|
 he
Adaptive Management Program (amp) for the operation of Glen Canyon
Dam is an effort by Interior Secretary Babbitt to satisfy the mandate
of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992…“to operate
the dam to preserve, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the
values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National
Recreational Area were created.” The Adaptive Management Work
Group (amwg) is a Federal Advisory Committee composed of 25 stakeholders
from the river basin appointed by Secretary Babbitt, including government
agencies, tribes, basin states, and public groups. This committee
advises him on how best to manage the dam for the benefit of downstream
resources. The Secretary chose gcrg to represent the recreational
river-runner community on the committee.
Gcrg amwg representative Andre Potochnik, reports on some river
science issues below.
I. Development of the Strategic Plan
Much of the work of the Adapative Management Work Group (amwg) in
1999 was on development of a cohesive Strategic Plan for the Adaptive
Management Program. Once completed, it will consist of a “nested”
set of four documents, each of which will follow from the previous
document. In this way, the amwg is developing an internally consistent
document, based on collective consensus, which will give clear direction
for the objectives of river science for years to come. These documents
step from the general to the specific and include: Vision-Mission
> Principles-Goals > Management Objectives > Information
Needs > Glossary of terms.
Vision-Mission Statement:
The amwg members ran a river trip through Grand Canyon in May of
1999 to learn first-hand from researchers about the condition of
physical, biologic, cultural, and recreation resources below the
dam. The second purpose was to write the first component of the
Adaptive Management Strategic Plan, a Vision-Mission Statement.
Both objectives were accomplished (see “El Condor Pasa”
in bqr 12:3). The Vision-Mission statement for the Adaptive Management
Program is printed below.
Principles:
These are a set of eight statements or assumptions that clarify
the philosophical and institutional framework under which the Goals
are constructed. Once completed, the Principles, Goals, Management
Objectives and Information Needs will be printed in a later edition
of the bqr. Please, contact me if you would like to give us input
or feedback on these documents.
Goals:
Goals are broad statements of long-term results to be achieved,
which link the Mission to the more specific Management Objectives.
I serve on the amwg Strategic Planning committee to develop the
Principles, Goals, and Management Objectives. The committee is nearing
completion of the Principles/ Goals document. I am advocating for
language that enhances the quality of the recreational experience,
protects cultural resources, and restores natural patterns and processes
to the river environment.
Management Objectives and Information Needs:
Management Objectives translate the goals into operational terms
and need to be specific, measurable, achievable, and time-specific.
More than one of these might contribute to a single goal. Information
Needs are research and monitoring statements that define the actual
research or monitoring projects that achieve the Management Objectives.
I believe that Information Needs should be primarily developed by
the science staff of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
(gcmrc), without excessive micro-management by the Technical Work
Group (twg).
The Strategic Planning Committee has been very productive so far.
At the Jan. 20–21 amwg meeting in Phoenix, the committee will
be requesting the amwg's support to develop the first draft
of the Management Objectives with subsequent review by the Technical
Work Group. We are working to complete the Goals and the Management
Objective documents for acceptance by the amwg in their April 4–5
meeting. Please feel free to attend any of the amwg or twg meetings
in Phoenix. All are open to the public with meeting dates published
in the Federal Register and Bureau of Reclamation web site http://uc.usbr.gov/amp/.
Vision and Mission
Adopted by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Work Group
July 21, 1999
The Grand Canyon is a homeland for some, sacred to many, and a national
treasure for all. In honor of past generations, and on behalf of
those of the present and future, we envision an ecosystem where
the resources and natural processes are in harmony under a stewardship
worthy of the Grand Canyon.
We advise the Secretary of the Interior on how best to protect,
mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the integrity of the Colorado
River ecosystem affected by Glen Canyon Dam, including natural biological
diversity (emphasizing native biodiversity), traditional cultural
properties, spiritual values, and cultural, physical, and recreational
resources through the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and other means.
We do so in keeping with the federal trust responsibilities to Indian
tribes, in compliance with applicable federal, state, and tribal
laws, including the water delivery obligations of the Law of the
River, and with due consideration to the economic value of power
resources.
This will be accomplished through our long-term partnership utilizing
the best available scientific and other information through an adaptive
ecosystem management process.
II. Public outreach
Interior Secretary Babbitt informed the amwg that he would like
to see it develop a better public outreach program. I sit on the
amwg Outreach committee whose purpose is to do just that. The Grand
Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon Association, Bureau of Reclamation,
and gcrg (through the bqr, annual meetings, and the Guides Training
Seminar) are beginning to move forward on this topic. I would like
to hear ideas from you on how to better communicate river science
issues and results to the public in the coming year.
