7424 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-11- how the authors arrived at their bold, box-enclosed statements even after inspection of the supporting appendixes. Unclear Objectives The goals and objectives presented in the GCES were articulated vaguely, they were inconsistent across individual studies, and they often confused science and policy. They seemed to be more strongly related to the missions of the participating agencies than to understanding how the controlled hydrologic regime of the river influenced downstream resources. For example, the National Park Service emphasized "naturalness," and the Arizona Game and Fish Department emphasized a sport fishery based on trout. The GCES did not carefully identify the resource uses and the boundaries of the study, especially as related to the missions of the agencies responsible for management. Potential management strategies (called operational scenarios) were limited in the original research design and were stated in such a way that the GCES scientists assumed that only one management strategy could be employed without adjustments through time (i.e., management strategy is assumed immutable). These shortcomings in the early planning stages precluded orderly progress toward integration of information. The problems they caused grew until the GCES scientists experienced great difficulty producing an integrated report at the end of the study. Future work by the Department of the Interior should seek to • establish specific objectives, establish the geographic zone of potential effects, and identify resource uses and values • set proper boundaries for the study