1
Introduction

ORIGINS OF THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC PLAN

A challenge in writing about the Glen Canyon Dam and Grand Canyon riverine ecosystem (Figure 1.1) is deciding where and how to begin. This review of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center's Strategic Plan (see http://www.gcmrc.gov) focuses on documents prepared between May 1997 and March 1999. The roots of these plans and associated programs, however, extend much deeper. They stem from the dramatic effects of construction, closure (in 1963), and subsequent operations of Glen Canyon Dam in one of the world's more beautiful landscapes. They have been shaped by lessons drawn from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies program, which began to define the dam's impacts on the Grand Canyon ecosystem. They reflect the evolving ''Law of the River" (the collection of compacts, statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations regarding Colorado River basin water), the changing roles of modern science in the Grand Canyon since John Wesley Powell's expeditions, and centuries of Native American experience in and knowledge of the Grand Canyon. While mindful of these roots, our review begins with formative events in the record of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, a program that extended from 1982 to 1996. It is not possible to clearly understand the current Strategic Plan or the debates surrounding it without this historical perspective.

The National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the first phase of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies in 1986, concluding that "It



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 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem 1 Introduction ORIGINS OF THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC PLAN A challenge in writing about the Glen Canyon Dam and Grand Canyon riverine ecosystem (Figure 1.1) is deciding where and how to begin. This review of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center's Strategic Plan (see http://www.gcmrc.gov) focuses on documents prepared between May 1997 and March 1999. The roots of these plans and associated programs, however, extend much deeper. They stem from the dramatic effects of construction, closure (in 1963), and subsequent operations of Glen Canyon Dam in one of the world's more beautiful landscapes. They have been shaped by lessons drawn from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies program, which began to define the dam's impacts on the Grand Canyon ecosystem. They reflect the evolving ''Law of the River" (the collection of compacts, statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations regarding Colorado River basin water), the changing roles of modern science in the Grand Canyon since John Wesley Powell's expeditions, and centuries of Native American experience in and knowledge of the Grand Canyon. While mindful of these roots, our review begins with formative events in the record of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, a program that extended from 1982 to 1996. It is not possible to clearly understand the current Strategic Plan or the debates surrounding it without this historical perspective. The National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the first phase of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies in 1986, concluding that "It

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Figure 1.1 Grand Canyon River Ecosystem and Colorado River Basin (Inset). SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1995).

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem cannot be stressed too strongly that detailed understanding of the Grand Canyon Ecosystem requires a well-planned monitoring program" (NRC, 1987, p. 78). Although long-term monitoring was envisioned by the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, no monitoring plans were adopted in GCES Phase I (1982–1987). Further, the early stages of Phase I were disrupted in 1983 by uncontrolled flooding in the Grand Canyon. Research in GCES Phase II (1987–1996) was originally based on an ecosystem approach structured around specific hypotheses about the environmental and social effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations. This work, however, was disrupted by the immediate needs for data required to prepare the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. Research flows were authorized to accelerate data acquisition and, following this, interim flows were applied to protect downstream resources until the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 1995. At the request of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies' senior scientist, and in cooperation with the National Research Council, a workshop on long-term ecosystem monitoring was convened in 1992 in Irvine, California (NRC, 1992). A plan—Long-Term Monitoring in Glen and Grand Canyon: Response to Operations of Glen Canyon Dam (Patten, 1993)—was drafted, as required by the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Appendix A). This was the first step toward a future strategic plan. A National Research Council committee criticized the draft monitoring plan for neglecting the role of research, failing to estimate the likely costs of monitoring, not specifying the frequency and methods of monitoring, omitting information on administration and management, and not being clearly written (NRC, 1994). These criticisms, along with pressures from the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of the Interior for timely completion of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, reduced the momentum of long-term planning efforts. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995) examined nine dam-operation alternatives, including the preferred "modified low fluctuating flow" (MLFF) alternative. Long-term monitoring and research was a common element for all alternatives, and was situated within a broader Adaptive Management Program ("Program") consisting of five organizational participants (Figure 1.2): The Secretary's Designee - a person designated by the

