Laserfiche WebLink
Greenwire <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />"Any strategy must define what constitutes program success, and therein lies the problem," added <br />Haskell, who delivered the letter to the work group at its meeting in Phoenix this week. "The stated <br />goals are lofty, but there is no clearly defined strategy to attain them." <br />The letter is the latest in a series of critical missives from groups unhappy with the program's <br />progress. But environmentalists are not alone in their complaints. <br />Last month, the working group's own scientists raised questions in a report about the effectiveness <br />of the Colorado River flow regime adopted by the group (Greenwire, July 26). According to the <br />report, the endangered humpback chub, which inhabits a small area of the canyon near the <br />confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers, is declining at an average rate of 14 percent <br />despite efforts to help the fish. The science advisers recommended a 24 -month review of the <br />program, beginning in October. <br />BuRec spokesman Barry Wirth, who attended the meeting of the adaptive management work group <br />this week, urged patience. Recovery of the Grand Canyon ecosystem will be a long process <br />involving plenty of trial and error, he said. <br />"We've committed substantial resources in working on these issues," including recovery of the <br />humpback chub and sediment replenishment, he said, citing as examples several projects to control <br />trout, which compete with the chub. <br />BuRec contends that the experimental nature of the program has allowed managers to better <br />understand the ecological dynamics of the Grand Canyon -- an essential step in improving <br />conditions there. <br />Experimental flows, while unsuccessful in replenishing beaches over the long -term, nevertheless <br />produced valuable data that can be used to improve the next round of experimental flows. And the <br />new effort to remove non - native fish from the river may be helping the chub, although the results of <br />that experiment will not be known for another year or two (Greenwire, March 8). <br />Wirth also emphasized that the work group includes 26 representatives from a range of interests, all <br />of whom have a say in management of the canyon. "It's a diverse effort, and I think the reality is a <br />substantial amount of effort has gone into addressing these issues," he said. <br />As the work group continues to wrangle with its mission, environmentalists are also urging Congress <br />to kill a long- standing rider to BuRec's appropriations bill that prohibits expenditures on studies for <br />decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam. The provision was first added to the agency's spending bill in <br />1996, and it remains in this year's House - approved bill for fiscal year 2005. <br />"What's wrong with allowing science to look at this ?" asked Owen Lammers, executive director of <br />Living Rivers. "Isn't that what the adaptive management program is all about ?" <br />ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY DAILY * GREENWIRE * LAND LETTER * E&E <br />PUBLISHING, LLC <br />122 C. St. NW, Ste. 722 Washington, D.C. 20001 <br />E- mail:pubs(a?eenews.net * Phone: 202-628-6500 <br />http: / /www.eenews. net/ GreenwireBackissues /081204/08120412.htin 8/12/2004 <br />