Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Executive Summary Glen Canyon Dam, authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and completed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1963, spans the Colorado River just south of the Arizona-Utah border. Behind the dam, the waters of Lake Powell stretch upstream for 186 miles. Downstream, the Colorado River passes through a 15-mile stretch of Glen Canyon and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area into Marble Canyon at Lee's Ferry, where it enters Grand Canyon National Park. The river then flows 278 miles through Grand Canyon National Park before reaching Lake Mead, which is impounded behind Hoover Dam. Indian reservations, federal public lands, and private lands flank the Grand Canyon corridor. The Grand Canyon has deep cultural and ecological importance for numerous social groups and, as a World Heritage Site, it is important internationally and globally, as well. Flows through Glen Canyon Dam's eight hydroelectric turbines generate power for a multistate grid served by the Western Area Power Administration. Glen Canyon Dam and its operations have altered hydrologic and temperature regimes in ways that have dramatically transformed the Colorado River ecosystem. Recognizing the "values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established," the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (sec. 1802a) mandated an environmental impact statement and long-term monitoring of dam operation impacts on "resources of the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam" (sec. 1801d). The final environmental impact statement was completed
OCR for page 2
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem in March 1995. Nine alternatives, formulated through public input, technical data, interdisciplinary discussion, and professional judgment were selected for detailed study by an interagency environmental impact statement team. The preferred alternative—"modified low fluctuating flows"—specified minimum and maximum flow rates and ramping rates and provided for controlled floods to protect, enhance, and restore downstream resources. The Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement identified a set of expected benefits associated with the preferred alternative, but it also recognized scientific uncertainties regarding the extent and ways in which those benefits could be achieved. The preferred alternative was and is an experiment. To implement the experiment, and adjust it based on long-term monitoring and research, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement recommended a program of "adaptive management." Though the concept is still evolving, adaptive management employs scientific monitoring and research to measure and explain the effects of management actions. Results of monitoring and research are then used to adjust future management strategies. In addition to the mandates of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations are constrained by an array of legal requirements, including the "Law of the River," the Endangered Species Act, and federal trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. On October 8, 1996, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior signed the Record of Decision that established the Adaptive Management Program ("Program"), which is composed of the following: the Secretary of the Interior's designee, the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), the Technical Work Group (TWG), independent review panels, and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC or "Center"). The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center began long-term planning at its inception and, in May 1997, produced a Long-Term Monitoring and Research Strategic Plan that was adopted by stakeholder groups (the Adaptive Management Work Group and the Technical Work Group) later that year. The Center then requested the National Research Council's (NRC) Water Science and Technology Board to evaluate this
OCR for page 3
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem plan. The National Research Council committee was asked to address two main questions and five related questions: Will the Long-Term Strategic Plan be effective in meeting requirements specified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the final Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision? Does the Long-Term Plan respond to the new adaptive management process called for by the Grand Canyon Protection Act and Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement? Is the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center functioning effectively in the Adaptive Management Program, especially regarding incorporation of all stakeholder objectives and information needs in the planning process? Does the Long-Term Plan incorporate past research knowledge in developing new monitoring and research directions? Has the Center appropriately addressed past reviews of Glen Canyon Environmental Studies programs in formulating new research directions? Characterize weaknesses of the Long-Term Plan and recommend short and long-term science elements to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to address identified weaknesses. What weaknesses exist in the Long-Term Plan, and how do these weaknesses affect the potential effectiveness of the overall science program? What science elements are necessary to correct specific plan weaknesses? During the latter part of this committee's review, the Center's Strategic Plan was revised and then split into three documents, which are yet to be completed. Mindful of the plans' evolving nature, this report encompasses the 1997 Strategic Plan (still in effect); the 1998 Strategic Plan (a revision of the 1997 Plan); and subsequent developments through April 1999. In some cases, the committee identified specific science elements for improving Center programs. In other cases, guidance is offered at a general level. In yet other instances, solutions were not immediately clear and will have to be addressed by the Center and
