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

describe the results expected and how the results will be integrated into the
overall recovery effort; and (3) The methods or approach section should
contain a concise description of the methods, including justification for the
methodes) selected with references so that peer reviewers will have sufficient
information for evaluation.

I

The peer reviewers recommended that the principal investigator(s) identify the
expected results from the proposed studies and explain how the new information
will be integrated with the results of other related studies and the
literature. Only then can peer reviewers evaluate proposed studies and
provide recommendations for improvement in integration of related information.
At present, Recovery Program study proposals appear to reflect individual
researcher interests and integration occurs only after various studies are
completed rather than during the development phase of study proposals. It
would be prudent to apply a systems approach "up front" where study proposals
are developed with a clear knowledge of available information, strategic
planning has been completed to determine the best thrusts for obtaining needed
information, the expected results from proposed studies are identified, and a
discussion is provided of how the information will be integrated for decision-
making related to recovery of the endangered fishes.

I

I

I

I

I

3. Improvina the Content of Annual Reports. Application of a systems
approach in preparation annual reports should be used for (1) evaluation of
the data collected during the past year, (2) comparison of results with data
previously collected, (3) summary of accomplishments during the past year,
including an evaluation of whether objectives were accomplished, and (4)
refinements in experimental design, if necessary, for ongoing projects.
Annual analysis and synthesis of data provides summaries that can be used for
effective decision-making through adaptive management.

I

I

I

4. Conductina Future Peer Reivews. Recovery Program documentation provides
the justification for an independent peer review process. Peer review of
proposed new scopes-of-work can be accomplished independently by three peers
with knowledge or expertise on the subject, following the current practice by
the Recovery Program. The peer reviewers would be selected by the appropriate
Program Coordinator.

I

I

Larger, complex, or controversial research proposals would be best reviewed by
a peer review panel such as the panels currently being used by the Recovery
Program for genetics conservation or flooded bottomland restoration. The
number of specialists on a panel would depend on the discipline or subject and
the complexity of the research proposal. It is recommended that larger
initiatives that are complex or controversial be discussed and evaluated
through a workshop with the peer reviewers and principal investigators after
the peers have independently reviewed the proposal(s).

I

I

Finally, peer reviewers highly recommended that available information from
Recovery Program studies be analyzed, synthesized, and integrated. They
perceived that informed decisions could often be made with the available
information in recovery of the endangered Colorado River fishes that would
result in a success story. Synthesis and integration would also aid in
identification of information gaps that are critical to the recovery effort.

I

I

2

I