Laserfiche WebLink
<br />describe the results expected and how the results will be integrated into the <br />overall recovery effort; and (3) The methods or approach section should <br />contain a concise description of the methods, including justification for the <br />methodes) selected with references so that peer reviewers will have sufficient <br />information for evaluation. <br /> <br />The peer reviewers recommended that the principal investigator(s) identify the <br />expected rssults from the proposed studies and explain how the new information <br />will be integrated with the results of other related studies and the <br />literaturs. Only then can peer reviewers evaluate propossd studies and <br />provids recommendations for improvement in integration of related information. <br />At present, Recovery Program study proposals appear to reflect individual <br />researcher interests and integration occurs only after various studies are <br />completed rathsr than during the development phase of study proposals. It <br />would be prudent to apply a systems approach "up front" where study proposals <br />are. developed with a clear knowledge of availabls information, strategic <br />planning has been completed to determine the best thrusts for obtaining needed <br />information, the expected results from. proposed studies are identified, and a <br />discussion is provided of how the information will be integrated for decision- <br />making related to recovery of the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />3. ImDrovina the Content of Annual ReDorts. Application of a systems <br />approach in preparation annual reports should be used for (1) evaluation of <br />the data collected during the past year, (2) comparison of results with data <br />previously collected, (3) summary of accomplishments during the past year, <br />including an evaluation of whether objectives were accomplished, and (4) <br />refinements in experimental design, if necessary, for ongoing projects. <br />Annual analysis and synthesis of data provides summaries that can be used for <br />effective decision-making through adaptive management. <br /> <br />4. Conductina Future Peer Reivews. Recovery Program documentation provides <br />the justification for an independent peer review procsss. Peer review of <br />proposed new scopes-of-work can be accomplishsd independently by three peers <br />. with knowledge or expertise on .the subject, following the current practice by <br />the Recovery Program. The peer reviewers would be selected by the appropriate <br />Program Coordinator. <br /> <br />Larger, complex, or controversial research proposals would be best reviewed by <br />a peer review panel such as the panels currently being used by the Recovery <br />Program for genetics conservation or flooded bottomland restoration. The <br />number of specialists on a panel would depend on the discipline or subject and <br />the complexity of the research proposal. It is recommended that larger <br />initiatives that are complex or controversial be discussed and evaluated <br />through a workshOp with the peer reviewers and principal investigators after <br />the peers have independently reviewed the proposal(s). <br /> <br />Finally, peer reviewers highly recommended that available information from <br />Recovery Program studies be analyzed, synthesized, and integrated. They <br />perceived that informed decisions could often be made with the available <br />information in recovery of the endangered Colorado River fishee that would <br />result in a success etory. Synthesis and integration would also aid in <br />identification of information gaps that are critical to the recovery effort. <br /> <br />2 <br />