OCR for page 4
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Adaptive Management Program stakeholder groups over the long term and with use of the Strategic Plan. Our recommendations are organized under three broad headings: Strategic Planning and Adaptive Management Issues; Science Program Issues; and Organizational and Budget Issues. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Strategic Planning While the Center clearly recognizes the important links between strategic planning and adaptive management, four strategic aspects of the Plan need clarification: priorities for the next five years; geographic scope; decadal time scales; and the public significance of science-based adaptive management. Strategic Priorities The Strategic Plan does not identify the key strategic challenges that must be addressed in the next five years. For example, the main challenge in 1996 was to establish the Center and the Adaptive Management Program. The 1998 Plan has elements of a "problem statement" in its section on science needs and chapter on the philosophy of monitoring, but that chapter is more a list of factors to consider than strategic challenges to address. The Strategic Plan should identify strategic priorities for the next five years, building explicitly upon experience gained during the past two years. Geographic Scope of Center Programs The 1998 Strategic Plan described the Program's geographic scope as extending upstream into the forebay of Lake Powell, downstream to the western boundary of Grand Canyon National Park, and laterally to the elevation of maximum regulated discharge and the inundated area for annual predam peak flows of 90,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). It wisely left open possibilities for selected studies in
OCR for page 5
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem lateral areas associated with higher flows, Lake Powell, tributary watersheds, comparable river reaches elsewhere in the basin, and Lake Mead. That openness and its potential budgetary implications became a source of stakeholder debates. The Center nonetheless successfully negotiated a five-year monitoring plan for Lake Powell water quality parameters relevant to dam operations; awarded a research contract on archaeological site erosion with control sites upstream in Cataract Canyon; and collaborated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on a study of El Niño's implications for dam operations and downstream resources. These activities point toward sound ways to manage geographic scope that should be incorporated in the Strategic Plan. Rigid definitions of geographic scope will not serve the Adaptive Management Program well. After clearly defining the Program's geographic focus, decisions about geographic linkages with adjacent areas and larger scales should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering ecosystem processes, management alternatives, funding sources, and stakeholder interests. Decadal Time Scales When discussing time scales, the Strategic Plan does not mention decadal and multidecadal periods relevant for ecosystem monitoring and research. The multidecadal life spans and population dynamics of fish species (e.g., humpback chub, razorback and flannelmouth suckers) bear greatly upon monitoring program design. Social values and institutions also change over time scales of decades. A long-term strategic plan must, by definition, consider medium- and long-term ecological and social processes. The Strategic Plan should explicitly indicate how the five-year planning time frame relates to multidecadal ecological and social processes that are the real subjects of monitoring and research. Public Significance of Science-Based Adaptive Management The Center is responsible for addressing growing public policy interests in science-based approaches to adaptive management—
OCR for page 6
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem interests embodied in the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision. The Adaptive Management Program is a science-policy experiment of local, regional, national, and international importance. The Strategic Plan should explicitly recognize and speak to public interests in Grand Canyon monitoring and research and should anticipate programs of public education, outreach, and involvement. Adaptive Management Although Center scientists have good working knowledge of theories and practices of adaptive management, six key aspects of its application to Glen Canyon Dam and the Grand Canyon ecosystem remain unclear. These include: the definition of and roles in the Adaptive Management Program; the core adaptive management experiment; issues of ''vision"; management objectives and information needs; a scientific basis for trade-off analysis and decision support systems; and independent scientific review. Definition of and Roles in the Adaptive Management Program. The 1997 Strategic Plan defined adaptive management as follows: "Adaptive management begins with a set of management objectives and involves a feedback loop between the management action and the effect on that action on the system. . . . It is an iterative process, based on a scientific