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Figure 1.2 Organizations in the Adaptive Management Program. SOURCE: Center (1997). Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the Adaptive Management Program. Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) - a federal advisory committee representing various stakeholder groups and meeting biannually on issues of policy (Appendix B). Technical Work Group (TWG) - a federal advisory committee appointed by Adaptive Management Work Group members to address technical aspects of resource management (Appendix C). Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC, or "Center") - a science center created in November 1995 to administer

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem monitoring and research needed by the Adaptive Management Program. Independent Review Panels- panels established to provide independent review of the Center's scientific programs and documents. The Secretary of the Interior's Record of Decision (ROD) on October 8, 1996 established the Adaptive Management Program and a modified version of the preferred alternative. Operating limits associated with the Record of Decision are listed in Table 1.1, and the entire Record of Decision is included as Appendix D. To determine when to release a "beach/habitat-building flow" (described in the Record of Decision and based, in part, on the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, sec. 602) the Adaptive Management Work Group adopted the following "hydrologic triggering criteria" (Adaptive Management Work Group, minutes of January 15, 1998 meeting): If the January 1 forecast for the January–July unregulated spring runoff into Lake Powell exceeds 13 million acre-feet (about 140 percent of normal), assuming that Lake Powell is at approximately 3678 feet elevation (21.5 million acre-feet capacity), or Any time a January–July Lake Powell inflow forecast would require a powerplant monthly release greater than 1.5 million acre-feet (25,000 cfs average monthly flow). The Center and the Technical Work Group have developed several beach/habitat-building flow scenarios (e.g., in terms of flow duration, magnitude, and load following alternatives [Melis et al., 1998]), as well as a "resource criteria" procedure to ensure systematic and timely responses to hydrologic conditions, impact assessment, and compliance requirements in the event that a hydrologic triggering event does occur (Ralston, Winfree and Gold, 1998). The Center and the Technical Work Groups are continuing to examine hydrologic forecasting models and likely frequencies of beach/habitat-building flow events. The Adaptive Management Work Group is consistently described in Center and Adaptive Management Program documents as being composed of various "stakeholder" groups. This term is more generally used in resource management to refer to potentially affected parties. Given the Grand Canyon's national and international significance, the full range of potential "stakeholders" is very large. As the term is used in the Adaptive Management Program and throughout this report, however, it generally refers to a more specific group of federal

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem TABLE 1.1 Operating Limits of the Secretary's Record of Decision* Minimum releases: 8,000 cfs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 5,000 cfs at night Maximum releases: 25,000 cfs (exceeded during beach/ habitat-building flows) Allowable daily fluctuations: 5,000, 6,000, or 8,000 cfs   5,000 cfs: Daily fluctuation limit for monthly release volumes less than 600,000 acre-feet   6,000 cfs: Daily fluctuation limit for monthly release volumes of 600,000–800,000 acre-feet   8,000 cfs: Daily fluctuation limit for monthly release volumes of over 800,000 acre-feet   Ramp rates1: 4,000 cfs/hour up 1,500 cfs/hour down * Subject to emergency exception criteria for emergency releases and continuing discussion of hydropower "regulation" fluctuations. 1Ramp rates indicate the limits at which discharge through the dam can be increased ("up") and decreased ("down"). resource management agencies; Indian tribes; Colorado River Basin state representatives; and nongovernmental organizations representing environmental, recreation, and hydropower interests. The current Adaptive Management Work Group (see Appendix B) includes twelve "cooperating agencies" (including six tribal groups), representatives from the seven basin states, and two representatives each from three non-governmental groups (environmental, recreational, and federal power purchasers). The Adaptive Management Work Group is the primary

