This book is on the various methods of environmental impact assessment as a guide to design of new environmental development and management projects. This approach surveys the features of the environment likely to be affected by the developments under consideration, analyses the information collected, tries to predict the impact of these developments and lays down guidelines or rules for their management.

This book is concerned with practical problems, e.g. development in Canada, the management of fisheries, pest control, etc. It is devoted to a general understanding of environmental systems through methods that have worked in the real world with its many uncertainties. It does not reject the concept of environmental impact analysis but rather stresses the need for fundamental understanding of the structure and dynamics of ecosystems.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act (Act) of October 30, 1992, embodied in Public Law 102-575, directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), among others to operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 of the Act and to exercise other authorities under existing law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to the natural and cultural resources and visitor use. The Secretary shall implement this section in a manner fully consistent with and subject to section 1802 of the Act. Section 1805 of the Act calls for implementation of long-term monitoring programs and activities that will ensure that Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with that of section 1802. As part of long-term monitoring, the Secretary's Record of Decision (ROD) mandates development and initiation of an Adaptive Management Program (AMP). The AMP provides for monitoring the results of the operating criteria and plans adopted by the Secretary and changes to those operating criteria and plans. The AMP includes an Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). The AMWG will facilitate the AMP, recommend suitable monitoring and research programs, and make recommendations to the Secretary as required to meet the requirements of the Act. The AMWG may recommend research and monitoring proposals outside the Act which complement the AMP process, but such proposals will be funded separately, and do not deter from the focus of the Act.

This strategic plan describes the adaptive management approach that the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program uses in making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding management of the Colorado River ecosystem (see Glossary). This strategic plan presents the vision, mission, principles, goals, management objectives, information needs, and management actions of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. As the main planning document of the Adaptive Management Program, this plan has been prepared based on consultation and coordination among those organizations, institutions, and individuals with interests in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and its effects on the Colorado River ecosystem.

The plan presents the background and history of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, the scope of the program, the program members or stakeholders, the statutory and organizational framework, and the details of how the Adaptive Management Program operates. The plan details the specific management objectives needed to realize the vision and goals of the program, and whether they are achieved through the Adaptive Management Program or supplemented by funds outside the Program. Supporting documents are provided in a series of appendices.

Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are important places on the landscape for many Native American Tribes. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) is designed to employ science as a means for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information on the condition of resources. A Western science perspective dominates this program with recognition of Native American traditional perspectives as a valued component. Analogous to a confluence of rivers, Native American traditional perspec-tives were initially envisioned as enhancing the Western science approach by creating a more holistic understanding of this valued ecosystem; however, this integration has not been realized. Identified barriers to effective participation by Native American stakeholders are vast cultural differences that express themselves in complex sociocultural scenarios such as conflict resolution discourse and a lack of insight on how to incorporate Native American values into the program. Also explored is the use of “science” as a sociopolitical tool to validate authoritative roles that have had the unintended effect of further disenfranchising Native Americans through the promotion of colonialist attitudes. Solutions to these barriers are offered to advance a more effective and inclusive participation of Native American stakeholders in this program. Finally, drawing from the social sciences, a reflexive approach to the entire GCDAMP is advocated.

In this article, I offer an institutional history of the ecosystem concept, tracing shifts in its meaning and application as it has become the key organizing principle for the Everglades restoration program in Florida. Two institutional forms are analyzed here: (1) quasi- governmental organizations, a term I use to describe interagency science collaboratives and community stakeholder organizations, and (2) government bureaucracies, which are the administrative agencies tasked with Everglades restoration planning and implementation. In analyzing these knowledge trajectories, I both document the complex networks of relations that facilitate the ecosystem’s emergence as an object of knowledge and examine the bureaucratic claims to authority that circumscribe the ecosystem’s transformation into policy.

The year 2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, USA. A decade of research and monitoring provides an important milestone to evaluate the effects of dam operations on resources of concern and determine whether or not the desired outcomes are being achieved, or if they are even compatible with one another or not. A comprehensive effort was undertaken to assess the scientific state of knowledge of resources of concern, as identified in the EIS. The result was the first systematic attempt by scientists to conduct an assessment of the changing state of Colorado River ecosystem resources in Grand Canyon over a decadal timeframe. In the EIS, 30 resource attributes are listed along with predictions for how those resources would respond under the Secretary of the Interior’s 1996 Record of Decision, an operating prescription based on the preferred alternative of Modified Low-Fluctuating Flows (MLFF).

Because of a lack of data or subsequent analyses to confirm whether some predictions stated in the EIS were correct, or not, 14 or 47 percent of the outcomes, are essentially unknown. Excluding outcomes that are unclear, then the remaining predictions in the EIS were correct in 7 out of 16 outcomes, or 44 percent of the categories listed. Mixed outcomes occur in 4 out of 16, or 25 percent of the categories, and failed predictions, occur in 5 out of 16, or 31 percent of the categories. As such, less than 50 percent of the outcomes were predicted correctly, underscoring the uncertainties associated with working in a large complex system with few to no long-term data sets. Similar uncertainties are faced by all resource managers charged with ecosystem restoration globally. The acceptability of this kind of uncertainty is influenced by interpretation, societal values, agency missions and mandates, and other factors. However, failure to correctly predict the future, in and of itself, is not deleterious under the paradigm of adaptive management where large uncertainties provide opportunities for learning and adjustment through an iterative process of “learning-by- doing” (Walters and Holling, 1990). Although recent science has documented a continued decline of environmental resources of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, it has also identified options that might still be implemented by managers to achieved desired future conditions in Grand Canyon.

This report is an important milestone in the effort by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA; title XVIII, secs. 1801-1809, of Public Law 102-575), the most recent authorizing legislation for Federal efforts to protect resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. The chapters that follow are intended to provide decision makers and the American public with relevant scientific information about the status and recent trends of the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of those portions of Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations. Glen Canyon Dam is one of the last major dams that was built on the Colorado River and is located just south of the Arizona-Utah border in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, approximately 15 mi (24 km) upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). The information presented here is a product of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), a federally authorized initiative to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resource management. The U.S. Geological Survey`s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) has responsibility for the scientific monitoring and research efforts for the program, including the preparation of reports such as this one.