paradigm that treats management actions as experiments subject to modification, rather than as fixed and final rulings, and uses them to develop an enhanced scientific understanding about whether or not and how the ecosystem responds to scientific management actions" (Center, 1997). It is not clear whether this definition is widely shared or whether stakeholders and scientists have similar interpretations, particularly as it applies to Glen Canyon Dam operations and Grand Canyon ecosystem management. As the use of ecosystem science develops in the Adaptive Management Program and as a vision for downstream resources becomes clearer, adaptive management may evolve into a program of ecosystem management. The operational roles of scientific monitoring and research, and of the Center itself, remain unclear. A balance has not yet been reached among the Center's roles in conducting science programs, managing con-
OCR for page 7
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem tracts, managing information systems, responding to stakeholder requests, and synthesizing and communicating monitoring and research results. At this writing, the Technical Work Group was drafting a Guidance Document to clarify those roles. The Center should be involved in the process of clarifying responsibilities to fully represent the functions of scientific monitoring and research. The Center and the Adaptive Management Program stakeholders should work toward a common definition of adaptive management for the Grand Canyon ecosystem. The Center's various responsibilities in the Adaptive Management Program should be reviewed and clarified. The Core Adaptive Management Experiment. The Strategic Plan describes the general role of experimentation in adaptive management but does not specifically define the core experiment with dam operations, as that experiment is specified in the Record of Decision. Clear articulation of this core experiment is needed to guide science and monitoring and to focus discussions among stakeholders. The Strategic Plan also could and should treat stakeholders' uses of monitoring and research results as scientific experiments. The Center should clearly articulate the core adaptive management experiment in the Grand Canyon and, in particular, the hypothesized relations between dam operations, ecosystem responses, cultural effects, and trade-offs among consequent socioeconomic effects. Issues of "Vision." Neither the Strategic Plan nor stakeholder groups have articulated a vision for the future state of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. A table of expected benefits from the preferred alternative in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement represents a first step, but it is acknowledged to represent a compromise that is not internally consistent, optimal, or readily visualized (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995; see Appendix D of this report). As the Adaptive Management Program is in its formative stages, it may be unrealistic to expect stakeholders and scientists to have agreed upon a common vision. The current pluralistic situation, however, constrains the Center's ability to synthesize scientific information and to employ certain scientific methods (e.g., rule-based simulation, optimiza-
OCR for page 8
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem tion). Over time, as trade-offs are addressed among competing objectives and as a broader range of alternatives is examined, efforts to formulate a common vision for the Grand Canyon ecosystem may prove useful. The Strategic Plan should recognize limitations of the current, pluralistic management situation. It should present a strategy for moving toward a set of common objectives and reference conditions for monitoring and research over the next five years. Management Objectives and Information Needs. According to the 1998 Strategic Plan, stakeholder-defined management objectives (MOs) are intended to "define measurable standards of desired future conditions which will serve as objectives to be achieved by all stakeholders in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive process." Information needs (INs) "define the specific scientific understanding required to obtain specified management objectives." The 1998 Strategic Plan listed 36 management objectives and 176 information needs. Some are hard to understand, redundant, or not measurable; and some information needed for ecosystem and socioeconomic analysis is not included. There are few cases of cross-program linkages. The lack of a clear and coherent set of management objectives and information needs makes it difficult to design or test adaptive management experiments. The Center or a newly designated senior scientist, or both, should work with the Technical Work Group to develop a revised set of management objectives and information needs. These should be linked with testable hypotheses and situated within an internally consistent understanding of the ecosystem, for consideration by the Adaptive Management Work Group. Scientific Basis for Trade-off Analysis and Decision Support Systems. Adaptive management ultimately involves trade-offs among competing objectives. The Strategic Plan concentrates on quantifying physical, biological, cultural, and conventional financial consequences of dam operations. It sidesteps the final, equally essential step of articulating scientific criteria for guiding choices among competing objectives that "protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values" identified in the Grand Canyon Protection Act. While those
OCR for page 9
