Hi, this is Paul, her and Jennifer Sweeney of Arizona State University.
Uh Speaking with Mike Yates of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office and
Northern Arizona University. It's September 8th, 2018 and we're at Nau
Mike. Thanks for joining us. Sure, no problem. Um Could you start out by
telling us your full name, the positions that you've held in the Adaptive
Management Program in the years that you were involved in it? Ok. Um Well
, my name is Michael Yates and I guess I got involved in the program
before there was an adaptive management program. I started back in 1991
with the original Dun Canyon environmental studies, which is the first EIS
that led up to the adaptive management program. What created it? And so,
you know, at the beginning I was doing research
for the Hopi, I got hired in 1991 for the, you know, at the Hopi tribe and
it was specifically for that time, the G CE S program. And so I was
primarily doing the research and of the Hopi involvement, although I was
also involved in a lot of the cooperators meetings for the development of
the EIS and was on the writing team for the original EIS 9596
EIS. Um But a lot of what I was doing was research in the Canyon for both
the ethno history of the Hopi tribe down there in conjunction with like TJ
Ferguson, who the tribe hired as a consultant. Um I was doing
archaeological surveys of the Little Colorado River, which was going to be
the focus of a lot of the fish research, the endangered fish work. And
it's culturally a very important place for the Hopi. So they were
concerned that we made sure we documented what areas were culturally
important there, so they wouldn't be impacted by the work. And then I also
was working some with the park service doing archaeological work down
there. Were you working with Jen Balsam on that big survey? They had a
whole series of trips that did a comprehensive survey of the river, but I
wasn't working on the park's actual survey. We kind of overlap. But the
survey I did in the little Colorado River was the parallel to what the
park was doing. So it was to make sure that stretch also had a
comprehensive archaeological and cultural inventory to go along with the
parks through the whole river corridor. So in the years you were doing
that was 1991 92 basic, you know, the the research to essentially record
information for the Hopi to support the positions in the original EIS were
from essentially 1991 to 1995
more or less. I mean, it was ongoing. It continued ever since. But that
was the primary focus was to be able to document stuff for the cultural
sections in the EIS. And then, you know, as part of that, as involved on
the writing teams for it to make sure the Hopi stuff got integrated
correctly and parallel with that. And actually a little earlier than the
completion of the EIS was the development of the section 106 Cultural
Resources Compliance for the National Historic Preservation Act. And that
actually was completed in 1994 I believe. And so we were writing that a
programmatic agreement at the same time for addressing the cultural
resources issues. So let me ask you the work that was done to comply with
the Historic Preservation Act, I guess. Um was that foundational then to
the EIS or were those separate documents? They're, they were separate
documents. And I think some of the confusion that we're in still with the
different roles and compliance responsibilities for section 106. And for
the broader NP A date back to that time period because
we, when the dam was constructed, there was cultural resources were
upstream but never downstream. And so the first
swipe we took it developing a cultural resources compliance program for
downstream was basically independent of the E I SI mean, it triggered it
all off, but it was specifically for the operations of the dam, which sort
of was what the EIS was. But not entirely normally you would do the EIS
and then either during the development of it or following it, do the
compliance for whatever the selected alternative was, we just did it on
the overall operations of the dam. And so it was completed before the E I
was, but it also meant that the cultural program
was never as well integrated into the overall what became the AMP program
where is parallel to that, the endangered species work, primarily the fish
was developed part and parcel with the EIS. And so a lot of the activities
that came out of the EIS
were directly aimed at the ES A, you know, compliance. So we ended up with
kind of two parallel programs in a sense where the, when N A was done, the
ES A stuff became essentially the Adaptive management program. Whereas the
cultural, we were never sure how it fit in and we're still not entirely
sure
the cultural people I think know how it fits in, but the rest of the
program doesn't necessarily. So that was one of those legacies out of the
original development that they, you know, part of the concern at the time.
And part of the reason why the Grand Canyon Protection Act ended up being
written was
there wasn't a lot of, I guess assurance that we'd ever complete the EIS.
And so the thought was, well, even if the EIS never gets completed, we
want to make sure we do the section 106 Cultural Compliance. And so that
also is why it's kind of on a separate path that, you know, when the, when
the original EIS was started back in 80 nine, I think is when it actually
got launched. Yeah, you know, there was no,
the politics were such, it wasn't clear it would ever be completed.
So I think uh Lee Kuan Wassa mentioned that there was uh a a chapter on
the cultural resources for each of the affected tribes integrated into the
record of decision. In 1996 did the cultural resource inventory work, the
ethno history work and the archaeological survey work that you all were
working on earlier, did that get integrated into that record of decision
or is it still remaining a sort of a parallel path with some integration
but not full? I would say some essentially
the tribes that were involved. You know, I think one of the
the really progressive innovative things with the original EIS was how
integral the tribes were brought into the process. And I think Dave Wagner
had a lot to do with that, but it meant that rather than us just
generating a report that then someone else took and tried to put in the
EIS, we were able to do our own research to document stuff. And most of
the tribes kept the really detailed report confidential because there's a
lot of esoteric knowledge and things because you know, the ties to the
Canyon are more than just archaeology. They cover a lot of the, at least
for Hopi, the really significant values that cause Hopi to be what hope is
now, you know, in the ceremonial and clan history and all of that. And so
we were able to document that, but then we also were able to
put in the EIS the stuff that would support our position based on that
research. But was it a level that was appropriate for other people to see
? And so that's why we were part of the writing team was to actually do it
ourselves. So in that sense, it did get integrated, the specific cultural
surveys were primarily done for the 106 portion of it. And so while that
information certainly fed into the analysis that went on in the EIS for
changing the operations, you know, it wasn't,
I guess, duplicated or regurgitated just in that. And certainly the record
of decision reflected the views,
positions that came out of all the cultural resources surveys and work.
Can I ask you who funded that? So when you say section 106 compliance work
, you're referring to the National Historic Preservation Act section 106
who funded that early work before there was an adaptive management program
and dedicated funds from hydro power revenues. Where did that money come
from? It was Bureau of Reclamation. And I think even then it was
hydropower. That's my understanding. I'm trying to remember but
it was, I mean, it was part and parcel of doing the whole EIS but it was
because there's a separate law, it was also on its own path without the
EIS research going on, it wouldn't have been done. Somebody else has told
us before that. Um, most of what really gets a lot of attention in the
Adaptive Management program are those things that have the extra leverage
of a legal mandate, like the Endangered Species Act. And you just
mentioned earlier that, that really almost drove the program at the
beginning because the ES A was something you couldn't ignore. Um, do you
feel the same way about, uh, the National Historic Preservation Act that
without that in the section 106 compliance that it might have been ignored
much more than, uh, uh, than it was. Um, yeah, probably. And even, you
know, there's essentially three laws that kind of are driving the program
, you know, the Grand Canyon Protection Act ES A and NHPA, I mean, those
are the ones that need to be complied with for the operations. I mean,
certainly there's the whole body of law of the river stuff that constrains
everything and, but as far as what is kind of ongoing compliance, those
are the three, the three. And unfortunately, I don't think that they've
all been.
Well, the Grand Canyon Protection Act is kind of just nebulous. I mean, I
don't know how you comply with that other, do something. But, but the
other two, the Endangered Species Act is certainly the bigger hammer in
the program. Um, for a number of reasons, I think, I mean, the National
Preservation Act is pretty rarely used
for lawsuits or those kind of things. It's just people rarely sue under it
, whereas the under ES A people get sued all the time. And so I think
that's a for the bureau of reclamation, that's probably a bigger threat.
So they want to make sure. But I think actually probably the more
important driver for why there's so much fish work, which is mostly driven
by ES A as opposed to just generic research on fish is because
it's the one resource that pretty much all the basin states and
particularly the upper basin have an interest in seeing progress because
there's a large number of development projects in the upper basin water
development that rely on the population of chubb down here being healthy,
essentially, it's part of their compliance. And so whenever you get to
funding
ESA is and stuff that helps the job is viewed as important by virtually
all the stakeholders, cultural resources. If we go totally out of
compliance, it really doesn't affect the upper basin or much of the lower
basin. It's just a bureau of reclamation issue. So that also, I think is
driven a little bit how the budgeting ha has happened both, you know,
since the record of decision and since the new New Rod to the temp,
um you got me thinking about the difference between the Endangered Species
Act and the National Historic Preservation Act now. Um And I'm wondering,
you know, in the Endangered Species Act, it, it requires a bunch of
research right up front and then you have to come up with a biological
opinion about the endangerment of whatever it was you were researching and
if it's found to be threatened or endangered, then you're required to do
something to either recover the species or certainly to not add any
additional jeopardy. Is there anything like that in the National Historic
Preservation Act? It certainly funds site surveys. But then is that kind
of where it stops? And then, no, it's actually very parallel. I mean,
essentially
what NH P is saying is that when a federal agency does something, whether
directly or through funding or permitting or whatever they need to
consider their potential effect on historic properties. And so that
usually what triggers the surveys and identification of what properties
are out there and then you determine what the potential effect to them
might be. And if there is an adverse effect, you need to develop ways to
mitigate that effect. If possible, the place where it somewhat differs.
