This is Paul Hart and Jennifer Sweeney of Arizona State University
interviewing Leslie James in Flagstaff on August 21st of 2019, Leslie.
Thanks so much for interviewing with us today. Well, thank you for asking
me. You bet. Um Let's start out by you telling us the positions that
you've held in uh the Adaptive Management Program, the years that you've
been involved and the interests that you represent? Ok. Um I started with
the Adaptive Management Work Group as a, as a designated representative,
uh an AMW member in 1999
representing one of the two seats of power customers or entities
representing purchasers of power from Glen Canyon Dam. And I've been
reappointed to that position periodically uh whenever the appointments
have come back up since that time. So since 1999 what were those
organizations that the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association or
Creta Creta is a not for profit organization that represents the majority
of the firm Electric Service customers of the Colorado River Storage
Project. So our, our members are all not for profit entities. They are all
uh they all have contracts with the Western area Power Administration and
allocations from the Colorado River storage project. And was there a
second organization that you said that you were also involved in that
besides Creta? No, I've been the Creta executive director since June of
1998. So I came on to AM wig shortly after the next reappointment time.
And you're still serving in that and I'm still serving in that capacity,
same job 21 years. So you've been involved since 1999. That's a good long
time with the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program. Um Can you talk
about the main changes that you've seen in the program over that long
period of time? How did it start out? And how did it evolve over time and
your participation in it? The main changes I've seen when I first started
, the program was primarily managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Um At
that time, the science was uh provided through the US GS Grand Canyon
Monitoring and Research Center, but reclamation was where the program was
housed. And uh you know, I don't recall the year. It was probably early
two thousands. Uh then Assistant Secretary of Water and Science, I can't
remember his name. Um brought the question of where the program should be
housed to the AM wig. And I, I remember the meeting, we were sitting in a
hotel conference room in Phoenix and the question came up, should the
Adaptive Management work group stay underneath reclamation or should it
move to USGS? Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. There was quite
a, quite a bit of discussion as I can recall. And uh
someone asked the question, well, where does the funding come from for the
program? And the, the response was the funding is almost solely from CRSP
power revenues. And so his name was Mark, I'll think of it. Um So he
called for the question and said, uh what do people think about leaving it
uh with reclamation or moving it? And the vote came down to leaving it
with reclamation. And shortly, you know, I don't recall what month that
was exactly. But shortly thereafter, and just before he left office, he
issued a memo transferring it to us GSGCRC.
So that underscored uh one of the roles of the adaptive management work
group and that is not, it is not a decision making body, it is a body that
is intended to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. So
that's a prime example. There, there was another example at 1.2 where
there was a vote to do a high flow experiment. And it was way before the
high flow experimental protocol and um the vote was to not do it and
interior decided to do it. And that was in a Republican administration. So
, you know, I uh partisan politics aside, you know, it, it just kind of
underscores that, yeah, the secretary has an obligation under all of the
um underpinning laws, uh the wall of the river and everything else to do
certain things with this dam and with this program and we are an advisory
committee. Have you noticed that there are different periods in which the
am wig seems to have more influence and the secretary is more deferential
to its recommendations versus times in which the secretary is more hands
on directive and am wig is more advisory.
I don't know if it's hands on. Well, I think it's more or less
participative, maybe not so directive, but um with the, you know, I'm
trying to remember how many different secretaries designees I've kind of
lived through. Uh the first one I recall was Steve Magnusson. Uh We had
Mark Limbaugh, we had Brenda Berman. Um
We had Mike,
he was a, he was a reclamation person, not for very long. Um And really
the biggest difference I think I saw was after the 08 elections. Um uh
Assistant Secretary Ann Castle became more directly involved. And, you
know, you, you heard some of that today from discussion about guidance
memos and the guidance memo that, that she issued early on in her tenure,
setting out her priorities. And um that was a guidance memo that the
program reclamation us GS all took to heart and said, you know, Anne
Castle's guidance is these are her top priorities, these are her resource
priorities. And um so I would say during that period, there was more
direct involvement from DC. And I, I don't know that that's a good thing.
