9396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. Lack of an Overall Strateqic 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 among the various strategies. 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 rivers or basin. Since the endangered fishes exhibited strong year classes, recovery efforts should be implemented that would provide suitable conditions for recruitment in one year out of 5 to 10 years. It is highly recommended that a systems approach is 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 Program will be approved. Continuous evaluation and refinement based on experimentation is. in reality. adaptive management. 6. Considerations for Future Peer Reviews. Recovery Program documentation provides the justification for an independent review process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) but the process is not fully defined. Available information for conducting peer reviews in the literature is limited. Most peer reviews are tailored for the agency requiring guidance in evaluating and selecting research proposals. A. Examples of the Peer Review Process by Several Aqencies. (1) The National Science Foundation employs program officers (about 350 persons in a full-time staff of about 1,200) who have are scientifically qualified and have expertise in a given discipline (McCullough 1993). About two-fifths of the program officers are "visiting scientists" who are researchers (experienced in directing major projects) that are on leave from their institutions, usually for a two-year period. These persons do not seek formal external review of small projects (less than 5% of their total budget) but rely on their knowledge of the literature in their field of expertise. On larger research proposals. the National Science Foundation project officer uses a peer review process. These program officers are familiar with the literature in their disciplines and are 11