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

Syntheses of Available Information Lackinq. It was apparent that a lot of
information on the endangered fishes, nonnative fishes, streamflows, and
geomorphic changes has been collected through previous Recovery Program
efforts. However, this information appeared to be fragmented and disjointed.

I

The planning efforts for synthesizing the various Flaming Gorge studies will
be beneficial in evaluating whether the information can be fully integrated
for making decisions for future management of the Green River Subbasin.
Syntheses of the Aspinall Unit studies in the near future will serve a similar
function for the Colorado River Subbasin.

I

I

RECOMMENDATIONS

I

Although the roundtable discussion covered a broad array of topics, the
following general recommendations will be confined to (1) lack of an overall
strategic plan, (2) content of research proposals and annual reports, (3)
summary of available information, (4) integration of available information,
(5) identifying research gaps, and (6) considerations for future peer reviews.

I

I

1. Lack of an Overall Strateaic Plan. The Recovery Action Plan serves, in
part, as a strategic plan. However, it does not establish priorities or
linkages (i.e., integration) of the various identified actions. It is not
a substitute for a strategic plan that identifies problems or issues,
establishes priorities among the various problems or issues, identifies
strategies that can be implemented to overcome the problems or issues, and
finally establishes priorities for implementation of selected strategies.

I

I

The relative importance (i.e., priorities) of the various limiting factors
must be identified so that studies can be designed to obtain vital
information for use in the recovery effort (e.g., stepdown planning
through a systems approach). Also, recovery of the four endangered fishes
should be viewed from an ecosystem perspective rather than by individual
river or basin. Since the endangered fishes exhibited strong year
classes, recovery efforts should be implemented that would provide
suitable conditions for periodic recruitment (e.g., one year out of 5 to
10 years) that will maintain self-sustaining populations.

I

I

I

It is highly recommended that a systems approach be used for all new
research and for evaluating ongoing research. Comprehensive planning
involving (1) inventory, (2) strategic planning, (3) operations planning,
and (4) evaluation are key elements for conducting the most cost-effective
research and avoiding redundancy in efforts. These four planning steps
pose the following questions: (1) Where are we?, (2) Where do we want to
go?, (3) How do we get there?, and (4) Did we make it?, respectively.
Such planning provides an adaptive management approach (Walters 1986)
because it continually requires summarization of all available information
so that only research that is absolutely needed by the Recovery Program
will be approved. Continuous evaluation and refinement based on
experimentation is, in reality, adaptive management.

I

I

I

2. Content of Research Prooosals and Annual Reoorts. The format used by the
Recovery Program for research proposals contains relevant information.

I

8

I