7424 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- GCES investigations, or, that by limiting the scope, unwanted options would not be examined. • Inadequate consideration of management options. For example, questions to consider include what are the costs of operational changes in terms of lost power revenues and what are the gains from meeting management goals in regard to downstream resources? • Uncertain conversion of the research results into management options. • Failure to identify the rationale for assigning values to downstream resources so management goals could be set. Thus, the GCES researchers have not reached (could not reach) firm conclusions about the operation of the dam. Although the final draft GCES report recommends several options, this committee believes that, only those calling for additional work are justified. Therefore, the GOES effort was a mix of success and failure. The committee believes that, despite the obvious inadequacies of the GCES, useful new knowledge has been gained which can serve as the basis for future work by the Department of the Interior. The committee believes that management of resources is feasible but it demands ecological understanding. Such understanding in this case will require sustained research because (1) management of the Colorado River will make use of the control afforded by the dam, (2) the river ecosystem is in disequilibrium because of the dam construction itself, and thus (3) operational decisions will require continuous checking to confirm that the desired effects are being achieved. To achieve this level of understanding, managers must make new commitments to involve scientists in the development of management strategies. Scientists have been willing to be involved, but unfortunately are often seen by managers as "gadflies." The margin for error is shrinking as management goals become more complex and the effects of mistakes extend further and last