I don't know that it's a bad thing. I think it's a different, it's a
different thing. Um, to a large degree though, again, I think that,
that the secretary needs to provide some sideboards and provide some
guidance. But if this is really intended to be a federal advisory
committee, then let it operate and let it, let it truly reflect the
interests that are outlined in the, in the laws that establish it and the
requirements that establish it, let it kind of do its thing within reason
, of course. And you know, the the original budget and I think the
original vision for the program was fairly modest in the studies that were
done prior to the first environmental impact statement. Uh There was the
Rod was finished in 1996 the 95 EIS 1996 Rod and that was under Secretary
Babbitt. But I think there was there, there were some, there was some anti
anticipation that it was going to be quite a fairly modest program maybe
five or six people. And so, uh one of the, you ask about one of the
significant changes, one of the changes came about in the 2001,
either 2000 or 2001 appropriations bill where there was some language
included that established a cap on the amount of power revenues that could
be used to used to fund this program. And, um, you know, there was, there
was quite a bit of consternation from some quarters, uh when that, when
that legislation went through. But likewise, um the agencies knew that
that legislation was being proposed. And um as I sat in a meeting where
the Senate staffers sat, all sat us all around and said, this is what
we're proposing. I just wanna make sure you all see this. So, um anyway,
the funding cap, I think, especially now with some of the challenges that
we're seeing with federal budgets, with omb directives and with limited
funds everywhere. I think that that was probably a pretty important thing
that happened because at that point, it was capped at $7.5 million per
year adjusted for CP I. And it, it's pretty clear on what the funds can be
used for and it was intended to cover the biological opinion and um nhp A
cultural resources. So, you know, that that was what 1819 years ago,
almost 20 years ago and that was a big change. It's up to about, is it 11
, 11.3 million? And that's just consumer price index inflation each year,
that cap. So that cap is still in place. Yes, interesting. Yes. So let's
concentrate a little bit more on hydropower and its role in the Adaptive
Management Program because that's the interest that you are sort of
responsible for representing. Talk a little bit about you know, from the
early years on forward, how, how you tried to bring hydropower interest to
the table and how you negotiated with other interest groups. Well, uh you
know, prior, prior to my coming on the AM wig, the 95 EIS and 96 Rod had
been issued. Um the hydropower impact from that rod was about a one third
reduction in capacity. So it, so it had already happened when I came in.
And um you know, that was a pretty robust process. I worked on it
peripherally in my prior um employment at Salt River project because when
I was at SRP from 1995 to 1998 I was a Creta board member for SRP. So
that's how I got to know Creta was in that capacity. But during those
years that EIS was going on, um the, the thinking of the Rod at the time
was it was really primarily heavily driven by sediment, sediment resources.
Uh Certainly we had an endangered species, but that was a, that was a
primary key resource. And so hy with hydropower being restricted, our
thinking at the time was, well, we have what we have, we have a record of
decision. So let's just get in this program and try to make sure that the
monitoring is really capturing how the the rod flows are affecting
resources. Are they doing? What people thought in the analysis? Are they
not? And you know, are there ways to, to try to gain back some of that
lost capacity within the existing constraints. So that really has been if
, if you look at the Creta mission envision and that is to preserve and
enhance the availability and affordability
of the resources of the Colorado River storage project in an
environmentally sound way, that's our mission. So I I bring that to my
role in Am wick and um you know, it really is trying to ensure that the
sound, the science is sound is appropriate. So since I've been in Am Wig,
Creta has funded biologist for a while, we funded a geo geo Mpho Bob
Messiter to study sediment flow. Yeah. Yeah. And um we had a cultural
resources expert, Kurt Donsky worked for Creta for six years. Really? Yes
, because we, we really wanted to be sure that we had the technical
capability and advice from the cultural folks as the programmatic
agreement and those things were going on. So we, we as an organization are
very small, but we have spent uh the significant portion of our budget
trying to ensure that we have, we have technical support and support to
help the program. It's not always welcome, but it's there, it's there. So
um that's been really my objective is to hopefully educate people about
where does this hydropower go? Why is it marketed the way it's marketed?
