Reviewers, Principal Investigators, Biology Committee members, and interested <br />parties. This report summarizes the highlights of the peer review as well as <br />provides recommendations for Recovery Program thrusts, improvements in <br />documentation, and protocol for future peer reviews. <br /> <br />The Propagation and Nonnative Fish Program Coordinator, Dick Wydoski, served <br />as the recorder who prepared a draft summary of the review and roundtable <br />discussion. This draft report was reviewed by the peer reviewers and <br />appropriate modifications (i.e., additions, deletions, or revisions) were made <br />based on their comments. The final draft report was sent to the Biology <br />Committee on February 28, 1996 for their review. Comments that were received <br />were addressed, as appropriate, in this final report. <br /> <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Although objectives 1 and 5 (identified in the INTRODUCTION section) were met, <br />a thorough review of the information related to the relationship of <br />streamflow, geomorphology, and the food web was not possible for two major <br />reaSons: 1. "The topic was too broad to discuss integration of theBe three <br />study areas within the available time. 2. The information contained in the <br />FY 1995 Scopes-of-Work and the FY 1994 Annual Reports was inadequate for the <br />peer reviewers to understand the relationship of the various studies to the <br />overall program. These two reasons are discussed more fully below. <br /> <br />5 <br />