Science in the Grand Canyon
An Answer or an Enigma?

   Science in the Grand Canyon. It has a familiar ring to many of us as part of the river activities. The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) has been important to many of our lives for the last ten years. It was first viewed very skeptically by the river community as another government bureaucracy developed to forestall changes at Glen Canyon Dam, but that view has changed. The studies by GCES have shown that the dam has had a large impact on the natural and recreational resources in the Canyon. The Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Interior have been forced to deal with these scientifically proven impacts.

   Not too many months ago I hiked into one of the GCES river trips. While waiting for the trip to get to Phantom, I sat in the shade of the tamarisk trees at the boat beach, sipping a cold beverage and engaged in a conversation with several new river guides. The conversation focused on their belief that scientists were taking over the Grand Canyon and that all this effort wasn’t needed. Without identifying who I was, I let them tell me what they thought was bad and how they would improve it. That night on the beach at Granite, I thought about the future role that science should play in the Canyon.

   Not in the too distant past, decisions regarding the operations of Glen Canyon Dam were made by Reclamation officials in the relative luxury of their conference rooms without input from the public. Today, that has changed. Through the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the impending completion of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS, the rules and process for making decisions about Glen Canyon Dam operations have been changed forever. Now, more than ever, credible scientific data are required to make wise resource decisions.

   Faced with the knowledge that we need scientific data to effectively protect and manage the resources, but also aware that in our zest for data collection we may be harming the resources, we must search for BALANCE (inherently a conflict for scientists and boatmen!). Lately it appears that science has come under attack from both the old guard, which sees data as a threat, and the recreationists, who see the research as taking up too much of the Canyon. It is like sitting at the top of the bubble line at Lava Falls and not knowing if one is too far left or right, but damn sure that whatever decision is made will result in getting beat up!

   GCES has tried to integrate the river community into the scientific efforts in the Canyon. Whether it has been through support for river logistics or hiring people for specific scientific work, it has always been my intent to forge a strong commitment to the river community to ensure that you understand our role and we work together for the resources.

   As we enter the 1993 river season you will see fewer GCES researchers in the Canyon. We are making every effort to reduce our activities in the Canyon while still maintaining a credible scientific program– a program that allows us to meet our administrative responsibilities and retain our scientific credibility. Specific actions we intend to take this year to reduce our impact are: to take out the Little Colorado River mini monitor (Mother Nature and the high rains already helped us on this), move weather stations and telemetry sites into more non-visible areas, remove the mini monitors from the tributaries, reduce video and photographic flights in the Canyon and, again, require that all research trips use non-commercial beaches during the recreation season.

   What does the future hold for scientists in the Canyon? The reality is that there is always going to be a need for monitoring resources and scientific data gathering in the Canyon. With the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the constant and steady move to complete the EIS, a need continues to determine the effects of dam operations. This includes adaptive management of the water releases and monitoring resources in the Colorado River corridor to learn how the system responds to our actions. The only effective and credible way to do this is to have data. We are dealing with a living, breathing ecosystem that responds to a variety of stimulants; some are predictable and some are not. Our objective should be to manage within limits and utilize normal ecosystem processes– not to try and play God or make the Canyon into a Disneyland of special effects dictated by abnormal processes or unnecessary manipulation. It is my intent that we begin this year to integrate the GCRG into the adaptive management and GCES monitoring programs. This can begin by using guides for changing film in remote cameras, documenting stage levels at selected beaches, monitoring water quality in tributaries and in the mainstream, and recording quantitative bird, fish, and mammal observations. GCRG has already provided an invaluable service to GCES and to me personally. Without your eyes, ears, comments and occasional haranguing, we would not be where we are today.

   The value of science in the Grand Canyon cannot be underestimated, as it provides the means to back up what we say. GCES’s goal is to develop a long-term monitoring program in the Canyon that leaves as little of a footprint on the fragile ecosystem as we can. My door is always open to your ideas and suggestions on how we can accomplish this.

   Good Science.

Dave Wegner