Although I'm not an expert on es A to the point of knowing what latitude
the lead agency has. But
it's the one that section 106 is a process and you can go through it and
at the end come out and say we've identified everything we know we're
having an adverse effect. Oh, well, we're moving forward generally. That
isn't the case. I mean, enough players will come in and say you should be
doing something either modifying the project or, you know, traditionally
for archaeological sites to excavate that kind of thing. And so that's
just viewed as part of doing business,
but it's within the purview of the lead agency to do nothing if they go
through the whole process. Because if you're challenged, it's all you need
to do is document, you went through the process. That sounds like the
National Environmental Policy Act. It's a procedural process. You, you
have to do the assessment. It doesn't tell you what decisions you have to
take. You know, and generally people try to minimize their impact with ES
A. It's kind of the same thing you go through and you develop the
conservation measures and they probably do. Well, I don't know if, you
know, if you decide you're not going to do anything.
I don't know what latitude the agency then has. I mean, can they say we've
changed? We've decided we just can't preserve the species. We're not going
to do what the fish and wildlife says, you know, there'll probably be
challenged and I know there's what do they call it, the God squad or
whatever that can decide they're not going to try to save a feces. You
know, and that's where
if an agency isn't doing what it says or what people think it should, you
know, they tend to get sued but you say not many people sue on the
National Historic Preservation. No, it's pretty rare. And so that, you
know, in a sense, there's not as much of a big hammer hanging over if you
don't do it, you know, and again, though generally when you go through NHP
A, when you get to the point where you say there's an adverse effect, then
you put together either a memorandum of agreement or a programmatic
agreement that stipulates what you're going to do to mitigate those
impacts. And so again, if you have a bunch of stipulations that everyone
agrees to and you don't follow them, then probably you're legally
in jeopardy in the same way as if there's a bunch of conservation measures
for endangered species and you don't follow through on them. So there is
still that. So if an agency agrees to do something and doesn't, I think
they can't, then just ignore it, they're legally binding. Well, let me ask
you um just following up on that, then how, what's your judgment about how
well the Adaptive Management Program has accommodated, addressed the
concerns and requests of the cultural resource professionals like yourself
and others. Um
I mean, throughout the whole program, it certainly gets,
you know, a fair amount of attention in things
monetarily. It's definitely not anywhere near what the biological or
sediment programs are, although some of the sediment is certainly related
to the cultural resource issues. Um And again, I think some of that is due
to just the legacy of how the program develops slightly independent. And
what it's meant is that, you know, in the budgeting process, there's kind
of the overall adaptive management budget, but it's broken down between
what the Bureau of Reclamation administers mostly for their compliance
stuff. And then the broader Grand Canyon Monitoring and research center
budget for the science and the cultural resources work by and large has
been viewed is synonymous with just an HP A compliance. And beyond that,
there's been a fairly limited, I guess non-compliance cultural Resources
program,
it's also meant that tribal interests tend to be subsumed under cultural
resources
in the beginning, probably because that is kind of where the tribes were
involved. Most is the program developed. But also
it,
it's in a way I think easier for the rest of ant to the bureau is dealing
with the tribes and cultural because they're the same thing. So in that
sense, it hasn't nearly been as well integrated in the to the broader
Adaptive management program and the broader science, you know, certainly
there's issues with how do you integrate, integrate the tribal knowledge
value system into a Western science program. But I think it also has not
been done very well. You know, it's, it's one of those hard ones to
address. And, you know, there's both issues of not knowing how to do it.
But also just like I said, some of the legacy issues of how the program
developed and how you got handed off to different people. You know, it's
again, is the legacy of in the G CS days, the tribes kind of came up with
what they wanted to do and provided a budget to the Bureau of Reclamation.
And
as the research center came into being, you know, initially, that was
gonna be essentially a contract administrative center and it contract all
the science out
and they would develop rps and that kind of thing for most of the tribal
work,
they couldn't really develop rfps because the tribe essentially had to do
it. And then they were the only ones who could do the research because the
tribes knew what they needed, they needed, you know, tribal elders,
specialists with traditional knowledge to be able to do the research. So
it became essentially the cultural program at the center. It was
a way to facilitate getting the tribes the money to do the research. And
so there was just never a cultural program separate from the tribal work
that the center did much of. I mean, they've done certainly stuff pieces
and then for the archaeology side of it. The park service has always done
that. And again, when they, you know, they did the original survey, there
wasn't a center at the time, but the park service did that work, just like
most of the other players did their own work and their own specialties,
the tribes each did at game and fish did fish work, fish and wildlife did
their own thing. But it's all funded out of one pot. When the center was
kind of taken over to become the coordinating role,
the cultural stuff, the park retained it. The fish stuff became part and
parcel of what GCMR CS essentially science was in the sediment and they
just weren't sure how to deal with tribal stuff. And so we've always been
a little on the periphery, both tribal and cultural in the larger sense
and there was, you know, certainly still are, I think to some extent, some
turf wars between different agencies and that kind of thing. So, you know
, that's kind of led to where we are now, which is still somewhat on the
outside looking in. And the GM do you think that could be remedied? I
think. So, what would it look like? Can you paint us a picture of what it
would look like if it was working better?
Um
I think, you know, one of the, the big needs essentially is a unified
vision of what the program is. And within that some of the cultural
resource stuff and then buy in from all the different players about how to
achieve that essentially. And so,
you know, with the park always doing the archaeology monitoring,
you know, they're, they don't want an outside agency
to be doing that. I don't think, you know, they view that that is
something that they do, that's their management responsibility.
But it also means that they decide kind of what they're doing, the
protocols and methodologies, those kind of things. And with the, the
programmatic agreements, you know, the other participants in the cultural
review things and stuff, certainly. But it's driven more by the park, I
think than the broader Adaptive Management Program. Um
You know, and again, the signatories to the pa really are the ones who are
interested in the cultural resources. And so I think the rest of the
Adaptive Management Program, stakeholders don't really want to get
involved in that. Whereas with the endangered fish work, like I said, the
, they have a vested interest so they're willing to push things ac will
help recover the fish, um for the tribal stuff. You know,
you have another federal agency, they're not going to tell the tribe what
they think the tribe should be doing as far as their own research. So that
ends up somewhat outside of the program. Um You know, we've tried
different things through time. Certainly. I think the best approach has
been just a lot of day to day involvement, people all working together to
come to agreement on some of it. And I mean, I think the Adaptive
Management Program has very been very good at that, having lots of buy in
from lots of different stakeholders,
but just the process of how you design research and review it and stuff,
it makes it hard when some of the participants
have to develop it on their own and then feed it into the program. So, um
that didn't really answer your question. But I mean, I think we're kind of
doing it as best we can. I think, you know, the program has to recognize
we independence of the different agencies to some extent and recognize
that they have their own mandates that may dictate how much of a lead role
they take in developing some of the stuff. I mean, certainly, you know,
with the endangered species stuff, fish and wildlife, pretty much
unilaterally says these are what you need to do and to be in compliance.
The difference has been that then
since they're not the landowner, they're willing to let others do that
actual, whether it's management or research or monitoring. So there's
other players that are involved in doing that for the cultural resources
because the resources are a part resource.
It's harder from a management perspective and administratively for the
park to yield to some outside groups going this is what this is the way
we're going to manage the cultural resources So, you know, we, the way
we've tried to go about it in the past is put together a star preservation
plan that basically says this is what we want to manage for how we want to
go about doing it. And when you say we tried, for example, in this case,
as one of them, the signatories to the programmatic agreement. OK. Both
the first one and the one we're working on now. So it's kind of the groups
are, have an identified role in cultural resource management coming up as
a group with how we see the management going forward in the future. The
question then becomes who's actually going to do that work? And you know,
some of that gets back into funding and you know, the dam is, I don't want
to say, viewed as a large cash register, but it, it, it has been a solid
source of funding outside the normal politics that goes on with um you
know, the normal funding cycle. And so,
you know, people
see that as a way to help fund their agencies to do work, you know. And so
the park service gets funding for monitoring the cultural resources or the
archaeological sites, game and fish gets some funding for fish, monitoring
fish and wildlife does some too. I mean, everyone involved
benefits from the program too, you know. So, so it's not an easy one. I
mean, like I said, when they originally established the center, it's
supposed to be a small enterprise that basically just wrote RFP and
contracted work out. That's a Grand Canyon monitoring and research center.
And then they started doing their own research. They started. And, yeah,
part of it was because, you know, coming out of GCMRC, a lot of the people
who ultimately were at the beginning of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and
research center were doing the research and to keep those people on
scientists are interested in doing research. So they started out, you know
, continuing those programs and then slowly those programs, you know, it
switched from being a contract center to a pure science center that does
does most of the science now. Certainly there's still a lot of partners
who do stuff. But yeah, I mean, it's become a pretty big science program.
