7424

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7424
• Author: National Research Council
• Title: Editor
• USFW Year: Series
• USFW - Doc Type: 1987
• Copyright Material: YES

-14-
With few exceptions the individual GCES reports
refer to the effects of the flooding, and so it is
clear that some analyses were conducted as the
opportunity forced itself on the project. The
flooding was seen by most researchers, however, as
a major interference with the stated tasks. Bureau
of Reclamation administrators considered the flood
to be a potential reason for discontinuing the
studies.
The lesson from this experience is that
uncertainty characterizes ecosystem processes and
the unexpected should be considered in planning.
What are the most likely major events that would
influence the conduct of the research? What should
be done if such an event occurred?
Future work by the Department of the Interior
should
• assume complexity, interactions, and indirect
effects in future studies
• treat operations as manipulative experiments
and, thus, monitoring as experimental data
collection
Need for Peer Review in Project Selection
The individual projects in the GCES were
identified at the beginning of the study in the
absence of a careful design, specific goals, and
well-stated objectives. Project funds were
committed early, and planning was added as the
project grew. A conceptual scheme to guide the
selection of critical research questions and clear
identification of the required research skills was
needed.
The lead agency for the GCES--the Bureau of
Reclamation--apparently did not solicit the talent
to conduct the needed research through a
peer-reviewed request for proposals. The committee
believes that such talent exists outside the
agencies directly involved in the project, e.g.,
U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service,