5
Organization and Resources

Adaptive management programs in the United States are being implemented under a variety of organizational structures, funding arrangements, and resource management settings. Some lessons for successful implementation have been identified (Gunderson et al., 1995). One is that institutional arrangements themselves need to be adaptive, as most attempts to institutionalize adaptive management into a standard template have failed (S. Light, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, 1999). Each setting in which adaptive management is implemented and practiced—its ecosystems, stakeholders, and issues—is complex and unique. Over 40 years ago, Gilbert White cautioned that "No two rivers are the same" (White, 1957, p. 160). Similarly, the structure and organization necessary for success will likely be unique, creating novel structures and procedures over time. At the same time, useful lessons and potential pitfalls may be drawn from past experiences and from analogues with other efforts. A common goal is to maintain and enhance the resiliency of ecosystems and human livelihoods through appropriate management strategies.

We have observed and read about the structure and function of the Adaptive Management Program and have followed the drafting of the Guidance Document. This committee was charged to review whether the Center was functioning effectively in the Adaptive Management Program, which is inextricably linked with other entities in the Program and available resources. This chapter therefore examines the Center's roles in the Program, both as originally envisioned and as



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem 5 Organization and Resources Adaptive management programs in the United States are being implemented under a variety of organizational structures, funding arrangements, and resource management settings. Some lessons for successful implementation have been identified (Gunderson et al., 1995). One is that institutional arrangements themselves need to be adaptive, as most attempts to institutionalize adaptive management into a standard template have failed (S. Light, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, 1999). Each setting in which adaptive management is implemented and practiced—its ecosystems, stakeholders, and issues—is complex and unique. Over 40 years ago, Gilbert White cautioned that "No two rivers are the same" (White, 1957, p. 160). Similarly, the structure and organization necessary for success will likely be unique, creating novel structures and procedures over time. At the same time, useful lessons and potential pitfalls may be drawn from past experiences and from analogues with other efforts. A common goal is to maintain and enhance the resiliency of ecosystems and human livelihoods through appropriate management strategies. We have observed and read about the structure and function of the Adaptive Management Program and have followed the drafting of the Guidance Document. This committee was charged to review whether the Center was functioning effectively in the Adaptive Management Program, which is inextricably linked with other entities in the Program and available resources. This chapter therefore examines the Center's roles in the Program, both as originally envisioned and as

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem they have evolved. There are many possible organizational arrangements, including the status quo. Nevertheless, as changes may be easier to effect early in the Program's development, this may be an opportune moment to recognize potential deficiencies and consider ways in which they might be resolved. We are sensitive to the significant efforts invested in the Center and Program, and hope that our recommendations for improvement are considered in ways that do not negate the considerable positive efforts to date. This chapter begins with a description and assessment of the Center's roles in the Adaptive Management Program. Recommendations regarding alternatives for the Center's institutional structure, staffing, and organization are then put forth. We also provide recommendations regarding funding and budget issues in the Adaptive Management Program that may reduce existing tensions, allowing the Center and Program to focus more effectively and cooperatively on ecosystem maintenance and enhancement. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND CENTER ROLES IN THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Center is responsible for designing and conducting research and monitoring activities, ensuring that they meet both the needs of the Adaptive Management Work Group and the tenets of ecosystem science. The Adaptive Management Work Group makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior for ecosystem management, based in part upon the Center's monitoring and research on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operating regimes on the ecosystem. These responsibilities were described in the original Center operating protocols as "consistent and effective cooperative efforts ongoing in the areas of policy, administrative and science protocols, definition of research needs, and dissemination of research information and technology" and as a "close functional relationship between resource stakeholders and managers and the Center's science group" (Center, 1996). Beyond its monitoring and research programs, the Center has been expected to be a driving force behind many Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group activities. This is contrary to a model wherein these two groups are responsible for creating a vision of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and for creating the attendant management

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem objectives and information needs, with the Center responsible for implementing monitoring and research programs. These activities have been largely defined by the Technical Work Group in coordination with the Center, with final approval resting with the Adaptive Management Work Group. There thus appears to be a need to revisit the Adaptive Management Program's operational relationships and responsibilities. Without a clarification of roles, it will be difficult for the Center or any entity to document their accomplishments and program rationale in response to the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision. One interesting feature of the Adaptive Management Program has been the establishment of a "management team" within the U.S. Department of the Interior, which regularly discusses a variety of Program issues with Center staff. This team is currently composed of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, the Secretary of the Interior's designee in the Adaptive Management Work Group (the current designee has also served as director, Operations, at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), the chief hydrologist of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Center chief. Although this team does not include or represent all stakeholders, and it was instituted to create an ad hoc administrative home for the Center, some consideration should be given to making it permanent, as this would provide a measure of independence and access that supports the intended roles of scientific monitoring and research. THE CENTER'S INSTITUTIONAL HOME The Center was temporarily formed under the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, which provided some autonomy and independence for the monitoring and research programs. This temporary arrangement was recently extended for an additional year. The reality of this arrangement, however, is that there remains a high degree of interdependence between the Center and various agencies. These include payroll and contractual services with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the use of U.S. Geological Survey facilities. The Center, however, should be truly independent if the Program is to conduct truly independent research and monitoring activities.