We, we have spoken to at least one other person who was a little bit
disappointed in that change because, um, there was a lot of money for a
lot of research that supported a lot of professional researchers that were
either independent or had their own consulting organization or worked at a
university. And a lot of that money that supported that kind of work dried
up when it got sort of concentrated in the GCMRC. Do you see it that way
or not? Well, certainly from the tribal side, it really didn't change
things in the sense of being able to get funding because, you know, since
the tribes were the only ones that could do the work, you know, whether it
went through the center or not, it still came to us. I mean, certainly the
funding has never been what we thought was adequate. But I think probably
everyone would say that no matter what. Um,
I think one of the things that it's led to and this gets a little back to
, you know, how could you make it work better, be more integrated is
since the center develops the budget and work plan,
they, you know, it's their own scientists who are developing a lot of that
work. I mean, they get certainly guidance from Twig and am wig. But
really the the actual development of what research is going to happen to
address these bigger questions is driven by the center and because it's
the scientists who may be doing the work, who are developing it, you know
, whether that goes down some pet project sort of roads or not. I mean,
you know, it does certainly there's checks on the system and there's lots
of projects that get dropped, that may be interesting research. But once
it reaches Twig and Amway, it's like, well, you know, this is either
straying too far or the budget is limited and these are much higher
priority sort of things. But I don't know whether at the center it stayed
mostly as a contracting sort of entity if it would have been better at
developing research monitoring programs that
would be more integrated, but also more focused because others would be
bidding on it then, you know, and I don't know how that would deal. Yeah.
Yeah. And I mean, I, I certainly don't wanna say that they're, you know,
they're milking the system or anything. But, yeah, I mean, the researchers
are interested in lots of stuff down there and they do really good
research. But, you know, it's certainly one of those areas where
it can bring in the different personal interests and emphasis to different
parts of the program. One of our interviewees told us that there were
occasionally research programs um funded and implemented by GCMRC. Um that
not everybody in Am wick thought were of the highest value. And when you
have a limited pot of research funding, you want to sort of fund the
programs that are going to provide the greatest value added value. And
this particular interview, he was saying that just because there were
researchers at GCMRC committed to this particular line of research that it
kept getting funded, even though a majority of people on AM wig were
questioning the value of continuing to put money down that pathway. Did
you experience anything like that? Well, certainly, I mean, there's, you
know, research that different stakeholders question. I mean, you know, I
think there are enough checks and balances in the system with all the
review that goes on of what the proposed programs are that I don't think
too much gets through. I mean, it is definitely, you know, funding limited
, there was a funding limit put on it, you know, when the Rod was done,
the original Rod. And so, you know, I think in that sense, there's enough
oversight that it's not like it can just run amok and do whatever they
want. So it's working pretty well. So I think it works pretty well. I
guess, you know, my,
you know, the comment about whether or not it's
always the best research that could be done for some bigger picture. You
know, again, that's because most of those research questions are being
developed internally.
You know, it's going to be driven by people's interest to some extent, you
know, what they choose to focus on and those kind of things. So yeah, it's
relevant. But is it if you had a totally outside group come in and go? Ok
, we're gonna, this is what we think should be done. And even that, I mean
, the program's been good about getting those kind of reviews, the
protocol of evaluation panel, the pet panels, those kind of things we
bring outside people and go. This is what we're trying to achieve. This is
what we're doing is this the best way to go about it should we change? So
there has been a lot of that. I mean, you know, I think this has been one
of the better programs that I know about there as far as trying to address
the complex system with a very diverse suite of stakeholders and interests
in the face of great uncertainty, right? You know, and some of the, you
know, some of the issues, you know, in one sense, all the hard issues were
resolved in the first EIS it's the hard ones that couldn't get resolved
there that drive adaptive management and some of the issues which gets
back to the question of, you know, is the research that's being done,
something that everyone agrees to or not is just what is the scope of the
program? Are we, you know, a lot of people are insisting, it's only things
that are affected by the day to day operations of the dam.
Uh for cultural, you know, at least from my perspective, part of the
operation of the dam is the fact that there is a dam.
But other stakeholders have said, no, it's just the daily up and down is
all we're looking at and that changes then what you think should be
studied or not and what's in or out of the program. In a sense. You're
saying some people are saying the existence of the dam should be off the
table. Oh, they've explicitly said that it's not the existence, it's the
operation. But, you know, a large majority of the program
is really the existence. I mean, the fact that there's no sediment, it's
cold clear water which drives all the fish stuff
you know, that's an existence of the dam. That isn't the daily operations.
You can't do much with daily operations to affect those parameters. So a
large part of the program isn't really looking at existence. But because
stakeholders
sea value in addressing the endangered fish, we have people working, you
know, 12 miles up the little Colorado river that's not affected by the
daily operations of the dam. But in cultural, they get upset if we go
above 45,000 CFS, even though there's definitely documented indirect
effects up there. So, you know, some of its politics and what people think
should or shouldn't be done. But generally you're saying the the
safeguards in place, the peer review and the collaborative process and the
multi stakeholder that all, you know, nothing's perfect and things are
working about as well as they could be and you're satisfied that, you know
,
yeah, that's great. No, I think, you know, by and large, it's a very good
program. And, you know, I think one of the strongest
aspects of the program is that all the stakeholders are still at the table
willing to talk to each other after all these years. I mean, you know,
bring it up to the present day when the issues of potentially not having
funding for Fy 19 came to a head. When you look at the groups that were
collaborating to lobby Congress for legislation, it's like they're on
diametrically opposed ends of what you would think would be cooperating.
But they are, you know, and by and large,
you know, a lot of the people in the program have been involved for so
long that everyone's friendly. I mean, everyone knows everyone. And so
it's very collegial and, you know, even if we don't agree on everything,
we're willing to sit down and have a beer afterwards and stuff. So, I mean
, that has been a real benefit of the program and that gets to, I think
that collaborative aspect that, you know, if it becomes a program that
looks like it's only driven by one entity with just kind of input that may
or may not go anywhere from everyone. There's just a lot more distrust
whereas if everyone feels like they have a say and even if you don't get
your way, you get that buy in, I think, and people understand what's going
on, which has been a real benefit in your experience is that uh unusual,
um you know, the, the sort of multi stakeholder uh level playing field,
everybody negotiating together without one player dominating is that a
pretty unusual situation and natural resource management and historic
preservation? It, it seems like it certainly historically, it is, I mean,
it's gotten better through time. Um People realize it's better to or a lot
of agencies have realized it's better to have discussions up front and
keep people in the loop than to just essentially check the boxes of what
they have to do and not put any emphasis on, you know, for the tribal
stuff. It's the consultation and there's a difference between the legal
consultation and actual, you know, collaborative consultation where we
discuss things and, you know, one of the things that this program
I think got right really early on and it's probably accidental, but when
we were putting the first programmatic agreement together for the section
106 compliance, all the different parties were writing that P A and up
until that time pas tended to be put together by a lead agency and then
you put a few, you know, whereas clauses and stipulations in from other
people after they review it and then sign off on it. This one we developed
as a group and partially that was because it was after the National Assort
Preservation Act had been amended to recognize traditional cultural
properties as historic properties. But before the regs had been developed
, so no one actually knew how to deal with them. And it made sense that
the tribes would probably have as good an idea of how to address that. And
so the pa that came out really did what later became in their eggs for how
to implement National Star Preservation Act. And so, you know that and
then having essentially any of the stakeholders who wanted to be involved
in actually drafting the EIS, you know, all working together, we'd go on
retreats and things and actually draft sections of it, it wasn't just a
lead agency doing it and then sending it out for review and comment. So,
you know, the program came out of, I think a very collaborative place to
start with. I'm wondering now if you think that um the example of the
Adaptive Management Program had influence beyond the program itself, had
influence on how federal agencies work with stakeholders and tribes. Do
you think um you know, having to collaborate like that? Um you know,
written into the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the record of decision
and all of that, that, that provided a different example of how to do
consultation and how to collaborate with stakeholders that has had impact
beyond the Adaptive Management Program maybe. Um Yeah, it's hard to know.
I mean, certainly from a tribal side, you know, it, it,
since we were led in the door in that process, we were probably more
insistent in other places. Going wait, we wanna be more involved in this.
We don't want to just review and comment, we wanna actually help with some
of the upfront decision making, you know, certainly tribes have been
allowed to provide some of the traditional cultural information and stuff
to incorporate into it. But, you know, in the original EIS, we were
involved in helping develop different alternatives and, you know, the
whole nine yards. Um And so, in that sense, I think it probably,
and gave us an idea of what we could do in a collaborative process, you
know, from a federal agency site. I don't know whether they thought it was
good or bad because,
you know, it, it certainly means more work up front. It doesn't go as
quick and, you know, some agencies I'm sure prefer the old way where they
can sit in the room and do it themselves and send it out and not have to
have quite as much involvement. And the most recent E I SI think did go
back a little towards the old, that older model in the L temp one and that
is the two lead agencies that did the majority of coming up with, you know
, what, what would be done? Certainly, there is still an open process for
the alternative development and stakeholders were involved. And as far as
the actual writing and stuff, you know, most of that was done by V or
their contractors which might be fine writing them is a lot of work, you
know, but the tribes are still allowed to write their own sections for the
affected environment and stuff. So, you know, I think there is that legacy.
Hm, let's talk about change over time a little bit. Um, I'm thinking now
you've been personally involved in this for 27 years, 28. Now I'm talking
more than a quarter of a century most of my life, I think professional
life. Um, can you sort of reflect on the changes that you've seen in the
program or the relationships or the kind of research that's been done.
