Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Summarization of available information through Recovery Program efforts <br />may be close to a success story. The Colorado squawfish and humpback chub <br />populations in the Upper Basin are considered to be stable by Recovery <br />Program participants (Wydoski 1994b) and these species appear to have <br />responded to modifications in streamflows through water releases from <br />dams. However, measurable recovery objectives should be identified to <br />evaluate Program success in recovery of the four endangered fishes (i.e., <br />development of self-sustaining populations). Only then can Program <br />efforts be directed at expanding the range of the Colorado squawfish into <br />unoccupied historic habitat or recovery/reintroduction of razorback sucker <br />populations and reintroduction of the bonytail into designated critical <br />habitat within their former ranges. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />4. InteQration of Available Information. Information that has been collected <br />from a variety of disciplines should be carefully examined to determine if <br />integration is possible to make informed decisions on the upper Basin <br />ecosystem. The Recovery Program attempt to determine the relationship of <br />streamflow, geomorphology, and food web dynamics demonstrates the correct <br />approach. However, researchers should make the first integration of this <br />information since they are most familiar with the objectives of their <br />respective studies, the methods or approaches used, the data available for <br />analyses, and the results of their studies. The interpretation of how <br />information from various disciplines was integrated by Recovery Program <br />researchers can then be evaluated by peer reviewers. The peer reviewers <br />could provide recommendations for consideration in experimental study <br />designs or the final integration of data. It was recommended that future <br />research proposals be developed so that basin-wide processes are examined <br />rather than site specific processes. The integrated approach identified <br />by Stanford (1994) should be implemented more fully in future research <br />thrusts, emphasizing integration of data from the various disciplines. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />5. Identification of Research Gaps. Many of the early studies were <br />concentrated on the ecological requirements of the Colorado squawfish. <br />Although this information will be beneficial for management of the <br />Colorado squawfish (a species considered to be stable by Recovery Program <br />participants), it will be inadequate for making recovery and management <br />decisions on the other three endangered fishes. Future emphasis should be <br />placed on critical life stages of the other species. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The Interagency Standardized Monitoring Program should be evaluated and <br />revised, as necessary, to monitor all endangered fishes as well as <br />nonnative fishes, including critical life stages of these fishes. Such <br />monitoring will be key to evaluating the responses of the endangered and <br />nonnative fishes to various recovery efforts. Emphasis should be placed <br />on reaches of rivers where critical field experiments are occurring and be <br />confined to priority fish species so that the monitoring can be <br />acccomplished within available resources (e.g., personnel, funds, and <br />equipment). <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />6. Considerations for Future Peer Reviews. Recovery Program documentation <br />provides the justification for an independent peer review process (U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) but the process is not fully defined. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />I <br />