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem The Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement indicated that the Center would eventually be located in either the U.S. Geological Survey or the U.S. National Biological Survey (since renamed the U.S. Biological Resources Division and integrated into the U.S. Geological Survey). Several alternatives for the Center's institutional home have been considered. Based on three screening criteria that have been discussed within the Adaptive Management Program, the alternatives that have been considered include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. National Park Service, as well as extending the current interagency arrangement. Other alternatives that may be considered include a university, an independent science organization such as the Smithsonian Institution, or a new interagency arrangement. All of these alternatives contain a mix of strengths and weaknesses and the committee recognizes the complex and changing situations in each of them. This review and previous National Research Council reports on institutional and administrative issues in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies indicate that the following criteria, which resemble but extend beyond the screening criteria mentioned above, will be important for making decisions about the Center's institutional home: The Center should be housed within a premier science organization that has a commitment to physical, biological, and social science inquiry. The organization should enable the Center to work effectively with all Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam management agencies. The organization should enable the Center to communicate scientific program issues and results directly with a management team at the Assistant Secretary level in the Department of the Interior. The Center should be independent from any single stakeholder management organization within the Adaptive Management Work Group. The committee found that no arrangement currently being considered perfectly meets all these criteria. The committee recommends that any proposal for the Center's institutional home within the U.S.

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Department of the Interior include an institutional design, addressing institutional constraints and weaknesses related to these criteria. THE CENTER'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND SIZE The Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement envisioned the Center as having a small permanent staff of five or six. The Center's initial operations plan from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science increased that number to eight to ten permanent staff, with a similar number of temporary positions. Current staff levels are at the upper boundary of that range, with 20–22 positions. The size of the Center's staff and related budget levels have been sources of concern to both the Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group. Although staff levels have been justified by the Center and approved by the Adaptive Management Work Group, concerns about budget increases remain. The transition from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center involved hiring new staff and keeping some existing staff. Existing staff enhanced the transfer of Glen Canyon Environmental Studies' institutional memory to the Center, while new staff helped initiate needed changes. The value of having a senior scientist(s) was noted in the 1987 National Research Council committee's report: "no senior scientist or group of experienced science advisors were involved in the early planning or in helping the researchers in analysis and integration during the study. Had experienced scientists been involved, the results almost certainly would have been more satisfactory and useful" (NRC, 1987). A part-time senior scientist was eventually hired (1989–1996) and a draft integration report was prepared (in 1998). A senior scientist could again help ensure that current efforts fit both the ecosystem science paradigm and applied needs of the Adaptive Management Work Group. The committee recommends this position should be created and filled, as it was previously filled at the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Given its roles in both facilitating the Adaptive Management Program and implementing research and monitoring programs, the Center needs a different management structure. Earlier recommendations called for a position of senior scientist to help keep a focus on ecosystem science and research. This

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem recommendation was followed in the past, with the post filled on a part-time basis. Given the broader range of stakeholder involvement in the Program, the pressing need to implement the monitoring program, and the gap in research integration and synthesis, the committee recommends the appointment of a full-time senior scientist. The committee recommends that the senior scientist enjoy a high degree of independence (e.g., reporting directly to the Secretary of the Interior's office). The committee believes this independence would help promote an interest in the adaptive management experiments and help attract the interest of widely recognized scientists in the position. This senior scientist may represent the best means of ensuring synthesis and integration of information in the Adaptive Management Program. The senior scientist would also help articulate adaptive management experiments, including hypotheses, experimental treatments, and expected outcomes. In addition to promoting an ecosystem perspective and articulating the current adaptive management experiment—which would benefit both scientists and managers—a senior scientist would be wellplaced to help develop an ecosystem vision (see Chapter 3) and serve as an effective advocate for the adaptive management experiments themselves. This would help represent the integrity and consistency of the experiments before all parties, scientists, managers, and the public. The 1987 National Research Council review also suggested that it was unlikely that an administrative director (then of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, now of the Center) would be able to simultaneously fulfill the demanding roles of science administrator and science visionary: "There was no clear separation of administrative and scientific oversight for the GCES project. . .the GCES project manager was also one of the researchers, the contract manager, and the report integrator, and was looked to for general oversight. . .the committee believes that no one person should have been assigned such diverse responsibilities for research and management in such a large environmental study" (NRC, 1987). This committee finds these conclusions to apply equally as well today. The Center has sought a balance between its ability to contract research and monitoring activities and to conduct research and monitoring in-house. Maintaining both capabilities is a challenge. Research scientists are most knowledgeable about the Grand Canyon ecosystem, but they typically do not make good contract officers (and vice versa).