What kinds of changes over that? 2728 years have you seen? I mean,
certainly the biggest is, is just become a much bigger program. I mean,
when it originally started, everyone knew everyone and was probably
involved in the research at the very beginning. And, yeah, I mean, GCMRC
has grown, I mean, now I go in there now and I don't recognize very many
people and there's, you know, lots of students and interns and that kind
of thing that are involved. Um
You know, it's a,
I think the fundamental
kind of research that's going on is still pretty much the same, you know,
there's, it's reached that point where we definitely are cycling back
through issues that in the past never got completed and still need to be.
Um like, for example,
I was trying to think some of the things that I saw as, you know, the
biggest not changes per se but things that
have not happened, you know, and one of the, I think one of the most
interest or maybe not interesting, but one of the things that
fundamentally shifted between when the E I, the original EIS was started
in the record of decision was that it was coming out of the high flows in
the 19 eighties, the mid eighties. And so one of the driving factors was
to not have the dam have unexpected spills. So a lot of emphasis was
placed on making sure that you didn't essentially fill it and spill
because that was one of the most damaging things that people had seen down
there and really triggered a lot of the erosion that people were seeing at
archaeological sites and other things. By the time we got to the record of
decision is the opposite we were looking at. Well, still not having
unplanned spills, but actually having floods because people realized, I
think that too much stability wasn't good either for that system. You know
, there was a lot of debate about having seasonally adjusted steady flows
and whether that would be best for fish and those kind of things. Um So,
you know, there was a big shift and now a lot of the experimentation is
surrounding having higher than normal flows out of the dam. So that is one
that kind of shifted, I think. Um,
the,
what was I trying to think of that something when I was talking to him,
what other things have changed? Um
You know, for the certainly for the fish work, we've learned an awful lot.
Um
We still still don't seem to know what fundamentally ends up driving the
native fish populations.
You know, early on
water temperature was viewed to be one of the big issues. Although at that
time, one of the earliest meetings I went to was was called the Aquatic
Coordinations. Team, which was the predecessor of all the fish work stuff.
And Chuck Mink said that, you know, he thought actually the cold water
was probably the only thing that potentially saved a lot of the native
fish because it's so disadvantaged, everything that neither the really
cold water exotics could spread quickly because it was too cold at the dam
and the warm water which up until the dam was completed were actually the
dominant fish in the system. Catfish and carp. And those kind of things,
essentially, it just kind of put a hold on everything. It didn't benefit
any of the fish. So water temperature was one of the big issues. And
somewhere along the line, trout, rainbow trout became the big
species that was decimating the chub primarily and predation was the
predation, then maybe competition. So we shifted to that for a long time.
And now I think we're shifting back
because the tribes, I saw that as one of the areas where the tribes maybe
actually had a pretty big role in not necessarily changing perceptions,
but stopping some of the management because
the idea that you go in and kill a lot of the trout, the tribes didn't
find very tasteful. I thought that was inappropriate and weren't
necessarily convinced by the science at the time that trout were in fact
causing the population level declines.
And so I think
now we're looking more at food base and temperature again, is maybe being
what some of the limiting issues are because the trout have gone up in
numbers at the same time as chubb have. Now, the whole western canyon is
dominated by native fish again and we're not quite sure why we didn't do
anything specifically other than water down street. Basically below the
LCR. At this point, it's back to being a native fish
fishery, which is kind of nice to hear mostly the, the, um, the suckers
that are getting wild spawn, chubb down there too, that aren't spawning in
the LCR. What's the LCR, the little Colorado River? So, you know, I think
that's an area where there's definitely been significant knowledge and
changes in perception. Um, you know, some of the food based stuff I think
has been, we've learned a lot lately and learned what we don't know, fish
food. You mean primarily, um, an area that early on? I think there was
more work that has now been lost is the whole terrestrial riparian zone.
And that's an area that Hopi and I believe some of the other tribes tend
to want more focus on and for a while we were getting more, there was a
lot more work going on in that zone on both vegetation but birds, reptiles
, amphibians, insects, you know, kind of a more ecosystem look at it. Why
do you think that's not getting the attention that it used to? And that it
ought to, I think primarily funding, you know, again, it's not a resource
that affects a lot of the stakeholders. If it changes one way or another,
it doesn't make much difference to a lot of the stakeholders. It's also
that we don't know what we want. I mean, prior to the LTP, I, you know,
one of the big pushes was to develop desired future conditions
and that was to kind of lay out what was agreed to is how we wanted to see
things in the future. And
most of the resources there isn't a lot of guidance or agreement on uh
partially because
they're not used in a sense, I mean, kind of a western concept. But, you
know, if you don't use it for something, you really don't have a
management need for it. And so doesn't become a priority. And so for a lot
of the riparian zone,
you know, their natural resources, the park has some desired future for it.
But even those are very nebulous. I mean, it's to maintain natural
processes and uh support native over non native, but that's an artificial
zone essentially through there anyway. I mean, pre Dam most of the
riparian zone with sand, you know, certainly the patches of things. So
it's a new zone. And because since 1963 when the dam gates closed,
sediment has been coming. And so the sand that was there has eroded away
for the most, it hasn't entirely eroded away, but it's becoming vegetated
stuff that would have been scoured every spring during the high flows
isn't. And so that zone has allowed lots of things, both native and non
native to move into it that weren't there in any numbers. Pre Dam.
Well, you know, the park didn't really have any targeted management for
that zone beyond some of the recreation stuff. But if it's, you know,
nonna, if it's non native, they really don't want it in there. So that's a
management Tamari camel thorn, some of those kind of species. But on the
other hand, there's a lot of natives that are probably equally, if not
more detrimental to recreation, then the non natives are, you know, you
get it the arrow weed, think it's down there and potentially the way the
dam is operated
is driving that system towards very clonal species. And so you may see an
awful lot of arrow weed and frag mites through the corridor. Nothing else
, you know, is that good or bad? I don't know. And those are two native
species not necessarily desirable. You're saying they may or may not. But
, yeah, but no one, you know, that's a hard thing to decide. You know, it
would be one thing if you're logging them or something or harvesting and
then you go, yeah. And so what's happened is, you know, for the cultural
resources, archaeological sites, primarily there's a law that kind of
tells you what you need to manage for, for the endangered species. We've
got a lot that tells us what we need to manage for our desired future
conditions are predetermined. So that makes it easy for, you know,
sediment, a lot of its condition is, is a foundation for other things. So
depending on what those other things are, then you can kind of back into
how much sediment you might want or wear those kind of things. You know,
water power that's also driven by a lot of the laws. But, you know,
vegetation,
it's one of those things where
it's hard to know what you want down there and different people want
different things. You know, a lot of the discussion in the past has been,
are we looking for a pre dam environment
or some kind of post dam thing? If it's post dam, what's it driven by, is
it driven by recreation? I mean, right now in the L temp, some of the
vegetation management is specifically targeted to try to open up camping
area. We're, we're kind of reaching,
you know, maybe an equilibrium on how much sand can be stored and where
the stuff that is gone is gone. And with some of the high flows and those
kind of things, we may be reaching an equilibrium in places, but we're
losing a lot of that area to vegetation now and the flows are no longer
high enough to remove it, you know, during,
but
pre original EIS period, you had the high fluctuating flows and So you
actually had a pretty big scour zone with a lot of sand um just by virtue
of having those flows. But the other thing that happened is when the EIS
was started, you still saw a pretty strong signal from those really high
flows in the mid eighties. In the 1983 flood sand was still up there and
everywhere. A lot of the beaches that are no longer even possible to camp
on. I remember as big open sand beaches at the time just because the
vegetation hadn't encroached. The flows in the eighties were high enough
to truly scour things. The first high flow experimental high flow that we
did in 96 scoured some stuff but not to the point that it didn't
re-establish within, you know, 3 to 5 years, it came back pretty quick. I
mean, one of the marshes plug in the marsh. I remember
it was an open sand dune right after the high flow, it was enough to
actually de vegetate it more or less, but enough was left that been a few
years. It's a jungle. And yeah, so, you know, some of that we're just
seeing probably still the successional changes from when the dam was first
put in place and then flows got stabilized back in the early nineties and
where that goes. I don't know, you know, the other thing that I've seen is
the removal of a lot of the big willows because again, when the flows
stabilize, I think the beaver population has increased and those love to
topple the trees from what they love chewing on. Yeah. Yeah. It's not like
they eat them, they just, I think like to see them fall. So you know,
that's some more stuff that now is coming back to trying to do
revegetation work down there to re establish some of those. Um Do you
think the adaptive management process, this commitment to multi
stakeholder multi-agency, collaborative decision making is a good
institution for trying to figure these things out? Like what desired
future conditions do we want? What what resources should we prioritize? Is
it on the one hand, some people might say it's too complex and messy and
democratic and inefficient and other, on the other hand, other people
might say, no, we don't want, you know, one agency or one powerful
interest to be able to dominate decision making. We need a level playing
field and we need people to talk to each other and develop relationships.
