Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Adaptive Management in Transition: <br /> <br />Where do we go from here? <br />By: Steven W. Carothers, EIS Team Member <br />Hopi Tribe <br /> <br />The Adaptive Management Program (AMP) for the opera- <br />tion of Glen Canyon Dam has begun its journey from <br />concept to realization. The first firm steps were taken on <br />January 12, 1995, when interested parties convened the first <br />meeting of the Transition Work Group (1WG). Interests <br />represented on the TWG include the environmental impact <br />statement (EIS) cooperating agencies; Colorado River Basin <br />states; and recreational, environmental, and hydropower <br />interests. <br /> <br />Those present at the meeting decided by consensus that <br />Reclamation should chair the TWG. The transition group's <br />task is to formulate the basic components of a workable <br />AMP. Their objective is to build momentum in order to be <br />well positioned when the formal administrative and technical <br />AMP structure is established after the EIS Record of <br />Decision (ROD). Until that time, the TWG will meet at <br />least once every three months, with the next meeting on <br />March 23. <br /> <br />Three subgroups were appointed to make presentations at <br />this meeting. The subgroups are: cultural resources <br />committee, AMP research center design and organization <br />committee, and monitoring plan committee. Further <br />discussions on AMP organization, membership, and funding <br />are also expected to provide additional information. <br /> <br />While a multitude of questions have yet to be resolved, the <br />purpose and general organization of the proposed AMP has <br />not changed from the description provided in the Fall 1994 <br />issue of the CRSO newsletter. The purpose of AMP is to <br />use the results of field monitoring and research studies to <br />integrate dam operations with protection and management <br />of downstream resources. <br /> <br />A designee of the Secretary of the Interior will direct the <br />AMP and chair a policy.framing committee, called the <br />Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This group, <br />similar in composition to the transition group described <br />above, will provide a forum for participation by and <br />communication among the interested parties. The AMWG <br />will make recommendations for changes in the dam <br />operations based on monitoring and research studies which <br />will be designed and executed by a technical work group and <br />a research center. An independent review panel will oversee <br />the development and execution of these studies, much as the <br />National Research Council panel currently provides oversight <br />to the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES). <br /> <br />One of the functional mechanisms of the AMP, not yet <br />determined, is exactly how changes in dam operation will be <br />implemented once research findings indicate changes are <br />appropriate. As presently designed, scientists and managers <br />of the technical work group will report to the AMWG, which <br />will be responsible for making recommendations to the <br />Secretary through the assigned designee. The AMWG will <br />be responsible for verifying the information presented by the <br />scientists against the legally defined guidelines set forth in <br />the ROD and the Grand Canyon Protection Act, along with <br />the specific objectives of the resource management agencies. <br />Ensuring the existence of this decision pathway and <br />appointing the designee will be the first challenge the <br />Secretary faces in providing for long-term protection of the <br />natural, cultural, and hydropower resources of the Grand <br />Canyon. <br /> <br />It is important to remember that the need for an AMP was <br />recognized during the EIS deliberations when it became <br />apparent that insufficient information existed to determine <br />exactly how dam operations influence some critical elements <br />of the downstream environment (like endangered species). <br /> <br />Putting it as specifically as possible, after years of data <br />gathering and analysis and 4 years of discussions over inter- <br />pretations of the data, the EIS team could not unanimously <br />and conclusively distinguish differences between the effects <br />of the Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow (SASF) and the <br />Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternatives. The <br />latter was finally chosen .as the preferred alternative, but <br />within a flexible context. Additional information must be <br />collected through time and under varying conditions to <br />increase our understanding of downstream effects, and <br />operations of the dam must be adjusted and fine-tuned in <br />response to this expanded knowledge. Thus, the need for an <br />adaptive management concept for Glen Canyon Dam was <br />born. <br /> <br />Weare at a critical juncture. Moving out of the EIS process <br />into the post-EIS era requires major reorganization as a <br />matrix of goals, roles, and players shift orientation. Recla- <br />mation's GCES program, which has managed research and <br />monitoring activities associated with the EIS, will wind up its <br />operations at the close of FY 1995 (see article on page 6). <br />Discharge parameters and other conditions of the EIS pre- <br />ferred alternative and specific requirements of the U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife Service's biological opinion on Glen Canyon <br />(Continued 011 Page 4) <br /> <br />3 <br />