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem The Center and Program are well-served by the current cadre of scientists. In general, each resource program should have at least one staff member with scientific expertise and another with administrative skills. Additional staff and associated budget allocations seem warranted for the existing Physical Resources, Cultural Resources, and Socioeconomic Resources programs. These programs presently have only one or no staff. For example, socioeconomic analysis warrants an additional person. The Biological Resources Program is currently well staffed. Despite concerns voiced about increases in the number of Center staff, staff expertise is necessary for evaluating policy trade-offs, decision analysis, and adaptive management planning. A related organizational and staffing issue has emerged because of the twin roles played by the Center in Program planning and scientific research. Although these twin responsibilities were anticipated in the Center's original operating protocols, the primary emphasis was on science-based research and monitoring. The current organizational structure has thrust science researchers and managers into roles of program-wide planning. The Center's original operating protocols (developed in 1996) stated, "Ecosystem science, although becoming more prominent in government science programming, is still in a developmental stage. Merging of the adaptive management procedure with ecosystem science methodology creates a science planning and implementation paradigm that is even less developed. An important outcome from this program will be improved design and operational procedures for merging adaptive management and ecosystem science concepts" (Center, 1996). In addition to a senior scientist, there is a need for an adaptive management specialist at the Center. This specialist's roles would include the explicit incorporation of adaptive management planning within the Center and the Program. The adaptive management specialist would have knowledge of institutional aspects of adaptive management and skills in policy analysis. This person would, among other tasks, help identify and articulate links between scientific research, alternatives analysis, and adaptive management processes. The committee feels that both these positions are essential to the successful execution of a science-based, ecosystem-level, adaptive management program associated with Glen Canyon Dam operations and their downstream effects.

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem BUDGET AND FUNDING ISSUES The budget for the Adaptive Management Program has been in the general range of $7–7.5 million (Table 5.1). These funds, as provided for in the Grand Canyon Protection Act, come from sales of hydroelectricity through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Table 5.1 indicates the budget for the Center's monitoring and research programs, and the administrative costs of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Programmatic Agreement. The Center has also occasionally sought additional funds for research and monitoring. Some Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group members have expressed concerns over proposed increases to budget and staff, as well over increases in the Adaptive Management Program's geographic scope. This is understandable, as the revenue for the Program comes directly from activities in which they have a vested interest. The Grand Canyon Protection Act allows for funding of research and monitoring programs from power revenues; however, it neither requires nor precludes funding from other sources. In fact, Center scientists have obtained outside funding for some projects. There are reasonable questions regarding the funding of all Program activities through a single source. While one could argue that these are federal funds, their use nevertheless affects some stakeholders, and others not at all. It can also be argued that this funding is reasonable, as the Glen Canyon Dam and its operations have caused most of the changes being investigated and monitored. It may be useful to recall how research and monitoring activities have been classified as "white," "gray," and "black." In the opinion of many Adaptive Management Work Group members, white issues are the only ones that clearly fall under the responsibility of the Adaptive Management Program. As one proceeds to the gray and black issues there is less agreement, not necessarily about the value of the research, but whether it should be funded under the current arrangement. It seems reasonable that a core program of staffing and research be established at current levels or greater and that some long-term assurance be provided regarding the stability of these funds. One can then refine the criteria for determining which additional future activities should be supported from

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem TABLE 5.1 Grand Canyon Research and Monitoring Center Budget (values in millions of dollars)   FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000* Adaptive Management Program Administration and Support 1.4 1.4 1.4 Center Bureau of Reclamation support     .1 Operations and Personnel 1.9 1.9 2.0 Physical Resources 1.2 1.2 .7 Biological Resources 1.4 1.4 1.5 Cultural Resources .4 .4 .3 Socioeconomic Resources .6 .6 .06 Information Technology .4 .4 .3 Other, including remote sensing technology, logistics, and independent review     1.2 TOTAL ~7.3 ~7.3 ~7.7 * the fiscal year 2000 budget is one of a few of the proposed budget estimates. While the figures are thus not final, they are indicative of evolving allocations within the Program. SOURCE: Center (1998).

OCR for page 125
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem additional power revenue funds and which might come from the budgets of other agencies (e.g., in the U.S. Department of the Interior and foundations). This committee feels that core funding at least at the level currently provided is essential, but that there should be both flexibility and encouragement for the Center and its collaborating scientists to seek additional funds. We also believe the Strategic Plan should provide for some form of budget escalation to offset inflation. This will be a longterm program, and the funding commitment should reflect that fact. A multiyear funding arrangement coordinated through the agencies and Congress should be considered. This could also ensure more stability for future monitoring and research needs (see NRC, 1996a). The committee also believes that performance and fiscal responsibility are important in this program and that costs need to remain reasonable. To fulfill the aims of the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the Secretary of the Interior's related responsibilities, however, it would be have the Adaptive Management Program to find ways to enhance the program's fiscal resources as needed, and to reduce the impediments created by the current funding arrangements.