Where do you stand on that process and its ability to actually solve
these longer term deeper problems about figuring out what it is that we
want and how to manage to try to get those things? I mean, I think it's
one of the better
approaches for just avoiding lots of litigation for trying to manage
resources. It's been,
I think a mixed
thanks.
Its success has been mixed in this program and this from what I understand
is one of the better programs in doing it. Um And for a number of reasons
as far as developing
some of the conditions that are desired,
I don't think adaptive management is necessarily the best way to do that.
I think it's a good way to try to balance some of the issues. And I think
direct research and some of those sort of things. But I think in this
situation,
it's led to some problems
and I think it's given in a way stakeholders
a belief that they have more power maybe than they do. Um May I say that
for a number of different reasons, the,
you know, 11 thing
is I'm not sure if we've effectively done adaptive management in the way
it was kind of originally conceived, this program
was beginning, right, during when Adaptive management was kind of still an
academic sort of exercise and looking at ways to do that type of
management.
And so, you know, some of the early meetings we have, what was his name?
Kylie, I think is one of the people who is an early,
right, Kylie from the Pacific Northwest and Carl Walter. Carl Walter is
coming in last month. Yeah. And so one of the things that happened
is when the record of decision occurred and we put a series of changes
into effect. It was not clear what the scope of the adaptive management
was to operate on.
Some people you know, and traditionally, I ask you come out with some
something you're going to do and then you go ahead and do it.
The flows that were put in place, I think were viewed as being pretty
conservative.
And so the question then became, is with the monitoring and research was
that to guide whether the flow other parameters could be expanded or was
that the limiting box in adaptive management? Only tweak things inside
inside the box. And that I don't think was ever agreed upon. My thought
initially was adaptive management was to change the size of the box as we
learned because we had taken a pretty conservative approach to the flows
and the restrictions and it might be that we could expand them or do
different things as we learn more. A lot of people said, no, the box is
the box, you can do whatever you want within it, but to go outside of that
required a new EIS. And so,
you know, in that sense, it wasn't clear whether tweaking things within
the box is adaptive management or not. Certainly, it was adaptively
managing the research that was going on those kind of things. And as new
things, inputs to the system came in changed the kind of research what
needed done. So I think it's, it was a the collaborative approach was
certainly the best way to try to manage that kind of thing. Look at
priorities, look at those sort of things. But as far as the actual
management, I don't know whether that's the best and then to get back to
the broader question of, is it the way to manage the system? One of the
things when
we started was the park really didn't have a good general management plan
for what they wanted as the land manager for many of the resources down
there. And so that gave the stakeholders, I think this perception that
they could develop a lot of these resource goals instead of the park,
which has led to some issues too. The Park service probably felt that was
stepping on their toes. And so, but because a lot of these resources
didn't have anything explicit, that's where we got into the DF CS and all
that kind of stuff. Had there been very explicit, desired future
conditions. So um had the park had really explicit
conditions that they were managing for, for all these resources. I think
it would have limited some of that more management.
I guess feeling that the stakeholders felt they should be able to do, it
would have been driven by more of this is what's there? Are we meeting it
? You know, you look at the hydropower, I mean, people aren't getting in
there and saying no wa a should change your contracting this way to do
contracts or you know, those kind of things, they're not telling the fish
and wildlife what they should be writing for their biological opinion, but
they are saying what a lot of the resources should be. So, you know, in
that sense, I don't think adaptive management is the best way to manage
for an individual agencies thing. I think they need to take the lead and
what those priorities are and then use the adaptive management to look at
how that's being achieved, ways of better meeting those goals.
So I think it's a mixed thing. Yeah, I mean, it's one thing if it's true
co management, you know, and the tribes, that's one of the things the
tribes have been arguing for because the Western management goals and
tribal for the same resources are so often disparate about how they
approach it that without a true co management sort of approach one side or
the other is the one that makes the decision. And so the other side feels
they're being shorted on it if it's a different decision, you know, it's a
power, power issue. Ultimately,
what uh reflect a little bit on the power dynamics um in the Adaptive
Management Program in the 28 years that you were involved, who have been
the more powerful, influential players and why and what, what's the
outcome of that? Most? Certainly, I mean, the bureau of reclamation is
obviously the principal driver. Um
They operate the dam it their program, I mean, most of the comp no, again
, so much of the program is driven by the compliance needs of the Bureau
of Reclamation for endangered species and to a lesser extent cultural
resources, those are the first things that tend to get met through the
science. That's what needs to be done
and is the
essentially the coordinating agency for everything, you know, they can
sort of lead by developing agendas and those kind of things. And, you know
, certainly during the original EIS,
you found out pretty quickly that whoever got whatever language down first
on paper, for everyone to comment on the first straw man that tends to
direct kind of where you go, you know, and the Bureau of Reclamation. I
mean, you know, it's, it is their program in a large sense. So it makes
sense that they would drive things, you know, power, I think,
you know, is one of the stronger stakeholders. But I think, you know, by
and large all the stakeholders
have been pretty well incorporated into the process. You know, they don't
always get their way certainly. But I think they've all been heard the
environmental groups where always at the table. And, you know, I think
they were the first ones who felt that their needs weren't being met when
Grand Canyon Trust pulled out and had a lawsuit.
It must have been in the late nineties after the record of decisions. And
they had been involved throughout the environmental studies period and
through the EIS and the Rod and then they pulled out a few years later,
they
they felt that it was probably not appropriate for them to be involved in
litigation and sitting on the committee. You know, so, but
they decided they might get more of what they wanted uh through an
adversarial relationship than participating as a collaborative. Yeah, I
guess they felt that, you know, their collaboration wasn't getting to
where they wanted it to be. Um We're gonna try to do an interview with
somebody from Grand to get that perspective. Yeah, Rick Johnson would be a
good one. Or Nikolai or who Nikolai, uh, what's his name? Uh, think of it
in a second. It was Nikolai Lash, but he changed his name. Um, Ramsey or
maybe a one from Ramsey to Ash. But either of them Rick Johnson. Yeah,
Rick's on my list. Ok. Um, other, I mean, I think one of the groups that
has been
surprisingly powerful behind the scenes in a way and possibly because it's
sort of a coalition. It is the, the fishing, the recre recreational
fishery, you know, they, they tend to be pretty vocal. I mean, they get
their position out, but it's been one of those and Arizona game and fish
obviously is very supportive allied of the trout fishery, but it's been
one of those from a logical standpoint that just never makes sense. You
know, in one sense, trout are being blamed is the bane to the Humpback
chub. And yet there's no way they'll get rid of the trout fishery up there.
You know, it's just one of those things where on the face if you look at
it, it's like, why are you trying to maintain a trout fishery at one part
of the river? There's no barriers between that part and the part with the
endangered fish that's being managed almost diametrically opposed. And so
it's just like, you know, and it's an artificial fishery, you know,
they're non native fish. It was put there as a trout fishery as a
management choice through most of the Grand Canyon. They're trying to
remove trout, non native fish. But yet we have this one place where we're
going to insist that they remain and everyone involved in, you know,
whether it's fish and wildlife game and fish or the trout fishermen, you
know, it's like, yes, this is a given, this is gonna be here and, you know
, it's just one of those weird situations where it's a little
schizophrenic looking, but everyone kind of lives with it. But clearly
there's some power somewhere in there. Have you seen shifts? And, uh, you
know, a number of people, like you have talked about how some of the
stakeholders ally together. When we interviewed Lee Kuan Mua, he was
talking about a tribal caucus, how the tribe's representatives often meet
the day before Hewick meets and sort of go over the issues. Um, what other
interest groups? You just mentioned one, the, the commercial and, and
recreation on the recreational fishery, not commercial fishery. Um, what
other sort of caucuses have developed and how has their participation
changed over time? Or relationships between caucuses changed over time in
your mind?
Well, certainly, I mean, there's some long standing, I guess informal
groups that tend to lie together, you know, certainly
park service tribes, environmental groups tended to come in sort of in the
same. Um, the whitewater rafting, those are all kind of allied together.
Generally, the basin states were together and often with the power
interests. Um,
you know what, this is a little tangent, but one of the things that I
think has been successful in this program and
I think allowed people to try to do things cooperatively is it's always
been somewhat of a consensus program. And so
as we were moving along, it got more and more into kind of a caucus kind
of situation because of voting
decisions were being done by voting. And so
it became trying to line up people on your side of issues. So you had the
votes rather than to try to come to an agreement on an issue and
compromise. And
we got going down that path of voting. And that's when the Department of
Interior Agencies kind of pulled out and said, no, we shouldn't be voting
members if we're going down that road.
And
luckily with the Anne Castle
era, we went back to doing things by consensus if at all possible. And so
it got rid of that need to caucus and get groups together and form
coalitions to try to outvote the other side, which I think has been really
beneficial because I think it has allowed the groups to be,
to essentially not stake out territory and not give on it and allow people
to, you know, is that the voting thing when it's like, well, if we're not
gonna win, why even go to the meeting, you know, that kind of perception.
