My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9396
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 5:26:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9396
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 - Final Draft Report.
USFW Year
1996.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />A peer review and roundtable discussion was conducted in Grand Junction. <br />Colorado on February 6-7. 1995 on the relationship of streamflow, <br />geomorphology. and food web studies related to the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />Recovery Program. This review was based on FY 1994 scopes-of-work and 1993 <br />annual reports for current Aspinall Unit and Flaming Gorge studies that have <br />been initiated by the Recovery Program. <br /> <br />A thorough review for integration of streamflow, geomorphology. and food web <br />studies was not possible with available documentation and within the timeframe <br />of this review. However. the peer reviewers agreed that integration of study <br />designs and results from related disciplines would be beneficial in decision- <br />making related to recovery of the endangered fishes. They commended the <br />Recovery Program participants for initiating studies (i.e.. geomorphology and <br />food web studies) that will help to understand ecosystem relationships and <br />better define streamflows for recovery. <br /> <br />The peer reviewers recommended that the principal investigator(s) identify the <br />expected results and explain how the new information would be integrated with <br />other related studies in Section II "Relationship of Recovery Projects/Ranking <br />Factors" of new scopes-of-work in addition to identifying items from the <br />Recovery Action Plan. Only then can peer reviewers evaluate proposed studies <br />and provide recommendations for improvement in integration of related <br />information. At present, Recovery Program study proposals appear to reflect <br />individual researcher interests and integration is being attempted after <br />various studies are completed rather than during the development phase of <br />study proposals. It would be prudent to apply a systems approach "up front" <br />where study proposals are developed with a clear knowledge of available <br />information, strategic planning has been completed to determine the best <br />thrusts for obtaining needed information, the expected results from proposed <br />studies are identified. and a description of how the information will be <br />integrated for decision-making related to recovery of the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />This review identified a need for improved communication between technical <br />scientists and decision-makers in the Recovery Program for endangered fishes <br />in the Upper Colorado River Basin. There appears to be a lack of overall <br />strategic planning through a systems approach that focuses on the five <br />recovery elements identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1987). A <br />comprehensive systems approach involves four basic planning steps: <br />(1) inventory and scoping to answer the question of "Where are we?" , <br />(2) strategic planning to answer the question of "Where do we want to be?". <br />(3) operational planning to answer the question of "How do we get there?", and <br />(4) evaluation to answer the question "Did we make it?". A systems approach <br />is a dynamic process of adaptive management where refinements are made through <br />a continuous process of application and evaluation. <br /> <br />This review provided an opportunity to develop recommendations (1) for <br />improving research proposals (i .e., scopes-of-work), (2) for preparation of <br />annual reports. and (3) for conducting future peer reviews of proposed <br />research to be initiated under the Recovery Program in the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.