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem stakeholder group in the Adaptive Management Program. The Technical Work Group (Appendix C) includes representatives from the AMWG's cooperating agencies and other members. Some of these agencies are primarily management organizations, such as the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service; others are primarily science organizations, such as the U.S. Geological Survey; and others are nongovernmental organizations. The aim of the Technical Work Group is "To articulate to the GCMRC the science and information needs expressed in the objectives defined by the AMWG, and to assist in recommending science priorities" (Center, 1997, p. 28). Given their close relations to the Adaptive Management Work Group and their interests in Grand Canyon monitoring and research, Technical Work Group members may be considered "stakeholders" serving as technical representatives in the Adaptive Management Program. When the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement was completed in March 1995, a "Transition Work Group" was created to help effect a transition from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II to the Adaptive Management Program. It drafted guidelines, protocols, and administrative plans for the Center and worked on management objectives and information needs for the future. The Center joined the Transition Work Group in November 1995 to begin formulating the Center's Strategic Plan. The Center released a final version of the Strategic Plan for 1997–2002 (Center, 1997) on May 1, 1997 (see http://www.gcmrc.gov). The plan was quickly approved by the Adaptive Management Work Group at its first meeting in September 1997. The National Research Council was asked to review the plans in January 1998. A committee was convened and began its work in May 1998. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE The National Research Council committee was charged to address two main questions and five related questions regarding the Long-Term Strategic Plan and fiscal year 1999 Annual Plans: Review the Long-Term Plan using interdisciplinary input to determine if the current Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center plan will be effective in meeting requirements specified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. At least three objectives [questions]

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem must be evaluated to determine if the above requirements are met: Objective 1: Does the Long-Term Plan respond to the new adaptive management process called for by the Act and the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement? That is, is the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center functioning effectively in the Adaptive Management Program, especially regarding incorporation of all stakeholder objectives and information needs in the planning process? Objective 2: Does the Long-Term Plan incorporate past research knowledge in developing new monitoring and research directions? Objective 3: Has the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center appropriately addressed past reviews of Glen Canyon Environmental Studies programs in formulating new research directions? Characterize weaknesses of the Long-Term Plan and recommend short and long-term science elements to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to address identified weaknesses. Two objectives [questions] must be addressed to respond to this goal: Objective 1: What weaknesses exist in the Long-Term Plan and how do these weaknesses affect the potential effectiveness of the overall science program? Objective 2: What changes can be made to the Long-Term Plan to overcome defined weaknesses and/or enhance the Long-Term Plan to meet its defined mission? What specific science elements (programs) are necessary to correct specific plan weaknesses? The strategic plans encompass the Center's policy mandate, its perspective on adaptive management, its monitoring and research programs, and its budget. An assessment of whether the Center is functioning effectively in the Adaptive Management Program requires analysis of organizational and staffing issues. Although it was not charged to do so, this committee identified strengths as well as weaknesses of the Strategic Plan to provide a balanced review and to recognize important accomplishments of the Center and the Adaptive Management Program. In some cases, the committee identified specific science elements for improving Center programs. In other cases, guidance is offered at a general level. In yet other instances, solutions were not immediately clear and will have to be addressed by the Center and Adaptive Management Program stakeholder groups over the long term and with use of the Strategic Plan.