Who are the customers? And I'm still haven't been quite as successful as
I'd like to be with the tribes because in, in the year 2004,
the resource was up for a new marketing plan and we supported all of the
CRSP customers taking a 7% reduction in their allocations to create a
resource pool for tribes to ensure that all the tribes could have some of
this CRSP resource allocation of an allocation of hydropower. So in 2004,
all of our my members contracts were redone. There was a 7% pool and 53
tribes now had an allocation of CRSP. Some already did a couple uh already
did earlier Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. But in 2004, you know, we
were very supportive of that. I think the the struggle here is most of the
folks, the tribal folks in this forum are probably not the ones that deal
with their power resources and their, their contracts with their providers
and their transmission contracts. So we keep trying to say um as a tribe,
you should have the same concerns we have about availability and
affordability because you're, you're the same customers as we are and the
contracts are the same. I'm curious to know you said that um with the
record of decision in 1996 they had already decided to reduce the amount
of hydro power generation capacity and Glen can dam by about a third since
then. Has it been reduced further in your view or is it stayed about the
same or has it gone back up? Good question. No, it's been reduced further
with the temp es and record of decision. Uh The preferred the selected
alternative further reduced that let me put it in dollars and cents. There
was a study that looked at what did that one third translate to? Um Argon
did that study and they valued it at about $50 million per year. Annual
impact. That was from the 96 Rod, the temp uh Rod Eis and Rod. Um
valuation of reduction or negative impact to hydropower is 100 and $4
million. But that's over the 20 year period. And that's derived from
restrictions and how the dam is operated that make it difficult for the
dam to optimize its operation to maximize revenue. Is that about right? Or
not, not quite the very, the last two words. And that's an education that
I haven't been successful at either because a lot of times these impacts
are characterized as revenue, what they really are is less cost expended.
So Wap A has long term 40 year contracts with each of its CRSP customers,
including all the tribes. They provided allocations to everyone. If the
total integrated projects of the Colorado River storage project aren't
able to meet those commitments or meet them in a time in the time it's
needed, they can always meet the quantity. It's just when the timing, but
when they don't W A has to go out on the market and purchase replacement
power. So when the operations get changed and restricted, they have to buy
more replacement power and that, so it's more expensive. It will, it will.
Well, you know, we heard a lot today about wind but generally at the time
they're having to buy it is more expensive. So it isn't a revenue
maximization. It's a and of trying to avoid cost, avoidance. Thank you. Ok.
Thanks for that. And that's a very, and that's a hard concept because the
darn, you know, I cringe whenever I hear revenues, at least we haven't
heard profits so much anymore but revenue. Yeah. Yeah. So um uh continuing
along the same lines, what other um issues related to um hydropower and
its relationship with the rest of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
program objectives. What other issues have you worked on? Uh over the
years that you've been involved related to hydropower or others in the
program? Other? OK. Um I participated in, we, we had tried to have kind of
a robust
public poag. I got have to get the acronym, public outreach ad hoc group,
the P A and the po A um did a lot of did really some good work. Um We
produced some white papers talking about each of the resources. I think
they're still out and around. What are each of the resources, all the
downstream resources? OK. Let me, let me count the ways how many
objectives are in L temp.
So we have endangered fish, native fish and other species,
recreation, recreation, hydropower, cultural resources. You know, if I
think back to the desired future conditions, there were 44 cultural
resources, hydropower
ecosystem and what was the other wilderness?
No. And interestingly, and this is where there's been a, a debate is
sediment, a resource. That's why I thought you, I thought you were trying
to catch me on that one. Sediment in, in my humble opinion of sediment is
sediment is a resource, but it is not an objective, an objective should be
what is sediment used for or used to benefit. And that's where in the
desired future conditions, year and a half long process. That group um
made that determination, that sediment was not in and of itself a resource.
