Some background on the Adaptive Management Program: The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (gcpa) stipulated that the impacts of water releases from Glen Canyon Dam on the downstream riverine system continue to be monitored and assessed by a broad-based coalition of concerned constituencies. The gcpa is the latest addition to a series of Congressional Acts on the Colorado River collectively known as the “law of the river.” In response to the gcpa, the Glen Canyon Dam eis and Record of Decision by the Secretary of Interior established the Adaptive Management Program (amp) in October, 1996. Since that time, the transition from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (gces) program to the amp has been completed. It is funded by power production revenues to the tune of about 7 million dollars per year. Below is a diagram that shows the structure of the amp.

What are the functions of these groups and how do they interrelate?
Adaptive Management Work Group (amwg). This is a Federal Advisory Committee appointed by the Secretary whose purpose is to advise him on how best to operate the dam so as “to preserve, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the downstream environment in Glen and Grand Canyons.” It is composed of 27 members that represent various federal and state agencies, the basin states, several tribes, and recreational, environmental, and hydropower groups. The amwg will meet about twice each year to assess changing concerns regarding the operation of the dam. It is chaired by Steve Magnussen, a designee of the Secretary of Interior.
Technical Work Group (twg). This is a 28 member subgroup of the amwg composed of technically-minded cohorts of the amwg members. Its purpose is to work out the knitty-gritty details and provide technical expertise and advice to the amwg. It will meet once per month or as conditions warrant, and is chaired by Dr. Robert Winfree of the Grand Canyon National Park Science Center.
Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (gcmrc). This is the organization that takes direction from the amwg and conducts/oversees all research and monitoring work on the river. It is stationed in Flagstaff and is led by Dr. David Garrett.
Independent Science Review Groups. These are various members of the outside scientific community that are called upon to provide independent and unbiased oversight of research so that credible scientific work is assured.

Here are some of the latest issues of interest to river runners:
1998 Spike Flow: With full reservoirs and the biggest predicted El Niño on record, we propose to run a two-day spike flow of 45,000 cfs sometime this spring. It won't lower the reservoir much, but it will hopefully redeposit existing channel sand up high along the banks as new beaches, so that it is not all lost to Lake Mead downstream. This worked quite well during the March 1996 “media flood” spike flow that Secretary Babbitt embraced in such a big way. Trouble is: endangered species compliance procedures are laboriously slow to enact in preparation for such a flow, and no one knows whether this El Niño will really “pan-out” as predicted. Reclamation and the hydropower people just hate to waste potential power revenue by running water through the bypass tubes, if they don't have to. So, the twg is proposing two trigger criteria to the amwg, that will enable actuation of a spike flow given either:
1) the January forecast for the January–July unregulated spring runoff into Lake Powell exceeds 13 million acre feet (maf) (about 140% of normal), or
2) anytime a Lake Powell inflow forecast would require a power plant monthly release greater than 1.5 maf.
Emergency Action Plan (eap): Last month, the Bureau of Reclamation announced at a Technical Work Group meeting that it would begin to develop an eap for Glen Canyon Dam that examines various dam failure scenarios. We were assured that an eap is a standard procedure conducted on all Bureau of Reclamation (bor) dams, and Glen Canyon Dam is the only major dam that has not had an eap done on it. It will be a one to two year process.
Spillways: After the 1983 devastation of the concrete linings, semicircular slots were installed in the inclined spillway bottoms to prevent shock waves caused by cavitation. In 1984 they tested them by running 20,000 cfs through a spillway for 48 hours, then 50,000 cfs for one hour. There was no apparent damage from these short tests. Running 70,000 cfs for several weeks could be a different story. We'll see.
Flashboards: The Glen Canyon Dam eis proposed two flood control measures: raising the height of the spillway gates with 4.5 foot high flashboards and reducing the maximum allowable height of the reservoir water. In the Record of Decision (rod), the Secretary decided on the flashboards, which create 750,000 acre-feet of additional storage in the reservoir. The flashboards are already constructed and can be slapped on any time they might be needed. Do we want them up permanently, or just for big water emergencies? (bor wants some feedback, let me know what you think).
Water temperature control device: The idea from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is that endangered native fishes in Grand Canyon will do better if water temperatures are warmer in Grand Canyon, more like the pre-dam era. It will be installed on Glen Canyon Dam by Reclamation over the next two years. It will cost about 15 million dollars, a real bargain compared to the original proposal. An Environmental Assessment on this project should be available by December, 1998. They expect to have it operational by 2002.

My appointment to the amwg and twg is to represent the concerns of you 20,000 or so recreational river-runners who float the Canyon each year. Please, keep me informed on your thoughts and concerns. E-mail or write gcrg. I will do my best to get back to you as my volunteer time allows. Otherwise, look for updates in your copy of the bqr. Thanks.

Andre Potochnik