My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7424
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7424
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:45 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:29:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7424
Author
National Research Council
Title
Editor
USFW Year
Series
USFW - Doc Type
1987
Copyright Material
YES
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
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
-10- <br />power production and potential gains from <br />management operation of the dam will be necessary <br />at some time. <br />The Department of the Interior should <br />• accept options 1 and 2 of the final draft <br />GCES report: (1) Initiate a feasibility study of <br />possible changes in dam operations and <br />non-operations alternatives for protecting <br />downstream resources. Such studies comply with <br />National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) <br />requirements for informing and involving interested <br />and affected publics and agencies. (2) Continue <br />with research and monitoring of resources. <br />• consider all management options (e.g., base <br />load hydroelectric operations, discharge and timing <br />of releases, installation and operation of multiple <br />outlet structures, and strategies for conservation <br />that use less than maximum storage in Lake Powell) <br />The Integrated Final Report <br />The integrated final GCES report that was given <br />to the committee in July 1987 is a readable <br />document for the general public. The committee <br />suspects that this type of document was produced to <br />achieve policy objectives. The GCES scientists, <br />however, have sacrificed scholarly rigor to achieve <br />this brevity and readability. By doing so, they <br />have risked confusing readers who do not take the <br />time to read the supporting reports. The <br />combination of sacrificed scholarly rigor and <br />apparent value judgments increases the risk of <br />misleading managers. This inappropriate use of <br />science could lead to poor policy. <br />The integration of the results from the <br />biological, sediment, and recreational studies is <br />incomplete. There is little direct <br />cross-referencing, between study components and <br />many policy statements do not consider interactions <br />and indirect effects. In short, it is not clear <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.