It's what you do with it. When did you work on those desired? OK. That
was a, that was a good process that there is a lot of documentation out
there. This was secretary,
it was an castle. So Secretary Salazar. Yeah. Um The question came up,
what is this pro what are the desired future conditions of this program?
Where do you wanna be when you grow up? And so uh they hired a facilitator
and I don't even ask me his name because I can't remember. But um for
about a year and a half, I think we worked in groups to establish a set of
desired future conditions for the resources and it was a hard, it, it was
a very, very hard um process because we had a lot of different interests.
But the end result was a report and recommendation that was adopted by
Secretary Salazar. And it came up. Um the I can remember the dates. It was
about the 2010, 2010. Uh The report came up was recommended to the
secretary and he adopted it.
What the assistant Secretary Castle then said is OK, we now know what the
desired future conditions are. We need to put metrics to those. How do you
know when you, when you've achieved it? And that's exactly the question
we're starting, we're facing again today at that time though, the thinking
was temp, the l temp process would establish those metrics and it didn't
quite get there but that the desired future conditions and, and our, uh
you know, with that type of a facilitated process, it was uh it was, it
was pretty good. And for some of those resources, they started getting
into metrics like how many trout, how many Humpback chub? Um Hydropower,
we had our metrics kind of down because it's much easier. And uh but some
of the other resources, how many and where, what beaches, how many and
where, you know, vegetation things. But there's a real, there's a very,
very good report that went up to the secretary, Larry Stevens and George
Khan who was with Colorado River Commission were the chairs of that
desired future conditions, ad hoc and wrote up the report. So that that
would be, uh that's a very important document. We'll, we'll go back and,
and take a look at it. We, we got to interview Larry Stevens and a lot of
other people that you've mentioned we've interviewed. So, uh um let me ask
you a little bit about um this desired future conditions document and the
resources. I, I find this interesting, sometimes one or more resources are
compatible in a vision of a desired future and sometimes some resources
have conflicting desired futures. How which resources did hydropower were
hydropower? Visions of a future able to ally with? And which ones were you
more in conflict with? Um I I, and that's been very interesting because um
from work that was done in the five year
fall steady flow experiments that Bill Pine at all worked on looking at
Humpback Chub. Um They, they did a five year experiment where they steady
flowed the river during the fall months. The hypothesis being
we should steady the flows to preserve sediment because sediment is
important for backwaters, which are important for Humpback Chub.
The findings ultimately of that five year study were Humpback chub don't
select for backwaters. They prefer other areas. And in fact, if they do
use backwaters, they get eaten. So right, there was um there was one of
the lights went on things because early on high flow experiments were
primarily justified to benefit endangered species. And after that study,
it's like, mm, no, are we? No? So the next round of um arguments
supporting high flow experiments, then we're getting to cultural and
aeolian transport but not so much the endangered species debate. So what
went on there? And also in 2005 and six, there was an, a little bit of an
experiment done to agitate to increase flows to um disadvantage trout. And
that's where you're starting to see more about trout flows. So between
those two studies, what that basically said is at least we think
fluctuations are good for humpback for the endangered species because they
can be used to disadvantage the predators and competitors. So from a, from
a in fact, I think if you looked at the analysis that was done for the
temp and for the swing waiting process, has anybody talked to you about
the swing waiting process? No. OK. I I will in a sec because that was I
important. There's documentation on that. Um Hydropower fluctuations that
are good for hydropower can also be good for endangered species. And that
was, that's very important to us hydropower.
And I think here's another light that has gone on over time. Operations
for hydropower fluctuations tend to not be good or complementary for
sediment, but it's, it's temporary because with hfes coming in, you can
redeposit the sediment park it up there. Fluctuations don't get up that
high where the science is showing us now is volumes are more impacting on
sediment, not fluctuations.
