Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Timeline (1956 - present)
1956
Congress passes the Colorado River Storage Project Act authorizing the construction of
Glen Canyon Dam for the purposes of "the storage of water for beneficial use,
reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands, control of floods, and, as an incident of other
specifically mentioned purposes, the generation of hydroelectric power" (NRC, 1994)
1963
Glen Canyon Dam is completed
1968
Congress passes the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which broadens the purposes of
operating the Dam to include water quality, outdoor recreation, and fish and wildlife, and
power production is again described as incident to the other purposes
1978
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), at the request of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), prepares a biological opinion "on the effects of the dam on the
Colorado River" in which they state "that past, present, and future operations of the dam
jeopardized the continued existence of the humpback chub and limited recovery of the
humpback chub and Colorado squawfish" (which was and is considered extirpated from
the Grand Canyon) (USFWS, 1994). The opinion includes recommendations for further
studies and does not list other fish species that would not be listed as endangered until
1980 and 1991
1982
Secretary of the Interior James Watt, in part in response to a lawsuit filed by the
Environmental Defense fund, instructs USBR to establish Glen Canyon Environmental
Studies (GCES) Program and Phase I begins, including descriptive studies of physical
and biological resources. According to NRC (1996) "To support its decision not to
conduct an EIS the BOR needed data. To provide data, it created the GCES." From the
start, the scientists involved were challenged with "limited and often competing
directions":
"From the start, the GCES program was between a rock and a hard spot. On
one side of the coin, the outside world and natural resources bureaus and
agencies looked upon the GCES program as their opportunity to finally have a
say in the management of Glen Canyon Dam. To the federal water managers
and dam operators, it was a challenge to keep the lid on Pandora's box." (David
Wegner, former Program Manager, GCES, USBR) Source: NAP, 1991
GCES' initial two mandates were described as "very broad and limitless": "(1) determine
the impacts of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the natural and recreation
resources of the Grand Canyon, and (2) determine whether there were ways, within
existing Colorado River Storage Project mandates and the law of the river, to modify
operations of the dam so as to minimize the impacts downstream" (Wegner, 1991)
1983
Initiation of GCES Phase I. Operating costs for both this and Phase II come from
hydropower revenue generated by WAPA, against their initial objection
1986
USBR asks the National Research Council (NRC), through its Water Science and
Technology Board (WSTB), to appoint a committee to evaluate GCES and to provide
alternatives for Dam operation, in large part to address the criticisms that GCES
research would lack credibility because management and funding reside with BOR and
WAPA, who share a "historical commitment to water delivery and power production."
This began a long and at times problematic relationship between GCES and the NRC in
Alex Mas
03/08/16
1
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Timeline (1956 - present)
which the NRC committee had a "dual role [ ] in providing advice during the research
and in providing judgments at the conclusion of the work" (NRC, 1996).
1987
NRC and WSTB issue River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies in which they report shortcomings in
early planning (that did not integrate ecosystem components as part of a whole),
incomplete consideration of management options and the fact that USBR management
recommendations were not supported by GCES research results
1987
The GCES Executive Review Committee (ERC) forms to transfer "scientific knowledge
into management options" and consists of personnel from NPS, USFWS, USBR, DOI
(Office of Environmental Affairs) and WAPA with the GCES program manager acting as
liaison and coordinator of the report submitted to DOI (Wegner, 1991)
1987
Initiation of GCES Phase II
1988
Results of Phase I are presented as distinct technical reports confirming an impact of the
Dam on downstream resources, however four of these were high inflow years, limiting
the potential of these studies to assess the impact of low fluctuating flows from the Dam
1988
DOI determines that more information is needed before changes in dam operations can
be considered so instructs USBR to begin Phase II of the GCES (GCES II) with no
defined time frame and with the instruction to address as many NRC/WSTB
recommendations as possible. One of the first steps is to hire a senior scientist, Dr.
Duncan Patten (from outside the federal government), "to develop a stronger scientific
core for the GCES program" (Wegner, 1991) and to bring "independent perspective to
the GCES" (NRC, 1996)
"The GCES showed how agency perspectives and their legally defined missions
can constrain a list of management options. Because the leadership of the
GCES program lacked independence and authority within BOR, the valid
objectives of other agencies involved in the research did not always receive
adequate attention." (NRC, 1996 referring to NRC 1988)
1989
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, "after considerable discussion and public
pressure," (Wegner, 1991) orders the development of an Environmental Impact
Statement on the operations of Glen Canyon Dam (GCD-EIS) and an EIS "of the
production and marketing of power from Glen Canyon Dam." To provide the bulk of the
technical support to the interagency team writing the two EIS drafts, GCES Phase II has
its focus shifted and its timetable shortened from 5 years to 24 months (SEE
WEGNER'S LIST OF SHORTCOMINGS OF GCES II)
"Can the GCES program guarantee a sound and credible EIS decision? NO!!
The best that we can do is provide a credible and sound scientific approach and
analyses that will provide the decision makes and the public with the information
needed to make the decisions." (Wegner, 1991)
1990
NRC, continuing in its role of providing technical support and review, sponsors the
symposium "Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management" in Santa Fe, NM (NAP,
1991) (SEE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS)
Alex Mas
03/08/16
2
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Timeline (1956 - present)
1990
Creation of federal cooperators group
1991
Start of experimental and interim flows for Glen Canyon Dam
1991
Indian tribes are added to federal cooperators group
1992
Congress passes the Grand Canyon Protection Act to "mitigate adverse impacts to, and
improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural
resources and visitor use" (Section 1802(a)). The Act allows calls for a Final EIS to be
completed in two years and says that "long-term monitoring of Glen Canyon Dam shall
include any necessary research and studies to determine the effect of the Secretary's
actions under section 1204 (c) on the natural, recreational, and cultural resources of
Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. " The
monitoring and research was to be managed in consultation with a broad group of
stakeholders.