Um, the other kind of caucusing which isn't really caucusing. But the
before like the AM wig meetings, the do I has their own meetings? So that
again, they were trying to get all the doi agencies sort of on the same
page for the Department of Department of Interior because again, one of
the things I thought was always nice to see, but the Department of
Interior wasn't so keen on, it apparently was often different Department
of Interior agencies
didn't see things, eye to eye. And I always enjoyed the discussions to see
why they didn't agree on things, you know, fish and wildlife might, may or
may not see things the same way as the park service who almost definitely
didn't see things the way the bureau of reclamation did. But those
discussions I thought were always interesting, but I guess they decided it
wasn't appropriate to air the dirty laundry in a public forum. So the
Department of Interior started having meetings before AM wig didn't make
sure they were kind of all on the same page. And since they weren't voting
, it didn't matter during the era of voting, you could have again, park
service fish and wildlife might get together with the tribes as a group,
whereas Bureau of reclamation might go with Western area power or
something as a group. And so they'd be voting against each other, which
was always kind of weird. But when, when, uh, what, what were the dates in
which you feel it was more based on consensus and then what was the date
range in which it went to caucuses and voting and blocks? And then,
I don't know if there were any dates for it actually to, I mean, there was
always a voting ability during twig and am wig. Um,
but it seemed like it got more and more formal probably during the early
two thousands. I don't know, it just kind of slowly crept in until it got
to the point where all of a sudden the vote became more important than the
issue in a sense. Um, and
I don't remember the exact date as when an castle was the secretary's
designee that we really formally tried to go back to consensus, you know,
and I'm sure that Mary Horton probably has the exact date when that got
passed. But, and, but the operating procedures I think, tried to make it a
consensus process which I think is good. Um, and again, you know, this is
an advisory committee. So, right, ultimately, what was happening, makes
recommendations to the Secretary of Interior. And so what was happening is
you'd end up with a split vote, so you'd have the majority and then you'd
have a minority report also written. So it just in a way, didn't make
sense because the same discussions were contained within the record anyway.
And at least with Anne Castle, she was very involved in the process, took
a large interest in it. And so she could report those discussions back to
the secretary too. And so everyone was being heard anyway. You know, and
it may be when that voting process is getting more and more formal. That
may have been when Grand Canyon trust pulled out too because,
you know, if you end up on the losing side of the vote too long, it makes
sense rather than writing, uh, minority position, just have your lawyer
write that position instead, you know. So, but yeah, I mean, I think going
back to a consensus makes it much more collegial and I think we can talk
the issues out a lot better than when it didn't matter. You just lined up
your votes and went for it. Hm. Interesting.
Um, any particular events that happened during your time involved that you
thought were sort of marked a significant change in the way people
approach things or the issues that were addressed?
Um, well, I think certainly the shift to decide we needed to do high flows
was,
you know, it wasn't a huge change in, I think, thought process. But I
think just, you know, as far as actual and adaptive management sort of
thing, that was really the first kind of big experiment in, in that we're
going to go outside of the normal operations of the dam and do something
specific, have a lot of science and monitoring to understand
if it was doing what we thought it might be doing and to track the outcome
of it, you know, there were some other experiments similar to that, you
know, the low steady flows and some of those to address some of the other
earlier questions about what might be best for the native fish. Were those
experiments implemented or just talked about? No, they were implemented.
What is it below
seasonally adjusted, low steady flow or something? I'm trying to remember
what they called LSSF
most steady, low seasonal steady flow. Something I don't know too many
acronyms can't keep up with all of them. Um
What other things, I mean, a lot of things tended to be somewhat
incremental uh um
which is probably good in adaptive management program. You know, I think
certainly
the recognition that there's an awful lot of outside influences too to do
the whole thing is just a formal experiment which again, I think is
looking at some of the adaptive management, it's recognizing you can't
control all the, all the inputs to the experiment, that some stuff, you
just have to sort of ongoing experiment and you just got to monitor it. Um
I think probably one of the
biggest changes is just the shift that we're seeing to a native fishery
down there and unfortunately not knowing 100% why that's happening. You
know, I think that's something that's gonna be a focus probably in the
next 10 years or so. The other thing that I think kind of an interesting
unknown as why we still have a native fishery at all because in most other
places where you have as big sources of non natives all around the system.
You know, they immediately get replaced. The non native take over fast
when this program was kind of early on the Yampa River was a primarily a
native fish river and it just went overnight. I mean, it's now non native
and it happened fast. Why the LCR persists as a refugia in a sense for
Humpback chub and hasn't been invaded, given that it's warm water, there's
bass around, there's other warm water, non natives, but they've just never
gotten a foothold. And the same with most of the river,
there's been lots of other non natives in there, but they've just never
completely replaced the native species. So, you know, that's one of those
big questions I think. And certainly it's a focus of concern for going
into the future. That's why the park is doing a non native aquatic species.
E A is to figure out what to do when something shows up that is going to
spread rapidly.
That reminds me that one of the reasons that people like Carl Walters and
Kylie came up with the science of adaptive management is the recognition
of uncertainty and climate change is another one of those things that we
know it's happening, but we're uncertain about, you know, what the effects
exactly the effects are going to be. And that recognition of the
tremendous uncertainty of ecological responses to, you know, to a dam or
to climate change is the rationale for coming up with this idea of
adaptive management. Do you think, uh how do you think the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program has done in recognizing embracing and dealing
with uncertainty?
Um
I think it's certainly
recognizes it and, you know, it's, I think a lot of the science uh either
explicitly or implicitly recognizes that it's there, but I think we still
try to address the system
too much in, I guess, a traditional Western scientific approach.
And
it's, you know, I think one of the,
it's probably a human nature issue, but, you know, the scientists working
on things want to address research that they actually live to see the end
of and can write up. And so even though, you know, some of the stuff
hopefully will be long term and maybe we can't answer it for 20 years, a
lot of the research still has to be 2 to 5 years sort of time frames. And
, you know, this is an area that I think
the tribes, the tribal involvement, I think has been
one of the, they've been incorporated and involved better than in a lot of
programs. But on the other hand,
I think they fundamentally look at the system in a way that would be
helpful for the Western scientists to look at it and it's getting again
into that uncertainty sort of area. I mean, the tribes have the time to
that their traditional knowledge is seen climate change, you know how it's
recorded, how well it's recorded in oral history or other tribal knowledge
is, you know, hard to say and the integration of that into Western science
is poor, not just here but anywhere, it's not something that's easy to do.
But it also, I think kind of underpins the tribal
view of a more hands off approach because they're looking at that long
time depth and things change, we can't foresee everything that's going to
happen, can't control and can't control it. And so, you know, going back
to like the rainbow trout, the tribes basically said, you know, you
shouldn't be going in there and trying to kill them all off. It's not
their fault, they're there, you put them there, they're a living entity in
the system. Furthermore, they seem to be coexisting with the child. They
may be somewhat limiting but they haven't wiped them out and it's better
to let nature do what nature does, which in a sense, you know, I think is
them recognizing that people can't control everything. And I think that is
born of that really long time depth, you know, very environmentally
changeable area. I mean, yeah, in the last 100 years it's not done a lot
of things, but in the last 2000 years, it has, you know, we had the whole
drought in the 12,000 or 12 hundreds and stuff, you know, so some of that
, I think just gets into their over philos overall philosophy of land
management. And so I think they view the more active management that
western land managers want to do as being too much. And so that's kind of
a roundabout way of saying, but, you know, the uncertainty, I think we try
to control more of it than we actually can and especially when we get into
decal time periods are longer and certainly climate change is operating
over that. You know, you look at the changes in what's going on in the
riparian system. We may still be just seeing the ripple effect from the
fact there's a dam there, not by the daily changes in what the operations
are, you know, it may be 5060 years before you get some kind of
equilibrium of what that downstream riparian habitat looks like with a dam
upstream. You know. And so there is some of that, I think that the
traditional tribal knowledge could be used for adaptive management to
recognize what the limitations are.
Let's, uh, uh, I'd like to get some advice from you of, uh, additional
people that you think we ought to consider interviewing.
Um, you mentioned Rick Johnson with the Grand Canyon Trust, but, uh, who
else? I wanna make sure nobody falls through the cracks. It would be
really important, you know, I'm sure Ted Mellis has been, he's been
mentioned, you know, because he's was involved a lot early. Um You
probably talked to Dave Garrett and some of those people trying to think
um whether some of the other
uh other directors of GCMRC,
um Jack Schmidt, Schmidt. Yeah, he was in town yesterday two days ago. Um
Who else?
Clayton Palmer? You probably have on your list. I'm not sure who is
Western area power. Ok. Yeah. Um We need to interview somebody from W A
and he'd be a good one. Uh Randy Peterson probably has some of this. How
about tribal wraps?
Um You have Kurt, I'm sure Danowski, we talked to Kurt last month. That
was a good interview. Let's see, Loretta Jackson. She's now on the list.
We talked to Kerrie Christensen and uh we're gonna try to get Loretta, ok.
Um Maybe Clay Bravo, that's a new name, Clay Bravo or Don Bay are both
together,
Don Bray Bay Bay. They're both with Wy or were during the original EIS.
So they were around at the beginning like your time frame too. Who other
people? Um
A and downer
it was Navajo.
Yeah, Lee Kuan Wasima mentioned him earlier. How do you spell his last
name down?
