Difference between revisions of "LTEMP Metrics"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | ||
| + | ==LTEMP Metrics== | ||
Section 6.1 (c) of the 2016 LTEMP ROD states that “The DOI, in consultation with the Adaptive Management Working Group, will develop monitoring metrics for the goals and objectives using those in Appendix C of the FEIS as a starting point” (DOI, 2016b). Appendix C refers to a suite of “performance metrics” developed by Runge and others (2015) for evaluating the relative merits of the seven alternatives evaluated in the 2016 EIS. Those metrics were “intended to be objective measures of the performance of alternatives relative to goals for each affected resource being evaluated in the LTEMP EIS” (Runge and others, 2015). Comparisons of the performance of those metrics, among other considerations, ultimately led to selection of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. | Section 6.1 (c) of the 2016 LTEMP ROD states that “The DOI, in consultation with the Adaptive Management Working Group, will develop monitoring metrics for the goals and objectives using those in Appendix C of the FEIS as a starting point” (DOI, 2016b). Appendix C refers to a suite of “performance metrics” developed by Runge and others (2015) for evaluating the relative merits of the seven alternatives evaluated in the 2016 EIS. Those metrics were “intended to be objective measures of the performance of alternatives relative to goals for each affected resource being evaluated in the LTEMP EIS” (Runge and others, 2015). Comparisons of the performance of those metrics, among other considerations, ultimately led to selection of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:18, 8 September 2026
|
|
LTEMP MetricsSection 6.1 (c) of the 2016 LTEMP ROD states that “The DOI, in consultation with the Adaptive Management Working Group, will develop monitoring metrics for the goals and objectives using those in Appendix C of the FEIS as a starting point” (DOI, 2016b). Appendix C refers to a suite of “performance metrics” developed by Runge and others (2015) for evaluating the relative merits of the seven alternatives evaluated in the 2016 EIS. Those metrics were “intended to be objective measures of the performance of alternatives relative to goals for each affected resource being evaluated in the LTEMP EIS” (Runge and others, 2015). Comparisons of the performance of those metrics, among other considerations, ultimately led to selection of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. The performance metrics developed by Runge and others (2015), while suitable for comparing draft alternatives, were not designed nor intended to measure resource outcomes based on empirical observations of resource condition following implementation of the LTEMP. In 2019, the DOI’s Assistant Secretary for Water and Science directed the Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) to identify a set of “metrics” for assessing how well the selected alternative was meeting the goals and objectives stated in the LTEMP (DOI, 2016b). In fiscal years 2021-2023, Reclamation coordinated with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to work with GCDAMP stakeholders in developing a new set of performance metrics for tracking progress towards attaining the resource goals specified in the LTEMP, using the previous performance metrics as a starting point. [1] |
| -- |
-- |
-- |
|---|
|
|