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem choices rest ultimately with the Secretary of the Interior, the Center should work with stakeholder groups to develop decision support systems that aid those efforts. It should be recognized that adaptive management for the Grand Canyon ecosystem will require trade-offs among management objectives favored by different stakeholder groups. It is recommended that the Adaptive Management Work Group begin to consider mechanisms for equitable weighting of competing interests and that the Center begin to develop decision support systems and methods. The Center's revised Strategic Plan should include a strategy for scientific evaluation of management alternatives, both in terms of ecological outcomes and satisfaction of stakeholder groups. The Strategic Plan should include a strategy for using—and evaluating the usefulness of—new scientific information in testing management alternatives, including their impacts on the welfare of different stakeholder groups. Independent Science Review. Three levels of independent review are appropriate for the Center: (1) external review of research proposals and reports, (2) review of individual resource programs, and (3) broad programmatic review of the Center and Adaptive Management Program. This final level needs further attention. The Strategic Plan calls for a Science Advisory Board that could be called upon for programmatic review, but two published requests for nominations have been unsuccessful. A discussion paper dated March 17, 1998, recommended that a Science Advisory Board be constituted as an official subcommittee of the Adaptive Management Work Group and that it be instructed to "not review, interpret, or otherwise evaluate public policy decisions associated with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and activities of the AMWG, the TWG, or individual member agencies." These constraints would limit credible, independent review. To ensure credible and independent programmatic review, the tasks and constraints of the Science Advisory Board should be redefined. It should not be a subcommittee of the Adaptive Management Work Group. Formal constraints should not be placed on issues that the Science Advisory Board would deem relevant to its charge.
OCR for page 10
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem SCIENCE PROGRAM ISSUES The Strategic Plan describes the Center's commitment to ecosystem science and monitoring, and its five resource programs—physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, and information technology. Ecosystem Science and Monitoring The main ecosystem science component of the strategic plans has been the development of a conceptual model. The model, along with a 1999 Colorado River Ecosystem Science Symposium, is helping integrate the scientific thinking of Center staff and other scientists working in the Grand Canyon. Although central to the Center's mission, a well-defined monitoring program has not yet been articulated. Development and implementation of a detailed, long-term monitoring program should be a high priority for the Center. The monitoring program should be framed within a long-term perspective (in increments of five, ten, and more years). Physical Resources Program The Center's Physical Resources Program is well integrated and is actively engaged in the Adaptive Management Program. Much of the work is organized within a sediment budget model, which serves to identify parts of the system where additional study is needed. Future physical studies should: Complete a sediment budget with acceptable levels of accuracy. Develop a long-term sand budget for Glen and Marble canyons and track the transport of tributary sediment inputs through Marble Canyon. Evaluate potential sediment conservation effects of beach/habitat-building flows for larger flows and in all months of the year.
OCR for page 11
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Biological Resources Program The Strategic Plan needs to provide a thorough synopsis of previous biological research in the Grand Canyon. The biological resources section of the Plan discusses broad resource management and monitoring principles but provides little specific indication of how they relate to the Grand Canyon ecosystem. One limitation, noted by a previous National Research Council committee (1996a), is the lack of linkages and lack of consistency between the Biological and Physical Resources Programs. Another limitation is an emphasis on a few species rather than on communities or ecosystems. This is evidenced in management objectives and information needs focused on habitat enhancement and maintenance for listed or candidate species, and on compliance with recovery stipulations to prevent future listing or jeopardy opinions. Future biological research should: Include a detailed review of existing knowledge about biological species and ecosystems in order to promote scientific reconstruction of biological changes in the Grand Canyon. Move away from a species-oriented emphasis toward broader monitoring and research on communities and ecosystems. Address biological aspects of temperature-control experiments involving the proposed selective withdrawal structure at Glen Canyon Dam. Sociocultural Resources Program The 1998 Strategic Plan combined cultural and socioeconomic resources under a single heading. Such integration is promising, as it could facilitate comparisons of the effects of dam operations on different social groups. However, the Center's limited commitment to socioeconomic analysis, the magnitude of its responsibilities under the Cultural Resources Program, and limited staffing levels of these programs are troubling.