So when and that became apparent when the equalization flows occurred in
2012 or whatever, because of the law, because of the operating criteria,
they had to do equalization. Those were flat and steady. They killed us,
they killed hydro power water downstream to lake Mead. Yeah. So when
you're looking at sediment impacts, you can't just say hydropower is
always button heads against sediment because it isn't, it's volumes and
the volumes are n not dictated by hydropower needs. The volumes are
dictated by compact requirements.
So, you know, in, in an opportunity to look at when we're starting to look
at what are potential experiments,
I would like to see, let's do some more fluctuations and let's be sure and
monitor that sediment. And let's see if an 8000 cap really does the damage
or anything above 8000 damages. What the old 1987 study said it would 8000
cubic feet per second. Yeah. Yeah. And that's the cap, that's a cap on
operations and that's very detrimental to hydropower, especially in summer
months because you may and especially in low low volume months because
you're just hitting up, you're hitting this cap and your demands are up
here, your summer peak demands. So, uh I would, you know, in a perfect
world, I would love to see someone dust off the bishop study from 1987
that was cited in El temp that in fact used 10,000 CFS as its metric, not
eight and see exactly what it does, what it does to the system. Uh The
safety was another issue. And just kind of 50 of what of rafters,
recreationists that fluctuation is difficult on people camping on a beach
? But is there a difference between eight and 10? I don't know that. How
do you know that till you try it? Well, that sounds like a perfect example.
Is a management, right? Absolutely. You have a hypothesis, you do an
experiment, you learn and then you adapt. That's exactly right. Management.
And you know, we tried very, very hard to get an experiment included in L
temp that would just do that and that would challenge what is being cited
as the best available science, which is a 1987 study that used 10,000 CFS
, not eight. And that's the science that was cited for keeping the 8000
cap and because it was a cap, the 96 rod too, so it became a regulatory
cap because it was part of the record of decision. OK. So do you feel like
um OK,
that hydropower interests have been a full and fair voice at the table
that you get listened to? I know in some of our interviews with tribal
representatives, they expressed concerns about how their perspectives are
not, you know, um accepted as readily as others. How do you feel hydra
power's role has been at the table?
You know, I don't feel like we're precluded from,
I'm trying to, trying to comment like I have been on. Why don't we do some
experiments here or there or whatever? I, I think though that and I'm glad
to see over years because years ago there was a common theme that the do I
agencies only listen to the States and the power providers. Uh And that
was, that was pretty commonly held. And for the life of me, I would always
say, why would you think that our resources cut by a third? Um In L temp,
we are the only resource that is negatively affected by the preferred
alternative. If you look at all the objectives in the L temp, we are the
only ones that aren't benefited.
So let me talk for. So, uh you know, I think, and it may just be lack of
understanding and I, I think like I said, we've really, really tried hard
to help educate about, we are not enrons, we are, you know, this resource
has to go to the nonprofits and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So I think there's been a better, better understanding of that role, I
hope um on the other members, the other members and other stakeholders.
Yeah. Yeah. There, there may still be, you know, and even there have been
times when even we've had different views from w A, we aren't W A, we are
utilities that provide resources to retail customers. They aren't w a is a
wholesaler. So, yeah, I, I hope that we've tried to distinguish ourselves.
We aren't a federal agency and we aren't w a, so we do have kind of a
different voice and, uh, it was pretty telling after el temp, one of the
tribal reps said to me. Now, you know how we feel?
Interesting. Yeah, because again, we've been cut by a third plus more and
we're the only resource uh through this analysis that take a hit. So let
me tell you for a second about swing waiting because I think that's an
important piece. That's an important and an interesting
uh aspect of this program. I think it was maybe in 20 12 or 13, hard to
know at the beginning of am wig. The department decided that they wanted
to do a structured decision making process or swing waiting. They brought
in a guy from uh us GS back in Virginia or wherever. And we, all the
stakeholders sat in a room for maybe two days. And first we learned, we
had scientists all talk to us about the resources and the state state of
play of the resources. And, and then they talked to us about potential
alternatives, the l temp alternatives. In fact, they educated us on all
six. I think maybe five and what those alternatives were hypothesized to
do. Then all of the participants
were asked to swing weight.