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem This review builds on previous National Research Council reviews of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (Table 1.2). National Research Council reviews of Colorado River management, more broadly defined, date back to Water and Choice in the Colorado River Basin: An Example of Alternatives in Water Management (NAS, 1968), which noted changing attitudes toward dams but did not examine dam-operations alternatives in detail. It anticipated debates about the range of alternatives that, in the broader public forum but not in the Adaptive Management Program, has included draining Lake Powell (U.S. Congress, 1997). Earlier scientific reviews of Colorado River development identified issues related to flooding, sediment transport, wildlife, and recreational effects of dam construction on the Colorado's mainstem (President's Water Resources Policy Commission, 1950; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1950; U.S. Geological Survey, 1925; U.S. National Park Service, 1946). A 1946 report, The Colorado River: A Natural Menace Becomes a National Resource, included the following comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: "The methods of reservoir operation, therefore, will be the determining factors in mitigation of damages and possible creation of benefits" (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1946, p. 252). Fifty years later, a National Research Council (1996a) committee reviewed what had been learned in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, the most comprehensive investigation of dam-operation effects attempted to date. The review noted progress toward an ecosystem framework, external peer review, and administrative organization. Since then, a major controlled flood has been released, the Center has been established, and the Adaptive Management Program has been launched. As part of that Program, the Center prepared a Strategic Plan and requested a review by the National Research Council. In light of the past experience with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, it was not surprising that the Strategic Plan and National Research Council review were further complicated by unfolding events. COMPLICATIONS WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN The 1997 Strategic Plan was adopted with an informal understanding that unresolved issues would be addressed after the Center was established. These unresolved issues included "potential new management objectives and information needs, and a proposed Lake Powell program" (Technical Work Group Minutes, 1997, p. 18). A conceptual model and research syntheses were also intended to produce "increased

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem TABLE 1.2 NRC Reports on the Colorado River 1987 River and Dam Management (National Academy Press). 1988 "Supplementary Report to River and Dam Management." 1988 "Letter report to the Honorable Donald Paul Hodel." 1991 Colorado River and Dam Ecology. Symposium proceedings (National Academy Press). 1991 "Review of the Draft Integrated Research Plan for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Phase II." 1991 "Letter report to Commissioner Dennis Underwood." 1991 "Letter report to the Honorable Manuel Lujan." 1992 "Letter report to Michael Roluti . . . on May 1992 draft report 'Power system impacts of potential changes in Glen Canyon power plant operation.'" 1992 "Letter Report to David L. Wegner. . .assessing proposed GCES studies related to economics, hydropower production and dam operations." 1992 "Long-Term Monitoring Workshop for the Grand Canyon," position papers. 1993 "Letter report to Tim Randle. . .on January 1993 preliminary draft 'Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona.'" 1994 Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 1994 Review of the Draft Federal Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. 1996 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon (National Academy Press).   SOURCE: NRC (1996a, pp. 8–10).

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem knowledge to revise the Strategic Plan'' (Center, 1997). The Center thus chose to revise the Strategic Plan soon after this National Research Council committee started its review. The revised plan was reviewed by the Technical Work Group in September and November 1998 and was to be approved by the Adaptive Management Work Group in January 1999. As these revisions presented a moving target, the National Research Council committee decided to assess both the current 1997 Strategic Plan and the 1998 draft Strategic Plan. The situation became more complicated in December 1998, however, when the Technical Work Group decided it could not recommend the revised plan for adoption by the Adaptive Management Work Group. Some stakeholders expressed serious concerns about sections that dealt with policy, adaptive management, geographic scope, and Center administration. These issues had been postponed to get the Program off the ground, partly with the hope that they would be resolved within and through the Adaptive Management Program. The adaptive management process yielded further complications when discussion of the Center's draft Strategic Plan revealed the lack of a strategic plan for the overall Adaptive Management Program. At the January 1999 Adaptive Management Work Group meeting, Chapters 1–3 of the Strategic Plan were reassigned to the Technical Work Group: "The TWG should focus on the Strategic Plan for the Adaptive Management Program first using the draft that was developed by the GCMRC [i.e., Center], and completing the final draft for review and approval by the next AMWG meeting" (http://130.118.161.89/amwg_new/quick_updates.htm-1/20/99). The Technical Work Group subsequently divided this motion into two tasks, the first of which was to draft a "Guidance Document" of existing laws and policies defining the overall scope of the Program (in consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of the solicitor); the second task was to prepare a strategic plan for the entire Program. These events indicate the salience and the complexity of strategic planning for monitoring, research, and adaptive management in Grand Canyon. Some events originate from criticisms of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, such as some stakeholder concerns about expanding scientific programs and increasing budgets. To date, there has been no detailed historical assessment of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and its bearing upon adaptive management and ecosystem science in the Grand Canyon. A 1990 National Research Council symposium on Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management included two brief chapters on the history of the Glen Canyon Environmental

