Adaptive Management Program
(this article is specially equipped for the acronym-challenged)

The amp (Adaptive Management Program, or “amp”) for Glen Canyon Dam was set up to advise the Secretary of the Interior on how to operate Glen Canyon Dam for the benefit of downstream resources, in addition to the other beneficial uses of Glen Canyon Dam, such as upstream recreation, electrical power generation, and water storage/supply.
The “amp” consists of the amwg (Adaptive Management Work Group, or “amwig”), and its sub-group the twg (Technical Work Group, or “twig”), the gcmrc (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, or “Gikmurk”), and an independent science review board. gcrg (Grand Canyon River Guides, or “gee cee arrr gee”, or “the guides”, or “insert your own nickname here”) has a representative on the “amwig”, Andre Potochnik, a representative on the “twig”, Matt Kaplinski, and an alternate “twig” representative, John O’Brien.
Much of the work of the “amp” is deciding how to efficiently create experiments that will tell us something about the best way to operate Glen Canyon Dam. Gcrg’s main interests are in the downstream resources, but we are only one of the 27 stakeholders. Our role is necessarily collaborative, and we find ourselves agreeing with some of the other stakeholders on particular issues, and disagreeing with the same stakeholders on other issues. Most issues eventually come up to a vote, and if a proposal is voted on and passes, it is forwarded to the Secretary of Interior as a recommendation.
How are things going with the “amp?” Well, every species that was endangered when we started is still endangered. Sediment replenishment is still dependent on tributary flooding, which we haven’t had much of lately. The river is still cold, clear, and supporting a healthy population of non-natives. Some folks think the “amp” bureaucracy is inefficient as well. That may well be true. However, until a better way is proposed, we feel that participating in the program is the best way to effect changes in dam operations in order to meet our organization’s primary goal of protecting Grand Canyon.
Is there any good news? Well, we know more about what is ailing the Humpback Chub, if not the solution. We’ve learned quite a bit about how, when, and why sediment moves through the system. We’ve identified some inefficiency in the amp system, and we are working at fixing that. We’ve identified some like-minded stakeholders at the meetings, and we are making allies and building (sometimes temporary) coalitions. We have received approval to modify flows to conserve sediment following a sediment input, and we have received approval to conduct a greater than power-plant flood experiment to build beaches when the sediment arrives. It hasn’t arrived yet, but those approvals are important concessions, as important as the original 45,000 cfs flood in 1996. Once again, all stakeholders, the federal agencies, the water and power interests and the tribes have agreed to operate the dam in order to benefit the downstream resource. That is what the Grand Canyon Protection Act is all about. It is working, however slowly.
The twg is currently advocating the adoption of a long-term experimental flow plan, so that deciding on flows doesn’t come up every year. There is tremendous economic pressure each year to go back to high fluctuating flows during summer months to maximize hydropower revenues. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that high fluctuating flows may have been better for the Humpback Chub population than the current Modified Low Fluctuating Flows. A long-term plan of flows should be designed that answers these questions.
Towards a long-term experimental flow plan
In December 2002, Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton approved the first two years of a sixteen-year program of experimental flows. This two-year experiment included the 5,000 to 20,000 cfs fluctuations from January to March, the mechanical removal of trout in the vicinity of the Little Colorado River (lcr), and the much anticipated “flood” of 45,000 cfs in early January if the Paria River inputs over a million tons of sand by October 1. (Note: one big Paria dump of about 4,000 cfs would input around a million tons of sand). Unfortunately, the “amwig” could only agree on the first two years of the experimental flow program. So, here we are in the second year of our experiment with no plan for what to do next.
The “twig” met on May 3rd and 4th to discuss/ develop/argue about what to do next and develop a long-term plan of experimental flows, or flows different from the mlff (Modified Low Fluctuating Flows, or “em el ef ef”) prescribed by the eis (Environmental Impact Statement, or “e eye es”). “Gikmurk” presented their take on just what that plan should look like and much talk and acronym slinging ensued.