III. Hydrology of the basin and management of the dam
The most recent report on predicted runoff from the upper basin
into Lake Powell indicates that the Rocky Mountain snow pack is
far below normal for this time of year. Since the beginning of the
water year on Oct. 1, 1999, Reclamation has significantly drawn-down
the reservoir because it was so full. Of course, it's still
early winter, the weather could change significantly. But, if this
drought trend continues, Reclamation may declare a minimum release
year (8.23 million acre feet). This would likely trigger a “hammer
clause” in the Glen Canyon Dam Record of Decision which stipulates
that the Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow alternative be enacted
for restoration of endangered native fish. This means constant low
water, possibly 8,000 cfs for much of the summer and fall season!
IV. Beach habitat building flow (bhbf)
With low expected runoff, the hydrologic trigger criteria for initiating
a bhbf will not likely be reached. Even if we get low flows, I still
see the need to advocate for a spike flow for the following reasons:
• The river channel and eddies still hold much of the sand
from the unusually big Paria River sediment influx of the past three
monsoon seasons. Use it or lose it to Lake Mead.
• The canyon needs new beach sand due to the excessive erosion
of beaches over the past several years from releases above 20,000
cfs.
• Big flash floods have wiped out much beach sand no longer
replaceable by natural floods.
• Vegetation continues to encroach and eliminate camping areas.
Some have suggested the following spike flow regime (what do you
think?):
1) 45,000 cfs for two days (put lots of sand up high).
2) 31,500 cfs (power plant capacity) for the next two days (rework
the new high sand to a useful docking/kitchen level).
3) Less than 18,000 cfs constant (to conserve sand in the system
and find out if endangered native fish do better as a result).
V. Funding needs
Gcrg is very grateful to the Grand Canyon Conservation Fund for
partial funding of our participation in the Adaptive Management
Program, the Guides Training Seminar, and the Adopt-a-Beach program.
We believe this is money well spent. Commercial passengers volunteer
$1 per day of their trip to this fund under participating outfitters.
These dollars are administered for river conservation purposes by
an outfitter committee to individuals or groups involved in river
conservation efforts.
We also appreciate funding from the Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center for partial support of our Adopt-a-Beach program.
Most importantly, it is you…the members of gcrg whose unqualified
support enables gcrg to continue being actively involved in current
river-running issues in the Grand Canyon…thanks to you all.
VI. My opinion on some big issues in coming years
• The temperature control device (tcd) being considered for
installation on Glen Canyon dam by the Bureau of Reclamation, could
have a profound effect on river running in Grand Canyon. The tcd,
intended to help native fish downstream, remains contentious as
to whether the native fish will be more helped than harmed. Also,
with warmer water, I wouldnít be surprised to see profuse
blooms of nutrients and fecal coloforms washed-in from the Page
golf course and sewage plant, both of which sit near the brink of
Glen Canyon just below the dam.
• Amp Strategic Plan (see above). I'd like to hear your
management vision and values of the river experience and river ecosystem,
because the amwg plans to complete the Strategic Plan by April,
2000.
• Native American issues. In working with the native tribes
in the Adaptive Management Program, I have gained greater sensitivity
and respect for their concerns in the Canyon, whether they be Hopi,
Navajo, Hualapai, Havasupai, Paiute or Zuni. Human visitation is
perceived by them to be a major factor in the loss of cultural sites
to theft, vandalism, or erosion. I think that some sites should
be off-limits to visitation, and that all sites should be respected
as much as any other holy place. River runners need to actively
change the perception that we are part of “the problem”
by becoming more aware that native peoples have occupied the river
corridor for many hundreds of years, and that cultural sites and
areas of traditional importance are common throughout the river
corridor. We need to be more aware of our “footprints”
by staying on existing trails and not making new ones, in order
to be better stewards of this precious cultural legacy.
• Gcrg needs to develop its fund-raising capability if it is
to keep the river community involved in an ever-widening set of
complex societal issues that govern our relationship to the river
experience.
• In my opinion, gcrg should support Glen Canyon Institute's
Citizens' Environmental Assessment of Lake Powell. The long-term
viability of southwest communities and natural resources is at stake.
We need to continue to confront the issue of the viability of the
dam. It's easy to take potshots at the dam, it's a lot
harder to create viable long-term solutions.
• The Adopt-a-Beach program continues to need your participation
and support. It remains an excellent, cost-effective means for monitoring
condition of camping beaches.
Thanks to all of you who continue to give us feedback and support
our continued involvement in river science. Feel free to contact
any of the following people for more information or input on issues
at
gcrg@infomagic.com:
Andre Potochnik: Adaptive Management Work Group representative.
Matt Kaplinski: Technical Work Group representative.
Gary O'Brien/Lynn Hamilton: Adopt-a-Beach Program.
Andre Potochnik
|