OCR for page 12
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources Program is the Center's third largest program (after the Biological Resources and Physical Resources Programs) and its most complex. It includes monitoring and research activities, cooperative and individual tribal projects, and coordination with a Programmatic Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and nine tribes (although two tribal groups have not signed). The Center's Cultural Resources Program displays clearly defined relationships between management objectives, information needs, and proposed activities. Archaeological and anthropological elements of the Strategic Plan are integrated with the Physical Resources Program, although less so with ecosystem studies or conceptual modeling. While progress has been made in coordinating Center and Programmatic Agreement activities, the broader challenges of coordinating them with tribal projects remain. The apparent lack of resources for full tribal participation is another concern. Coordinating cultural and socioeconomic programs is a worthwhile venture that should be tested and given sufficient resources. Further coordination of existing Cultural Resources subprograms is also needed. The Cultural Resources Program should look forward to including a wider range of social groups and to recognizing that archaeological evidence and ethnographic perspectives offer valuable insights on adaptive environmental management in the Grand Canyon. Resources must be secured for full tribal participation in all aspects of monitoring, research and communication in the Adaptive Management Program, without reducing other components of the Cultural Resources Program. Socioeconomic Resources The 1998 Strategic Plan limits consideration of "economics" to recreation and hydropower. Limiting the scope of "economics" to two narrowly defined sources of benefits and costs associated with
OCR for page 13
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem management decisions is disproportionate with the level of scrutiny of physical and biological effects associated with alternative management strategies. Aside from one useful project on recreation, no socioeconomic research on the effects of river management or other uses of the Grand Canyon is planned. This strategy fails to anticipate the types of social scientific knowledge needed for adaptive management. A chain of analysis is necessary to inform good policy decisions. Managers first need to know how a change in flow regime will affect physical characteristics in the Grand Canyon; the effects of physical changes on flora and fauna then need to be quantified; and managers must then evaluate the impacts of these changes on the welfare of all stakeholder constituencies. The Center's budget and activities are devoted mainly to these first two points. The third is represented only by an incomplete measure of recreational user values and by the market costs of hydropower. Knowledge of resource values to different constituencies and of how these change over time is important for effective resource management. Center staff should be familiar with current techniques for establishing social values for ecosystem services and should acquire expertise in these topics. One person currently manages the entire Sociocultural Resources Program. It is unrealistic to expect one person to effectively implement and coordinate the complex and diverse topics of cultural resources, tribal programs, and socioeconomics. The Center should begin to develop internal expertise in techniques for nonmarket valuation of ecosystems and their services. The Strategic Plan should seek to understand not simply the range of preferences and activities of users of Grand Canyon resources, but also the degree to which ecosystem features and activities are valued. Sources of funding for original research devoted to measuring Grand Canyon ecosystem values should be sought, using a fully representative scientific sample of all stakeholders. Research is needed to develop a socioeconomic and cultural basis for evaluating the outcomes of adaptive management experiments based on meaningful comparison of the Grand Canyon's diverse resources.
OCR for page 14
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Information Technology Program The Information Technology Program is functioning effectively in a support capacity; it is not a research or monitoring program. This role is appropriate, as the program supports the science and does not drive it. The program's goal is "to satisfy the information needs of stakeholders, scientists, and the public relative to the Colorado River ecosystem" (Center, 1998b). To fulfill this goal, the program has three tasks: (1) archiving and delivering scientific data and other information, (2) providing technology-based solutions to data collection, manipulation, and analysis, and (3) providing support in areas of computers, surveying, and geographic information systems. With some modifications, this program could better serve the needs of the stakeholders, scientists, and the public. Information users should be surveyed to determine their information needs. Data archiving should be assigned a higher priority. Data and information delivery should be expanded and accelerated through the World Wide Web. Computer system administration should be managed independently of other Information Technology Program activities. The Center should begin to plan and develop a computerized decision support system(s). ORGANIZATIONAL AND BUDGET ISSUES When assessing how the Center is functioning in the Adaptive Management Program, the committee encountered four main issues that are not fully addressed in the Strategic Plan: the roles of the Center; its institutional home; its structure and staffing; and its budget and funding. Roles of the Center The Center has been expected to plan research and monitoring activities and to facilitate many Technical Work Group and Adaptive Management Work Group activities. This is contrary to a model wherein these two work groups create a vision for the state of the ecosystem and
