Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
In the 1980’s a public outcry surfaced concerning the effect of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the downstream river corridor of the Colorado River. Consequently the Bureau of Reclamation investigated with a study to assess effects of the dam on the downstream riparian habitat. In December 1982, the multiagency Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES Phase I) was initiated in response to the concerns of Federal, State,Tribal agencies and the public. GCES Phase I was completed in 1988 and immediately, GCES Phase II was initiated to gather additional data on specific operational elements. Federal and State resource agencies, Indian Tribes, private consultants, universities, and river guides continue to cooperate in these studies funded by the CRSP power revenues.Environmental Impact Statement: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam
On July 27, 1989, the Secretary of the Interior directed the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reevaluate the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. This was a result of significant public concern following major scientific studies of the adverse downstream impacts of the dam. The EIS needed to address downstream environmental and cultural resources, including Native American interests in the Glen and Grand Canyons. Specific alternatives were to be determined that would meet all statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream resources, producing hydropower, delivering water allotments, and to protect affected Native American interests and mitigation would be discussed for future dam operations and existence. With the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, additional guidelines were enacted to operate the Glen Canyon Dam "in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreational Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use." (Section 1802(a)) In accordance with public issues of concern, the EIS team determined the resources and their significant issues to be analyzed in detail. These resources were: water, sediment, fish, vegetation, wildlife and habitat, endangered and other special status species, cultural resources, air quality, recreation, hydropower, and non-use value.
The nine flow alternatives analyzed are summarized below. The EIS team weighed benefits to all resources (physical, biological, cultural, and consumable) in identifying the preferred Modified Low Fluctuating Flow alternative.
The Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative aims to "reduce daily flow fluctuations well below no action levels and to provide special high steady releases of short duration, with the goal of protecting or enhancing downstream resources while allowing limited flexibility for power operations."
Development of the Adaptive Management Program at Glen Canyon
Dam
This Environmental Impact Statement established the Adaptive
Management Program (AMP) under a Record of Decision (ROD) by the
Department of the Interior.
The AMP in the 1996 EIS also included a set of dam operations to minimize dam effects on the downstream riparian habitat: 5-8 K cfs minimum release, 25 K cfs maximum release, down ramping rates of 1500cfs/hr, up ramping rates 4000cfs/hr, and a max 24 hour flux dependent on the 5-8 K inflow. Under the AMP of 1996 a controlled flood was done as well. According to Gold the flood was not necessarily a biological success but more of a political success. Politicians, managers, scientists, and the general public celebrated the minor successes of the experiment. Adaptive Management as a process was embraced. The following 1997 flood took 2 months compared to the 2 years that the 1996 flood took.
25 groups make up the federal advisory Adaptive Management Work Group (see list of members). This committee makes suggestions on operations of the dam to the Secretary of the Interior. Three organizations then report directly to the federal advisory work group: a Monitoring and Research Center that would study the downstream resources, an Independent Review Panel that would review the science (scientific information is evaluated by an external review panel of professionals), and a Technical Work Group (see diagram). The Adaptive Management work Group meets twice yearly, the Technical work group meets monthly and the other tow groups meet when necessary. 8 million dollars a year would fund the AMP, and a large part of the sum would go to Monitoring and Research.
| Cooperating Agencies (12)
Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Indian Affairs National Park Service US Fish and Wildlife Western Area Power Administration AZ Game and Fish Department Hopi
Seven Basin States
Environmental Groups (2)
Recreation Interests (2)
|
 |
Adaptive Management began its development in the 70’s in forest ecosystems around British Columbia, Canada. These programs originally were designed for managing these forests as natural resources. Water storage and Hydropower management programs were also developed. However, these first AMP’s have been criticized for underestimating complex systems and ignoring ecological considerations. As Adaptive Management became more widespread, programs in the US were developed. It is apparent from the structure and the membership of the Adaptive Management Program that ecological consideration is made. Berry Gold from the Water Resources Division says that Adaptive Management in the US is groundbreaking, "While AM has governed over people in the past it is now governing with the people." In essence, AMP has created a federally chartered advisory committee that cannot be ignored by the Secretary of the Interior.
Adaptive Management must represent a variety of groups and come to consensus on dam management to protect resources. In order to develop goals and objectives AMP must first develop stakeholder interest groups. The groups make up the federal advisory committee, which suggest GCD management actions to meet goals and objectives of the interest groups. The management decision for dam operations is given to the Secretary of the Interior as advice, and operations may be adjusted accordingly. Follow-up is necessary to test and determine whether the management actions facilitate set goals. If goals of interest groups are not met, then appropriate adjustments are made. Communication to stakeholder and interested parties of this process is imperative. With the variety of interest groups that sit on the board there are a variety of management suggestions that accommodate their individual interests. In order to reach consensus much debate and discussion occurs, therefore interested groups must be invested and have the time.
In order to implement AMP and maintain its practicality at Glen Canyon Dam there are several requirements. AMP begins with stakeholder management objectives and informational needs. This requires input and communication between GCD management and research scientist. Also management actions should be treated as experiments. Follow up monitoring of management is needed to see if the ecosystem responds. All future management will be based on knowledge of past experiments.
So how is the Adaptive Management Program working? According to Terry Gun of Lee’s Ferry Outfitters, a prominent fly-fishing outfitter, the fishing interest is well represented in the Adaptive Management program as Arizona Trout Unlimited. Hopi’s interest in AMP stems from the cultural and religious importance of the Grand Canyon. They believe that there exists a heavy bias for the biological and resource use in the Adaptive Management program. There exists a conflict within the program based on understanding the world though science. They believe that there are other ways of looking at the world and assessing its value in a cultural and religious sense. The Hopi Tribe has an interest in limited fluctuations of flows and up and down rates. Sediment protects sites and is now not there due to increased erosion of archeological sites. They also have a concern for the endangered species of the basin because of their covenant with nature. According to Kurt Dongoske the AMP is unable to respond to Hopi values. He also believes that the Indian members are not well represented. Six Indian representatives make up a quarter of AMP board, but inconsistencies in attendance creates conflict and difficulties amongst the members.
There also exist many problems and uncertainties with the Adaptive Management Program. Flexibility of the AMP is colliding with the rigidity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is not an ecosystem approach but a species specific approach to management. The AMP is more of a resource/ecosystem management approach. Significant uncertainties exist in many proposed management actions. The proposed temperature control device may be insufficient to achieve the goals of the Adaptive Management Work Group. Further study must be done to analyze the effects that increased temperature will have on trout susceptibility to whirling disease, native fish populations, and other factors. Management as a tool for experimentation could have adverse effects when outcomes to management are uncertain.
Citizens Environmental Assessment for the Restoration of Glen
Canyon
The latest actions surrounding Glen Canyon Dam are being led by Dave Wegner and the Glen Canyon Institute while they prepare a Citizens Environmental Assessment (CEA) to restore Glen Canyon. Three primary areas will be evaluated: 1) Restoring Glen Canyon. 2) Restoring and protecting the long-term ecological sustainability of Grand Canyon. 3) Safety of Glen Canyon Dam and the variability of water supply and flooding in the Colorado River. The Institute’s objective is to get the government to respond to the CEA, a scientifically and socially supported document, and initiate an EIS on the proposal to restore Glen Canyon.