Um And it was a really hard to understand, complicated kind of process,
but it was attempted to elicit stakeholder values on uh how these um L
temp alternatives would perform and how the stakeholders value all of the
resources based on how the L temp alternatives would perform. So, after
learning and listening, uh we did filled out all of our forms and it
really was very, very complicated. You had to uh I still, I could still
couldn't replicate it, but it's all, it's all documented. And
the interesting thing that came back. Uh Some of the part participants
were skittish about it because it was how is this gonna be used in NL temp
? Are you gonna make decisions based on that? And you know, we were
assured this is just to inform we're not making decisions, we're just
trying to determine values. So the results came back the next day and
irony of Ironies Alternative B which was the Hydropower Alternative scored
the highest um among all stakeholders expressing interesting, but you look
at it, it's hard to interpret the table. I went back and looked at it
because I've been trying to clean through my files on some things. But
it's a fascinating process to look, to look at the various charts and
graphs that they produced. And again, it's another piece of information.
So I think structure decision analysis maybe became a, an appendix or
something in temp but that report and all that stuff out there. So another
, another interesting when, what made me think of that is your question
about how the, how the different resources conflict or are compatible
because the, the traditional conflict at this table is sediment and
hydropower. You know, it, it's just kind of an assumed thing, but I think
we're starting to get there where it isn't, it isn't the fluctuations and
following lo it's volumes and volumes are not dictated by hydropower
contracts, they're dictated by law of the river. Now, some of the earliest
complaints about the impacts of Glen Canyon dam were from the river
rafting community about those fluctuations leaving them high and dry in
the morning or having floods come into camp in the evening. And that
probably continues to be a difficult to reconcile set of values. I would
imagine it may be if the operations did that. But since modified low
fluctuating flows, it has not been a problem. It has been a problem. So
that's why I'm saying it would be very interesting to dig out the 87 study
bishop that, that assessed the views of the recreation, the rafters and
the fishermen because look what operations were back in those days.
1983 you know, the highest highest releases ever. All of that was pre Rod
, pre, pre initial Pis and Rod. So perspectives of how people can manage
different flows have to have changed because they haven't seen those kind
of flows since 1996.
Uh going back to challenges that you faced and accomplishments, can you
name any more, you know, in this 20 year or so period, you've been
involved. What other challenges did you face in articulating hydropower
interests and, and accomplishments you may have. I think probably one of
the biggest challenges is trying to, trying to do a better job of really
educating what this federal hydropower resource really is and what it
isn't and who the customers are and who they aren't. Um
And also,
you know, I, I, as I indicated, creed has been a big part of our limited
budget, bringing in trying to bring in science expertise,
but we aren't the federal scientists. And
I think that's just, we've kind of learned that's just the reality, you
know, they, the US GS science folks and reclamation, science folks and
other science folks that they listen and well, thank you for your input,
but we aren't federal scientists. So if I had to do it all over again, I'm
not sure I would have, I, I would have recommended um
having spending that much money, we spent
a lot of money. The biggest part of my budget has been environmental stuff
to try to position you to be a more informed advocate for your interest,
right? And, and you know, to try to understand um the other, the other
science because like I said, we hired a biologist and a geomorphology. We
didn't hire hydropower expertise because we thought we had it with the
utilities. But one of the accomplishments, um I would say probably one of
the biggest accomplishments
was being able to develop
and submit what was a viable alternative in the Ltmeis.
And it was Alternative B and that was, that was an alternative that we
wrote up. We had science behind it. Um Again, I'm, I'm biased of course.
