Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
50% increase of adult humpback chub (4
+
years
old) in the Grand Canyon population between
2001 and 2008 (Coggins and Walters, 2009).
In addition to controlling non-native fish, the
range of humpback chub in Grand Canyon has
expanded as a result of a successful translocation
project on the Little Colorado River. Extensive
monitoring and assessments of the reach where
the fish were relocated preceded the translocation.
Additional humpback chub translocations to
other tributaries are now being planned and
implemented on the basis of
since 2001, during a time when it has declined
elsewhere in the Colorado River Basin (Hamill,
2010).
Current challenges and future
opportunities
The legal framework governing management of
the Colorado River is complex and includes
federal statutes that present conflicting goals and
requirements (Adler, 2010). Grand Canyon is one
of the most complex (and contested) settings
for water resource management in the world, a
situation reflected by the wide variety of interests
and agencies involved in the Program and their
widely divergent goals and missions (National
Research Council, 1999). Many of the challenges
facing the Program are associated with difficulties
in getting different stakeholder groups, each with
widely varying values and goals, to agree a
common vision (Schmidt
et al
., 1998; Adler, 2007).
A common criticism of the Program has been the
lack of clearly defined and measurable targets for
goals and objectives (National Research Council,
1999; Adler, 2008; Susskind
et al
., 2010). Targets
and the methods used to measure progress towards
them are needed to inform future planning,
experimentation, monitoring, and management
activities. Unfortunately, quantified targets have
not yet been agreed, thereby limiting possibilities
for meaningful trade-off evaluations by decision
makers. For example, the 2001 strategic plan lists
12 goals for various key resources, activities and
uses, several of which are in apparent conflict with
one another; a good example is tension between
hydro-electric power production and sediment
conservation.
It follows that effective collaboration is crucial
to the success of adaptive management work
programmes (Williams
et al
., 2007; Emerson,
2010). Susskind
et al
. (2010) argued that while
collaborative effort is well suited to the Glen
Canyon Adapative Management Program, it has
been used ineffectively. For example, Native
American tribes participating in the Program
contend that their traditional knowledge of the
learning that
took
place
during
the
initial
translocation
effort.
The importance of monitoring
Monitoring and modelling are fundamental
requirements of the adaptive management process
(Walters, 1986; Williams
et al
., 2007). Over the past
13 years, the Program has invested approximately
$
65 million in research, development and the
evaluation of monitoring programmes and
models. This has been to assess the status and
trends of priority resources, most notably the
aquatic food base, native and non-native fish
species, sandbars, water flows, water temperature,
archaeological sites, recreational camping beaches
and riparian vegetation. Results from these
long-term monitoring programmes (Table 26.4)
have provided information that has been used
to inform management action and evaluate
experimental actions (Walters
et al
., 2000; Gloss
et al
., 2005; Kaplinski
et al
., 2005; Voichick and
Wright, 2007; Coggins and Walters, 2009; Topping
et al
., 2010a, b). On the basis of monitoring
results (Gloss
et al
., 2005), Lovich and Melis
(2007) determined that success in achieving the
improved resource conditions set out in the 1995
Environmental Impact Statement has been mixed
(US Department of the Interior, 1995). Table 26.5
provides a summary of the status and trends of
key resources in 2009 (Hamill, 2009). The most
notable improvement below Glen Canyon Dam
over the last 20 years has been the 50% increase in
the population of the endangered humpback chub
