7862

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7862
• Author: Andrews, E. D., M. B. Bain, K. S. Lubinski, W. L. Minckley, J. A. Stanford, E. Wohl and R. S. Wydoski.
• Title: Highlights Of A Peer Review And Roundtable Discussion On The Relationship Of Streamflow, Geomorphology, And Food Web Studies In Recovery Of The Endangered Fishes In The Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

I

I

I

Topic of Review Too Broad. The three major study areas of this review would
have required much more time to evaluate their relationships and how they
should be integrated. It was evident that the Recovery Program evolved from
early studies that focused on the ecological requirements of the endangered
fish, particularly instream flow and habitat requirements. These studies were
initiated without developing an understanding of how the physical processes
produced and maintained habitats required by the various life stages of the
endangered fishes. Many of the present studies appear to be redundant because
the same or similar information is still being collected on the biology of the
endangered fishes. Much of the emphasis has been and continues to be on the
Colorado squawfish. Management decisions for the Colorado squawfish will be
inadequate for recovery of the other three endangered fishes.

I

I

I

I

The relatively recent expansion of studies that include various disciplines
demonstrated that early oversight by the Recovery Program is being corrected.
An ecosystem approach integrating the disciplines of biology, hydrology, and
geomorphology for the entire Upper Basin is clearly the best way to understand
and effectively manage the upper Colorado River System. Past work seems to be
segregated by focusing on either the Colorado or Green rivers rather than the
entire Upper Basin ecosystem, including tributaries. Recommendations by
Stanford (1994) to diversify research studies to resolve critical
uncertainties, implement a peer review process, and adopt an adaptive
management approach are being initiated by the Recovery Program.
Implementation of Stanford's recommendations was considered by the peer
reviewers to be a beneficial move that should improve the effectiveness of the
Recovery Program.

I

I

I

I

Documentation for Peer Review Not Adeauate. The basic outline used for
individual projects by the Program provides a format with relevant information
for preparing sound study proposals. However, the scopes-of-work that were
reviewed were not very detailed so that scientific evaluations by the peer
reviewers was impossible. Specifically, the objectives, methods or approach,
and references in most individual scopes-of-work were not adequate for a
comprehensive peer review. The intended outputs of the objectives were
usually not measurable as written and did not identify a target date. The
methods or approaches were written in general terms so that they were
extremely vague. A brief description of the methods or approaches with
references would provide peer reviewers with the information required for
adequate evaluation of the different disciplines. Many of the project
outlines did not contain any references indicating that literature reviews had
not been completed. Finally, the person identified in the project outlines
were, in some cases, not the principal investigator but the person who
submitted the project. The principal investigator, organization, and past
experience in similar studies should be clearly identified in proposed
studies. The annual progress reports were too vague or sketchy in describing
accomplishments for adequate evaluation by the peer reviewers.

I

I

I

I

I

I

Perception of Individual Studies. Past and present studies do not appear to
be developed systematically. Various researchers appear to pursue their own
interests and do not appear to integrate their study proposals and results in
annual reports with other related studies. Although related to the overall
thrusts of the Recovery Program effort, research projects were not developed

I

6

I