The two big issues being addressed in this plan are the decline of the Humpback Chub population and the loss of sand. The focus of the experimental flow plan is to manipulate mainstem flows in order to answer two hypotheses related to the chub: 1) predation/competition is contributing to the population decline; and 2) changes in physical habitat (flows and temperature) are contributing to the population decline. Other factors exist, such as changes in the lcr hydrology and Asian tapeworm infestation, but these are not really testable with large-scale flow manipulations. The plan also includes flood experiments to see if we can manage the loss of sand. The flow schedule is laid out in a block design that will allow “Gikmurk” scientists to determine the effects of each factor alone or in combination with other factors on the humpback chub and sediment response.

So, here’s what it looks like:
“Gikmurk” recommended that the flows consist of two alternating flow regimes; 1) high fluctuating flows, and 2) stable flows. As you can see from the chart above, these flows are scheduled to occur on two-year alternating blocks.
Under this proposal, high fluctuating flows would occur from January to March, and from August to December. Daily and hourly operations would maximize the range in flow release. The maximum daily release would not exceed 31,000 cfs and the minimum release would not go below 5,000 cfs. Upramp rates are unrestricted and the descending rates would range between 4,000 to 5,000 cfs/hr. Yikes!!!!
The stable flow regime would consist of constant flow releases based on monthly volumes. During years of relatively low-volume releases from Lake Powell, like we’re experiencing right now, late summer flows (August to December) would remain at a constant 8,000 cfs.
Operations during the summer months (May through July) would follow existing mlff guidelines. This one throws recreation users a bone during the fluctuating years and lets the power folks generate some dough during the stable years.
The ongoing mechanical removal of trout will continue in four-year blocks, which means two more years of trout removal from Kwagunt to Lava Chuar rapids.
Because the effects of warming the water are relatively random until the BuRec builds a tcd (Temperature Control Device, or “tee cee dee”), these will be studied as random events. Currently, low lake levels will lead to warming of the water. This gives the “Gikmurk” crew an opportunity to study the effects of warmer water on the fishies before the “tee cee dee” goes on-line.
The fundamental sediment experiment is considered event-driven based on the uncertainty of inputs from the Paria River. The goal is to deposit as much available sediment as possible at high elevations (above 30,000 cfs) with short-duration, high-discharge releases following a big dump from the Paria River. Two strategies will be tried first. The first strategy will be the flood experiment that has been approved yet stymied for the past two years by the Paria River’s lack of cooperation. Following sufficient Paria inputs, flows would remain at a constant 8,000 cfs until a two-day, early January bhbf (Beach/Habitat Building Flow, or a controlled flood greater than power plant capacity, or “bee h bee ef”). The second strategy is to immediately follow Paria River inputs with short-duration power plant capacity floods that are intended to load eddies with the new sand until an early January “bee h bee ef”. The third scenario recommended by “Gikmurk” scientists would be to immediately follow Paria River inputs with a “bee h bee ef”. This scenario is contested by the basin states because the Law of the River states that spills are to be avoided unless it’s an emergency. The argument can be made that the gcpa (Grand Canyon Protection Act, or “Grand Canyon Protection Act”) allows spills for ecological purposes. Ultimately this dispute may have to be settled in court.
So, there’s the breakdown for what flows will look like until 2018! This is just a proposed plan, I repeat a proposal. However, the proposal has received a consensus agreement as a reasonable way to go at the “twig.” We, your gcrg representatives, have requested that gcmrc run the sediment transport model to determine the relative export of sediment between the three flow regimes.Those 3 regimes are: 1) 5,000 to 31,000 cfs fluctuations, 2) mlff, and 3) stable flows. We would like to see if there’s a way to perhaps knock the high-end of the high fluctuations down a bit—perhaps to 20,000 cfs, without exporting more sediment.
We need input from all of you out there in bqr land. This plan is pretty aggressive and as your representatives in this process, we, gcrg, are still trying to figure out what would be best. What do you think? Drop us an email at gcrg@infomagic.net, write us a letter, or better yet, come to one of our board meetings and tell us in person.
Matt Kaplinski, John O’Brien & Andre Potochnik