But if Alternative B had been selected, every resource in L temp would
have still benefited. And any elements of Alternative B get selected in
the final preferred alternative. Well, a concept
um the monthly volume concept and the fluctuating flow factor was a
concept that we, we supported from the state's alternative, the RT CD uh
that was alternative C I think or D um The state's alternative was
developed by utilizing a lot of science that this program has used, you
know, you name it um all the fish guys and the sediment they, they drew
from them and developed an, an alternative that would have only had a
little negative impact on hydropower. A little uh you know, in a perfect
world. I would like to have seen that alternative go forward because the
proponents of that alternative went and met with all the stakeholders
tried to incorporate their concerns, met with the fishermen, the tribes,
everyone. And I think that was a really good community alternative.
But interior brought in an alternative and then made some compromises on
the fluctuating flow factor and just to give you numbers, so the states
proposed tens and twelves 10 times the monthly volume for a fluctuating
flow factor in the peak months. 12 and then 10, the interior alternative
proposed sevens flat seven. So the, the volume and the fluctuations were
demand much less. So the preferred alternative compromise between those
numbers. Yeah. And the creta the b alternative, the only really real
difference was we would have had tens and twelves during the peak and the
other months, otherwise it wasn't a lot. And one other difference, the
alternative be restricted hfes to no more than one every other year. So
that was basically the difference in the alternatives.
Um But that was, I think that was one of our, our really good
accomplishments. I think that it kind of became a book end. You know, I
have to wonder what, what a preferred alternative would have looked like
but for that experiment or that alternative, but, you know, just being
able to articulate the science and write it up and have it be a viable
alternative? Was a, you know, a good accomplishment for us. What's the
relationship between hfes and hydropower interests? Are HFES not a good
thing for hydropower or can hydropower utilize the HFES effectively? Uh
unless there's an HFE that hasn't been designed yet,
there will never be an HFE that benefits hydropower. Now there will be
different hfes that you can reduce the negative impact. Um And so I think
that was really the reason we started promoting project in and that was
when you're doing any experiments, consider the effects on hydropower
because there could be some win wins here. Um And HFE and that I'm
encouraged by looking at Spring Hfes within power plant because where the
, where the damage or where the, the negative effect is, is bypass.
If you're bypassing water, that's, that's the negative effect. And so they
, they, a, they estimate the way hfes have been done, it's about a million
and a half to 2 million a year. I mean, a million and a half to $2 million
effect or impact to, to hydropower with every HFE that's primarily because
bypass you're not generating. So if we can start looking at some hfes that
could be done within power plant,
you don't bypass, maybe you can do them more frequently. You know why they
can't do those high flow events through the turbines instead of using a
bypass.
They can.
But I, but
you know, it may be one of those. It's not enough, you aren't getting
enough sediment up and you aren't going enough or a long enough push up,
you know, so when you bypass, you're getting a bigger flush. Ok. So, but
uh what, what I'm, what I've been saying is, well, then why don't you look
at one that doesn't kill hydro by bypassing? Do it within power plan,
maybe you can do them more frequently and not have the significant impacts
the 2 million of that whack. Or maybe you can, you know, let's look at
some designs where you can fluctuate more, leading up to it because you're
gonna get an HFE to push that sediment up. We get some fluctuations
leading up to it. So we get a little more flexibility and then you do it
within power plants. So you don't bypass and lose, lose a generation. So
I'm, I'm encouraged with this new, um what do they call it? The flag flow
ad hoc group. That's, they're, they're beginning to start a flow ad hoc
group to look at springtime, hfes and hfes that could maybe be within
Power plant adaptive management and action. Exactly. Exactly. It's kind of
like,
you know, when I, well, when I had my child way back in those days and I
was full time working, my husband's full time working and, and someone
said to me, you know, you can't do it all. You can't have it all well, but
maybe it's good enough to have parts of. So I kind of look at hfes like
that, you know, do you have to do a 96 or 100 and 20 hour one every time
you do it or can you be satisfied? The system is? So the system is going
to ebb and flow. So you're, you know, this uh a hue and cry about all the
sediment is gonna be pushed out down to me and we're gonna lose all the
beaches that the monitoring since we started doing HFES is not showing
that, you know, you get a big benefit, then it erodes away. So maybe you
do a littler one, then you rode, then you do a more frequent littler one,
but don't try to have it all. It's a balance, right.