1992
A second EIS of power marketing for the Dam is also directed by the Secretary, to be
prepared by WAPA, while the first is prepared by the BOR
1992
At the request of the GCES program manager, NRC organizes a workshop of experts on
long-term monitoring, the transcripts from which were given to the GCES program
manager and senior scientist for inclusion in their draft long-term monitoring plan,
scheduled to be included in the Draft EIS
1993
Dan Beard is appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation by President
Clinton, and he works quickly to bring about a change in culture at the BOR, pushing it to
"become an environmental agency [by] moving away from dam-building and into waterresource management" (Sibley, 1996)
1994
Both Draft EIS are released in January, in which deadlines for decisions on Dam
operations were set. They also "brought about the application of GCES information to
management of the dam and thus set the stage for adaptive management of dam
operations. Finally, they marked the end of an era of intensive study and a transition to
long-term monitoring"
1994
NRC releases its review of USBR's Draft Federal Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the
Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. NRC states that "the plan may serve as a
blueprint or model for other riverine ecosystem monitoring plans in the United States and
other countries" but that it first needs to include specific cost estimates,
recommendations for accompanying research, and greater specificity for the monitoring
that will take place. Additionally, NRC noted that the plan as written is confusing and
lacks any proposal for how monitoring will be managed and administered (NRC
suggested independent administration)
1994
USFWS releases its Final Biological Opinion on the USBR's proposal to run the dam
according to the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative (MLFF), listed as the
preferred alternative in the Draft EIS on dam operations. The Opinion states that the
MLFF "is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the humpback chub and
Alex Mas
03/08/16
3
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Timeline (1956 - present)
razorback sucker and is likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat"
but that it is not likely to jeopardize bald eagle, Kanab ambersnail, or peregrine falcon
(USWFS, 1994)
1995
NRC reviews Draft EIS
1995
Final EIS is completed in March and released, proposing an adaptive management
process "whereby the effects of dam operations on downstream resources would be
monitored and assessed." (GCAMP website, 2000). This deviates from the tradition of
promoting one "preferred alternative" and reflects the cooperating agencies' recognition
of the uncertainty of the science and how the ecosystem will respond to any alternative.
The Adaptive Management Program (AMP) "meets the purpose and strengthens the
intent for which the EIS was prepared, and ensures the primary mandate of the Act is
met through future advances in information and resource management." The EIS
recommends that a Federal Advisory Committee be formed to ensure compliance of
Section 1805 of the Act, and that a Transition Work Group is formed in the interim
1996
NRC releases its assessment of the successes and shortcomings of the GCES in River
Resource Management in the Grand Canyon.
Given that large, federal environmental studies will in the future increasingly
involve multiple federal agencies with differing missions and priorities, the project
manager for any large environmental assessment must be granted, for the
benefit of the project, sufficient independence and authority over financial
resources to override undue influence by individual agencies. The GCES
experience shows that concentration of authority in the project leadership, and
initial commitment to complete consideration of all management options and
resources, including those that may be out of favor or controversial, will be the
most likely strategies to conserve resources and produce outcomes useful to
management. (NRC, 1996)
1996
In April, the "Beach/Habitat-Building Flow" took place, allowing 45,000 cubic feet per
second of water to pass through four jet tubes, bypassing the turbines
1996
Record of Decision on the EIS on dam operations is signed by Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt on October 9, approving the preferred alternative which includes the AMP
and the Grand Canyon Research and Monitoring Center (GCMRC)
1997
The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) is established and
chartered by Secretary Babbitt in January. "The Adaptive Management Program is
administered through a senior Department of Interior official (designee) and facilitated
through the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), which is organized as a
Federal Advisory Committee and chaired by the designee." (GCAMP website, 2000)
Steve Magnussed is appointed as the Secretary's designee (USBR, 1997)
1997
In May, the GCMRC produce their Long-Term Monitoring and Research Strategic Plan
and ask NRC's Water Science and Technology Board to evaluate it and answer a set of
questions (the plan is approved by AMWG and TWG later this year). GCMRC decides
soon after to revise the plan
Alex Mas
03/08/16
4
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Timeline (1956 - present)
1997
The AMWG meet for the first time in September and form the Glen Canyon Technical
Work Group (TWG) as a subgroup to translate AMWG policy into resource management
objectives and to assist in the design of research and monitoring at GCMRC.
1998
GCMRC’s revised strategic plan is reviewed by the TWG in September and November,
presenting NRC with “a moving target” so they decide to evaluate both the 1997 and
1998 draft plans. In December, the TWG decides that it can not recommend the plan for
adoption by the AMWG because “some stakeholders expressed serious concerns about
sections that dealt with policy, adaptive management, geographic scope, and Center
administration” (NRC, 1999).
1998
On December 28, Secretary Babbit renews the AMWG with the purpose "to advise and
provide recommendations to the Secretary with respect to his responsibilities to comply
with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of October 20, 1992" (Federal Register, 1999)
1999
AMWG meets in January, and the first three chapters of the plan are reassigned to TWG
so they can review and re-draft it for presentation at the next AMWG meeting
Alex Mas
03/08/16
5