OCR for page 15
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem attendant management objectives and informational needs, and the Center addresses them with a monitoring and research program. The Center has been responsive to stakeholder requests, expending considerable effort at the likely expense of monitoring and research programs. In the process, however, the Center may become a subservient junior partner in the Program. The Technical Work Group seems to have emerged as the Adaptive Management Work Group's implementation arm and exerts decision-making powers over the Center's plans and budgets. These evolving relationships may constrain the Center's ability to fulfill its monitoring and research requirements. The operational relationships and responsibilities of the Adaptive Management Program should be reviewed and reconsidered. Disproportionate oversight is presently exerted over governance and conduct of Center activities. The Center's Institutional Home The Center was temporarily formed under the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science. This arrangement was helpful in facilitating research and monitoring activities and establishing a degree of independence for the Center. There remains, however, a high degree of interdependence between the Center and various Adaptive Management Program participants. For example, the Center uses U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) facilities, and it uses payroll and contractual services of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Based on three screening criteria, several alternatives for the Center's administrative home have been considered. These include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. National Park Service, as well as maintaining the current interagency arrangement. Other alternatives that may have been considered include a university, an independent science organization such as the Smithsonian Institution, or a new interagency arrangement. All of these possibilities contain strengths and weaknesses. This review and previous National Research Council reports on institutional and administrative issues in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies indicate that the following criteria, which resemble but extend beyond the screening criteria mentioned above, may be important in decisions regarding the Center's institutional home:
OCR for page 16
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem The Center should be housed within a premier science organization that has a commitment to physical, biological, and social science inquiry. The institutional home should enable the Center to work effectively with all Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam management agencies. The institutional home should enable the Center to communicate scientific program issues and results directly with a management team at the Assistant Secretary level in the Department of the Interior. The Center should be independent from any single stakeholder management organization within the Adaptive Management Work Group. None of the arrangements currently considered perfectly satisfies all these criteria. The committee recommends that an institutional design, addressing institutional constraints and weaknesses related to these criteria, be part of a proposal for locating the Center within the U.S. Department of the Interior. Center Structure and Staffing With the retirement in 1998 of its first chief, the Center lost its most senior person. Previous National Research Council reviews called for and contributed to the appointment of a part-time senior scientist within the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. The senior scientist was responsible for program design and synthesis and ensuring that these efforts fit both the ecosystem science paradigm and stakeholder needs. The Center would benefit from the addition of a senior scientist, who would work with the stakeholder groups and Center staff to help clarify information needs and envision adaptive management experiments. The Center should also add an adaptive management specialist. This person would help articulate the links between scientific research and adaptive management experiments and their relations to policy recommendations for Grand Canyon ecosystem management. There also appear to be significant staffing needs in the Physical Resources, Cultural Resources, and Socioeconomic Resources programs. A senior scientist and an adaptive management specialist should be appointed to the staff of the Center. Additional staff and
OCR for page 17
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem associated budget allocations seem warranted for the existing Physical Resources, Cultural Resources, and Socioeconomic Resources programs. Center Budget and Funding The Center's budget for monitoring and research is currently funded through proceeds from hydropower sales of the Western Area Power Administration. Although reasonable for core monitoring and research, there may be long-term disadvantages in drawing upon a single source of funding for all Center programs. It is thus recommended that the U.S. Department of the Interior: Consider using hydropower revenues to support core research, monitoring, and Adaptive Management Program activities mandated by the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, the Record of Decision, and the Grand Canyon Protection Act (at full funding levels envisioned for the next five years and beyond). Supplemental budgets for additional activities could be developed from U.S. Department of the Interior agencies, other federal agencies, and foundation sources. In summary, this committee was impressed by the Center's strategic planning efforts to date. It is hoped that the recommendations in this report contribute to revised strategic plans, for the Center and the Adaptive Management Program, that fulfill the aims and requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision.
Representative terms from entire chapter: