9396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

initiated without developing an understanding of how the physical processes produced and maintained habitats required by the various life stages of the endangered fishes. Many of the present studies appear to be redundant because the same or similar information is still being collected on the biology of the endangered fishes. Much of the emphasis has been and continues to be on the Colorado squawfish. Management decisions for the Colorado squawfish will be inadequate for recovery of the other three endangered fishes. The relatively recent expansion of studies that include various disciplines demonstrated that early oversight by the Recovery Program is being corrected. An ecosystem approach integrating the disciplines of biology, hydrology, and geomorphology for the entire Upper Basin is clearly the best way to understand and effectively manage the Upper Colorado River System. Past work seems to be segregated by focusing on either the Colorado or Green rivers rather than the entire Upper Basin ecosystem, including tributaries. Recommendations by Stanford (1994) to diversify research studies to resolve critical uncertainties, implement a peer review process, and adopt an adaptive management approach have already been initiated by the Program. Implementation of Stanford's recommendations was considered to be a beneficial move to the Recovery Program. Documentation for Peer Review Not Adequate. The basic outline used for individual projects by the Program provides a format with relevant information for preparing sound study proposals. However, the scopes-of-work that were reviewed were not very detailed so that scientific evaluations by the peer reviewers was impossible. Specifically, the objectives, methods or approach, and references in most individual scopes-of-work were not adequate for a comprehensive peer review. The intended outputs of the objectives were usually not measurable as written and did not identify a target date. The methods or approaches were written in general terms so that they were extremely vague. A brief description of the methods or approaches with references would provide peer reviewers with the information required for different disciplines. Many of the project outlines did not contain any references indicating that literature reviews had not been completed. Finally. the person identified in the project outlines were. in some cases. not the principal investigator but the person who submitted the project. The principal investigator, organization, and past experience in similar studies should be clearly identified on proposed studies. The annual progress reports were too vague or sketchy in accomplishments for adequate evaluation by the peer reviewers. Perception of Individual Studies. Past and present studies do not appear to be developed systematically. Various researchers appear to pursue their own interests and do not appear to integrate their study proposals and results with other related studies. Although related to the overall thrusts of the Program effort, research projects were not developed in a way where integration of various studies could be easily accomplished. The present manner in which research proposals are solicited by the Recovery Program was questioned by the peer reviewers. Priorities in selecting studies may serve the principal investigator(s) interest but may not serve the Recovery Program's efforts. Also, the best person or group, based on expertise or credentials, may not be conducting the research. It was evident to the peer 6