9396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A roundtable discussion between the peer reviewers and principal investigators was held on February 6-7. 1995 prior to the 1995 Annual Meeting of Upper Colorado River Basin Researchers in Grand Junction. Colorado. Primary Goal of Present Studies. To develop recommendations for reoperation of Flaming Gorge Dam and Aspinall Unit dams for streamflows that would be adequate for recovery of the endangered fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Exoected Outcomes of the MeetinQ: 1. Review selected streamflow. geomorphology. and food web projects. 2. Obtain consensus on whether present projects will provide the essential information needed on developing scientifically sound streamflow recommendations to benefit the endangered fishes. 3. Determine if the correct methods being used to obtain essential information. 4. Identify critical gaps in data being obtained with present studies. 5. Obtain recommendations on how to integrate data from streamflow. geomorphology. and food web projects. Deliverable. A written report summarizing highlights of the roundtable discussion between the Peer Reviewers. Principal Investigators. Biology Committee members. and interested parties with recommendations for Recovery Program thrusts and protocol for future peer reviews. Dick Wydoski prepared the draft summary of the review and the roundtable discussion and provided it to the peer reviewers for review and modification (i.e.. additions. deletions. or revisions). However. the final report is the product of the peer review group. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Although the expected outcomes of the meeting (identified in the INTRODUCTION section) were met in part. a thorough review of the information related to the relationship of streamflow. geomorphology. and the food web was not possible for two major reasons: 1. The topic was too broad to discuss integration of these three study areas within the available time. 2. The information contained in the FY 1995 Scopes-of-Work and the FY 1994 Annual Reports was inadequate for the peer reviewers to understand the relationship of the various studies to the overall program. These two reasons are discussed more fully below. 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 Program evolved from early studies that focused on the ecological requirements of the endangered fish. particularly instream flow and habitat requirements. These studies were 5