In 1986 the Department of the Interior requested that the National Academy of Sciences review their science program for the Glen Canyon [Dam] Environmental Studies (GCES). While many of the Academy’s recommendations were applied by science managers in the Grand Canyon, and continued by subsequent program managers, politics and budget considerations are once again compromising the integrity of science.
The National Research Council of the Academy encouraged the GCES to “solicit scientific talent for the work based on a research plan [through a peer-reviewed request for proposals],” and to “use merit competition to select researchers, including a peer-review system outside the agency or agencies conducting the study.”
David Wegner, former director of science for the Bureau of Reclamation, informed Living Rivers that, “The advice the Academy gave GCES was very helpful to the science community. We are very proud of the programs that later developed, which continued on through the EIS process of the early 1990s.” Even after the Environmental Impact Statement this attitude prevailed during the research and monitoring phase under the auspices of the Grand Canyon Research and Monitoring Center (GCMRC), which is administered by the US Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Living Rivers has recently cautioned members of the Adaptive Management Program (AMP) that research programs are reverting back to old ways. This turn of events is gaining the attention of scientists who are fearful that heavy administrative costs will hinder their results. Additionally, a lack of competitive bidding and sufficient peer review will also detract from the quality and quantity of the monitoring undertaken.
For example, GCMRC recently decided to use in-house staff to undertake mechanical removal of trout in Grand Canyon. Bruce Taubert of Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) pointed out to AMP members that “GCMRC may do this at a cost of $500,000, while AGFD could hire a consultant to do the same work for $365,000. There would be a savings of $135,000 that would return money back to the science programs in Grand Canyon.”