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Studies written by leading participants in that program (chapters by Wegner and Patten in NRC, 1991. cf. NRC, 1996a). The 1997 Strategic Plan contains a historical synopsis, but it does not analyze its implications for monitoring, research, or adaptive management. Other important aspects of Grand Canyon use and management have received historical attention (Lavender, 1985; Martin, 1990; Morehouse, 1996; Pyne, 1998; Schmidt et al., 1999a). The Center should encourage professional historians to examine the record of scientific contributions to management of the Grand Canyon river ecosystem. Although this committee did not include a historian, it encourages archiving at the Center to facilitate historical analysis of what has and has not proven "adaptive" in the Grand Canyon ecosystem. METHODS FOR REVIEWING THE STRATEGIC PLAN The Center's "Strategic Plan" reviewed in this report has three components: (1) the 1997 Strategic Plan, which is still in force, (2) the 1998 draft revisions and debates about them, and (3) monitoring and research chapters of the 1998 draft plan that will form the basis for the Center's new plan (Figure 1.3). To evaluate these plans, the committee employed multiple sources of information and methods of review (Knaap and Kim, 1998; Shadish et al., 1991). The principal methods involved document analysis and discussions with Center staff. The Center provided copies of plans, Adaptive Management Program documents, requests for proposals, and copies of successful proposals. Minutes of Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group meetings were obtained from the Internet. Committee members contacted individual Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group members for their views about Center plans and programs. Several committee members attended Adaptive Management Work Group meetings in Phoenix in July 1998, January 1999, and July 1999, which provided a deeper understanding of the Center's relations with other groups in the Adaptive Management Program. Two committee members participated in science trips in the Grand Canyon. Four participated in conceptual modeling workshops in October, November, and December 1998. One participated in the protocols evaluation program. Two members attended Technical Work Group meetings and ad hoc meetings in November 1998 and February 1999.

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Figure 1.3 Evolution of the Long-Term Strategic Plan. These activities led to a report that parallels the structure of the Center's Strategic Plan and speaks to questions posed in the committee's charge. Chapter 2 discusses the challenges of strategic planning. It examines the evolution of the Center's strategic plans and identifies general strengths and weaknesses, recognizing that the Center is a new organization, which calls for formative, rather than summary, evaluation (Rossi and Freeman, 1993). Nevertheless, we strive for a preliminary response to the question of whether the Strategic Plan will be effective in meeting requirements specified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act, Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision. Chapter 3 examines the Center's evolving roles in the Adaptive Management Program. It asks whether a common understanding of adaptive management and the Center's roles in it have emerged, and discusses the implications of both common and pluralistic visions for Grand Canyon resources. It discusses the management objectives and

OCR for page 18
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem information needs that guide the Center's research and monitoring program, and it evaluates the developing roles of independent review panels. In these ways it addresses the question, "Does the Long-Term Plan respond to the new Adaptive Management Process?" Chapter 4 addresses the core of the Strategic Plan. It reviews the overarching framework for ecosystem science and monitoring. It assesses the Center's five main resource program areas: (1) physical resources, (2) biological resources, (3) cultural resources, (4) socioeconomic resources, and (5) information technology. In each case, it asks how well the program areas incorporate previous reviews of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and previous research knowledge, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives. Chapter 5 turns to organizational resources, including budget, staff, and administration. Many debates among stakeholders and scientists in the Adaptive Management Program involve organizational issues. These issues thus have an important bearing on the Center's Strategic Plan and on whether the Center is likely to fulfill the requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision which is thus the opening and concluding question for this review. Chapter 6 draws together the report's main findings and recommendations.