Er, and I believe he's still the Hawaii sho.
Yeah. Sho in Hawaii. Yeah. Yeah. I think we cracked a joke about going to
Hawaii to interview him. Uh but he worked for the Hopi Cultural Navajo,
Navajo Historic Preservation department. He basically started it and was
involved. Um maybe Richard Bey if you want early stuff again, he did all
the early work for Navajo, the ethnographic work and stuff. Him and Alexa
Roberts,
Alexa Roberts. Jeez W Park Service had just retired and they didn't uh
work for the Navajo, they did the Navajo ethnographic work at the same
time period. A bunch of these people kind of all left when the a
management program started, they were involved in the lead up to it and
the development of the EIS and moved on. How about documents uh important
uh documents that uh were produced that, you know, we want to make sure
are highlighted in the administrative history.
Mhm.
I don't know if there's anything specifically that wouldn't be just kind
of the general, right?
Yeah, I mean, all the documents I can think of are things that were never
completed. I mean, they're the things that keep getting revisited, you
know, the hard issues essentially. So like, you know, there's been various
iterations of core monitoring plans to try to develop something that's
just, you know, try to change every year, just a long term core monitoring.
There's been plans that are looking at, you know, desired future
conditions in one way or another, those kind of management things. Um But
yeah, none of them are ever completed because those are the hard issues
that not everyone can agree to or they're agreed to at such a high level
that you don't necessarily get you where you need to go.
When was the first round of efforts to identify desired future conditions
? Do you remember a time frame?
Probably in the original EIS is my guess. I mean, we're trying to figure
out what resources should look like. I mean, certainly there were lots of
discussions that went on in the drafting of the EIS but among the
cooperating agencies about what, you know, is there a time period we're
targeting? Is it a pre dam thing? Is it something else that we don't have
now? You know, so there were things like, well, the beaches after 1996 we
should target that is the area, you know, things like that. But
yeah, I don't think there was ever truly anything agreed to of what that
should be. Any other hard issues, you mentioned that twice, there are hard
issues that just have to keep coming back. You've got long term core
monitoring plans you mentioned and desired future conditions, you
mentioned. Anything else that is sort of perennially cycles back around
because it doesn't get resolved
in and out of the program? What is the scope of the program?
Um You know, I think that's a little more detailed from the current L temp
since the L temp is now the program that rod but still, you know, with
different resources, what is that boundary of your cultural is varied? And
it depends on what kind of cultural resource it's kind of flexible. Um But
that's been a long term issue. Funding funding. I was just writing that
down, you know, there's never enough um
representation. There doesn't seem to have been much controversy over who
are the stakeholders. And yeah, I mean, it's a pretty broad scope. I mean
, we haven't heard of any groups wanting to come in really. And, you know
, some of that's laid out in the Grand Canyon Protection Act.
It's not clear necessarily how some of the identified stakeholders select
, who should represent them primarily within the environmental and
recreation interests. Um You know, it's the environmental groups have been
different at different times. Recreation, there's been some trout fishing
and the Grand Canyon river guides have been the whole time. But
you know how that's decided, I don't know, but that hasn't been
controversial. It doesn't seem like it has been, I mean, it doesn't seem
like it in my interviews anyway. Yeah, I've not really heard much, either
inside or outside about that being too much of an issue.
I thought of one other. What was it,
the inside, outside of the, oh, I guess just what, what the role of the
program is in relation to whether it's a rec, uh, recovery program for
endangered species versus just a monitoring,
you know, reporting sort of program. Because,
you know, a lot of the stuff that we do ties to some of the what would
potentially be recovery goals, but some of the commitments are outside of
the scope of the program, things with refugia, doing stuff with potential
spills in the LCR, some of the other things that are identified. And so,
you know, while a huge amount of the funding goes to monitoring and even
doing stuff for the, the Chubs like trans translocation and stuff, we
can't do everything that's identified and
there's, it isn't a recovery program, you know. And so it isn't clear, I
mean, if 90% of our funding goes to fish, well, should it, would it make
more sense to just say? Ok, it's a recovery program for the chub you can
do. Now, your scope is to be able to do everything that's identified to
meet that, you know, but would you recommend that? Would you like that
outcome? Um
At one time, I thought it would almost make sense to separate out a
program that could be adequately funded to do just that and have this
program essentially address all the other resources that don't have a law
that you have to comply with, which might get you more towards the broader
environment and management of it. Because you know, the ES A stuff and
cultural has a lot of it. They got to do whether this program exists or
not. And so that might be a way to focus more emphasis on some of these
other resources down there. It's remarkable to Jen and I, how many people
acknowledge that the Adaptive Management program has essentially been for
its entire stretch about fish and sand. And which is a little surprising
to me that those have become so overwhelming in influence and focus,
you know, it's only been 20 some years, 25 years. Uh What do you think the
next 10 or 20 years, what's going to be the fish and sand or, or added to
the fish and sand in the next 10 or 20 years or ought to be added as a big
emphasis. Well, actually, it reminded me of a couple of other things that
are both long standing issues. But I think maybe relevant for the next
however long is fish and sand. Two things that have repeatedly come up are
some kind of sediment augmentation and temperature control device and
their big ticket things. But, you know, I think one of the things we're
seeing now with the fish and how well the natives are doing is the
temperature issue, particularly in the Western Canyon. It's a double edged
sword. Initially, when temperature control was discussed, it was for
raising temperature. Now, we may be going into a situation where we may
want to cool the temperature because we may be creating finally that
habitat, the warm water, non natives, you know, they can flee out of Lake
Mead and come upstream do well. So that's one that's been on the table for
a long time and I think could become a bigger issue in the future. And
then the the other one is sediment and sediment augmentation. Again, that
was fairly looked at as trying to get lots of sand in the river for
beaches, that kind of thing. More recently, it's been looked at as
turbidity. Turbidity again is a fish management tool making the water more
turbid
to try to prevent non natives coming in because that favors the native
fish because they evolved in turbid. And you know, again, the two
principal players in the non natives, the two trouts, brown and rainbow
and turbidity definitely disadvantages rainbows and potentially browns.
And so that was looked at as one way, but at least for cultural resources
to do anything with erosion, you need something more than just making the
water muddy. You have to have a lot of sediment slurry pipelines, whatever.
So that's another one that I think may come back around in the future is
something that we need to look at and it may and with the stuff going on
down in the wall with having too much sediment down, we need a pipeline to
circulate it back up, push it back up. The Black Mesa pipeline is no
longer in use if we can run it over there and back up stream.
That's right. There is a slurry pipeline going down to that coal fired
power plant that's now closed. Yeah, well, still on the ground. Most
places I had heard that the, the Navajo and perhaps Hopi were interested
in using that pipeline to get water from the Colorado River up to the two
reservations. I don't know if it would even be functional, but somebody
was thinking about, yeah, they've looked at pipelines. It'd be,
I mean, it'd be probably cheaper to do a new one from Lake Powell which
has been studied. I mean, your reclamation is looked at that multiple
times or just downstream from Lake Powell, depending on which base and
adjudication.
We're Hopi it would all be lower base and Navajo has some of the base. And
so Hopi technically, we couldn't take it out of Lake Pal. You got to wait
until it gets below these fry before we can take it, I think. But, or they
could buy or trade water with the Navajos. There's all kinds of marketing
options. Do you ever think about how climate change uh may shift the
emphasis of the program in the future? Um or cause it to adapt. Well,
certainly. I mean, we're already looking a little more seriously. I think
it putting generators on the bypass tubes. You know, that was a suggestion
long ago for when you want to have high flows so that you don't get the
penalty for bypassing the turbines and the power generation, you put
turbines on the bypass tubes, but with lower lake levels, they're
foreseeing a future where you may not be able to get water out the normal
generators and the only way to get them through is going to be through the
bypass tubes. And once you get below that then it's just a dead. So it
doesn't matter. So, yeah, climate change, I think is driving that a little
bit. You know, the certainly
it's
change, sort of,
you know, it's driven how the water is allocated now between the two lakes
and what that's meant is actually in a lot of these lower water years,
we've seen high higher flows down the river, which is a little
counterintuitive, but it's too bad. So, yeah, even though when we're
getting, what in the past would be a normal minimum release year out of
Lake Powell. Now, they're higher than minimum release just because they
got to get water to meet, to equalize. And you know what that's gonna do
if we hit a shortage and stuff, if, when 2020 apparently
that's what they're saying. Yeah. You know, and it changes the run off. I
don't know if it's, it could potentially change
the frequency that high flows could be triggered. But may also just in a
broader sense, change sediment input because we tend to get more of the
bigger storms that have short term high sediment runoff and you know what
that will do to sediment balance stuff. I don't know. Do you anticipate?
There'll be any um obvious potential impacts to cultural resources from
climate change. Um,
in, you know, if we're getting more frequent heavy storms, you get the
catastrophic loss of archaeological sites. I mean, what's driving it down
there is rainfall? I mean, it's the rain that washes it out. And in the
past you had new sediment coming in to replenish it. So, unless the entire
site went, it's usually when a Roy it starts eroding things and that, that
refills some healthier time and that isn't happening as much. But if
you're getting more intense storms, you have a better chance of
catastrophic loss, it seems like just coming up the river this time, there
are some places that are pretty impressively hit in the last few weeks
down there. Go on youtube and look at a flash flood down at f, I saw that
last week. Yeah, we went by there and you can just see where it's come off.
All the slopes there. It was pretty muddy water coming off too. Yeah.
Well, and it was just debris coming off. The canyon sides in places that
in the past
you just rarely saw that much rain all at once in one spot. I mean, it
runs off. You get the normal pour overs and stuff. This just whole slope
areas were coming off. Every little rivulet had debris coming out into the
canyon. So it's pretty impressive to see some of that. And that's unusual.
And you expect to see a lot more of that in a warmer. Yeah. Yeah. I mean
, they were saying based on the radar images they're estimating. What was
it? Five inches in 20 minutes or something ridiculous. Oh, I mean, we had
five inches out at Donny Park in two hours earlier this year. But, yeah,
five inches and 20 minutes is a little scary. I don't know if that's an
overestimate or not based on just the radar stuff they're looking at but,
you know, much more than to an hour is pretty unusual.
So, um, one of my last questions. Now, do you have any advice for new
people who will be coming on to the Adaptive Management Program? I heard
you're gonna be retiring in about a year, similar to me, less than a year
you got this year? Yeah. Wow. So you gotta be thinking about who's gonna
come next and if you, you know, if you had an opportunity to sit down with
your replacement, what kinds of things would you say to this person? Well
, certainly, I think you know,
to try to come in recognizing that there's a lot of different expertise in
the program and that, you know, to try to learn from all the people
involved and keep a co-operative sort of atmosphere I think is a big key
to the program. Um, you know, it's definitely a steep learning curve, the
more you can apprentice with someone the better. Um
But yeah, I think mostly just
coming in with the intent of trying to make it work, I think is a big key.
Um because I think that is one of the things that's made this program
somewhat unusual is everyone is willing to listen to each other and learn
from each other and
at least broadly manage for kind of similar goals. You know, the, it's
always heartening to see when everyone in the program agrees that the
program should continue when the funding gets cut when they see that on
the horizon and no one's going. No, let's get rid of it. It's been a
detriment or something. So I think, you know, that would be one key. And
then,
you know, and I think that then allows people to try to learn from a bunch
of different players to come up to speed on what's going on. You know, the
program has also been good in that there hasn't been a lot of turnover. I
mean, people involved tend to stay 35 plus years, you know, obviously
there's a few of us outliers. But actually, up until five or six years ago
, a lot of the people involved were predating the EIS, you know, and are
still at least peripherally involved. So, you know, try to learn from
those people who know some of the legacy of the program because, yeah,
there's just so much knowledge and science, there's no way you can just
walk in and go, ok, I know everything about this program. You know, so
much comes in on a daily basis. Just it seems like when sending out a new
,
do we report once a week or something? Actually, I don't know if Linda
Wetton is on your list there. But she should be too. So, how long has she
been involved in the program?
Probably
since the 90 late nineties, at least, I think I'm trying to remember when
she first came in. I thought she was, you know, recent staff. But if she's
been around that long we need to talk to her. No, she'd be a good one to
talk to. I think, you know, certainly from administering the program and
all the behind the scenes and all of that.
Yeah, that would be a good perspective. Mary Orton was probably the only
person we've interviewed so far who is almost entirely focused on the
administration of the program and the relationship building and consensus
building and sort of that aspect. Most of the people we talk to are, you
know, either scientists or policymakers or stakeholders. So that would be
a valuable perspective. No. Yeah, she's been around definitely for a long
time, basically doing the meeting notes and setting up the meetings and
coordinating everything and all of that. So, yeah, she'd be good. But no,
and I, you know, for certainly from a tribal perspective,
you know, I think whoever would be coming in needs to
be interested in kind of the whole range of
the tribe's involvement from doing, you know, the on the ground, science
and monitoring up through the being at the meetings and the management and
that kind of thing. You know, because certainly one of the things I've
been able to benefit from is seeing that whole range of stuff. You know, a
lot of people, they're just at the AM wig meetings or also just in the
canyon doing research. But for the tribes, because we're usually fairly
limited on both staff and expertise, you end up kind of becoming a jack of
all trades and doing it all. I mean, I know an awful lot more about fish
than I ever expected. I would. Yeah, it's funny because your training's in
anthropology, right? Yeah, I'm an archaeologist, archaeologist. Yeah, I,
no, Kurt and I had worked together just for contract archaeology companies
in Phoenix. We both went up to work for the Navajo tribe like a few months
apart. And then Kurt got hired at Hopi and then hired me a few months
later to start the Grand Canyon stuff. And I think the first two meetings
I went to one was a technical kind of review on fish. And I'm sitting in
there going, what am I doing? And then the next one was on non use
economic valuation down at a su where they were talking to all the people
at the forefront of doing that kind of work, which was really
controversial and not used at the time. That would have been 91 you
talking about, you know, how much would people pay to not cut down a tree
and those kind of things? And so I came back from those meetings kind of
going, I have no clue what I got into here. What is this? But, you know,
certainly in hindsight, just being exposed to all the different stuff I
think is really valuable.
Tribal members. I think it would be a good way. And certainly, you know,
for the tribe, it'd be great to get tribal members more involved in
representing the tribe. You know, part of it was just by default, but
there's very few tribal archaeologists or Hopi archaeologists out there.
It's not a profession Hopis go into because there's been very few
positive role models in anthropology and archaeology. So not something
they want to do, but we've got a couple. Now, there's some definitely
moving up. I imagine all of those annual river trips that each tribe takes
, especially the ho is a great way of introducing the next generation of
young people to the canyon and to these issues and you're training your uh
yeah, well, sort of, but not entirely, I mean, for Hopi, it's been a
little bit unique just because for Hopi, the Grand Canyon, you know, it's
the origin point and lots of other history, migrations and stuff, but it's
where they go in the afterlife. And so it's actually fairly taboo to go
down there and you're supposed to be fully initiated
Hopi male to go into the canyon. And so for a long time, we didn't have
very many young people at all going down there. We haven't taken women
into the canyon and there's a lot of people or not a lot, but a number of
people in our office including one of the Hopi archaeologists who for
cultural reasons just won't go down there. And so it, that's what it's
been a little tricky finding a replacement because a lot of the Hopi for
cultural reasons won't go into the canyon, they'll do the outer stuff. But
yeah, just going into the canyon has been something that we're going to
have to find the right person. Yeah, Lee Kuan Masuma was telling us that
uh of the 30 years he's been involved in the program, he's probably only
gone down the river maybe seven or eight times. And, and that was his
explanation that you're not really supposed to do that very often. It's a
very special sacred place. Yeah, I mean, you're, you know, traditionally
is only the initiated people who go down there and only for certain
reasons. And, you know, the salt pilgrimage was part of the initiation
ceremony. And so you were led by a person who was initiated and now that
ceremony doesn't really occur at third mesa, which is where they mostly
went over there. So theoretically, no one is supposed to be down there.
The Salt pilgrimage isn't nobody does it anymore. Not in the sense that it
was in the past, there's still Hopi who have done it to collect and things.
And at second mesa, the initiation still occurs. But they go to Zuni Salt
Lake as much as they go into the canyon. One of the, one of the people
that we worked with early on was one of the last initiated people from
Third Mesa. And so he was able to go down with us both for the research.
But for him, it was completing what needed to be done for the initiation
to, to go to the salt mine and up to see Puni. And so, you know, some of
that was carrying on some of it. But through time, you know, obviously
traditions change in cultures and there's a recognition that the knowledge
about the place needs to be carried forward, but it may not be done in the
same way as it used to be. So, you know, as we've shifted from research to
more monitoring down in the canyon too. We don't need necessarily the
people who are the, you know, the higher level of ritual knowledge and
those kind of things down there because we're just getting the people's
impression of whether it's being cared for, appropriate appropriately. And
so, you know, we get more of a mix now of some of the younger people on
the river. But, yeah, finding someone to do it as a profession, it's been
tricky.
Well, I wish you the best of luck in that. And I hope that the program
continues. Everybody we've talked to has emphasized how valuable it is and
what an honor it's been to be involved. And it sounds like you feel the
same way. Oh, yeah. I mean, you know, this certainly,
you know, if it wasn't a valuable program, so many people wouldn't have
been involved for so long in fighting to make sure it goes on because it
is important. I mean, it's producing a lot of information for the tribes.
It's been really important because it's allowed them to have a much
larger say in management in general, but in specific about a place that's
so culturally important to them. And, you know, in a way,
you know, I mentioned colonialism somewhere in his discussion, but he
probably did, but in a way it's allowing the tribes to have access back to
the land that they were displaced from and have some role in the
management of it going into the future, which is good.
It helps them keep their own knowledge and traditions alive, even if it's
through a different, different way of doing it. You know, we do surveys
during our monitoring and one of the consistent things that they say is
that, you know, going into the canyon doing the trips and being involved
is very important for them in their culture. So there's certainly buy in
among the tribal members too. It's like something they want to see go
forward.
Well, I think that's a great place to end the interview, say.