Well, to be uh involved, as long as you've been involved, you have to not
only care about the resource that you're advocating for, but you have to
really be committed to a collaborative process. And I wonder if you could
talk just a little bit about what, what you see as the central character
of this collaborative process, how it's evolved over time. You, you must
think it's been worthwhile to have been involved since 1999.
Yeah, I I do and you know, it may have its warts and it gets picked out
from time to time in publications, people write about it and say it's
failed. Um But I would say back to them, what's the alternative?
You know, you look at um you look at EIS processes and you look at some of
the big ones like the first EIS Glen Cannon was over $100 million. Wow.
And so did, was that better than doing an EIE A or an EIS and still having
the same type of public outreach did you get a better project product or
did you get just a lot more model running? So I would say for
collaboration,
it's been,
I think not enough for some people. Um We heard from the tribes today that
or from the Park Service, I guess, Jan, that no matter what projects the
tribes would bring up, they would be pushed down in the whole budget thing.
So they feel like, and I understand, I try to understand their
perspective. Um but they feel like their voices aren't maybe heard enough.
But what, what is an alternative? Um in probably about 2011, it was the,
the same time that the desired future conditions process went forward. Um
There was a comment made at an AM wig meeting from a high ranking interior
person that said, why don't we just do away with this thing and let
reclamation operate the dam, let the park service manage the park
resources and let us gs do the science. We don't need any of this because
I'm sure it's probably a pain for the administration that has to put up
with the stakeholders that at times forget we're an advisory committee
sometimes feel like we could do a better job than they do. But what's the
alternative? The law says you are going to consult with these entities? So
I haven't yet heard a better um a better option. Uh At times I've heard we
don't have enough academia in the room
you know, II, I don't know what stops.
Do you remember Joe Feller? Joe Feller used to bring his A SU class and
now and again to some of these meetings and Joe Feller and I used to go
around and around about the deaf. Yes, he was at a SU and um Joe Feller
and I really had some, some very, very interesting debates about his
interpretation versus mine of the Colorado Restored Project Act. We would
never agree, but we knew that we just didn't never agree but feller rather
than just standing back and saying you guys don't have any academia, he
would bring his class. He would he anyway, you know that. So I would just
say, hey, if somebody has a better idea, bring it a number of our
interviewees have mentioned that without this program, there would be a
lot more conflict and a lot more litigation. No kidding. I'm glad you
mentioned that because we, well, there have really been two cases. I, well
, the one, the recovery goal case wasn't on dam operations. So we have to
set that aside. But that was AAA case that was filed by the Grand Canyon
Trust about the recovery goals for the endangered fish. So it had effects
, it had implications and of course, we felt like we had to intervene to
get in there, you know, um and that case was resolved. But the, the Light
Trust case that came about, um
that had six claims maybe. And some of them, um,
would directly if they were successful, uh, were really my take on that
litigation was they wanted a certain type of operation and didn't get it
administratively. So let's try the courts and that's my take on it. And
also, but looking at the process because they also wanted additional NP A
for every annual operating plan. They wanted NP A to have to be done for
every A op and that would have drawn out process. But, but yeah, that,
that was um the tense for a little while and all of us had to intervene.
So, you know, we're spending all of our limited money and um, we briefed,
I'll send you that. We did a very short brief on hydropower and the
purpose. And I think it, I think it, I think it was quite, I would call
that an accomplishment too because to have a district court pick up that
theme in our brief on the hydropower purpose, I think was a pretty good
accomplishment. But yeah, without this,
we would be probably like the Pacific Northwest is with judges running the
river. Now, I have my counterparts over there. It's just continual
litigation and judges determining bi ops and all kinds of stuff. So, is
that what is that what this program or these stakeholders would really
like to see? I don't think so.
So, so you like virtually every other person we've interviewed and I
haven't read any of the interviews that I, I'm sorry to say, but everybody
agrees that the program has been valuable and ought to be continued. It
sounds like you're in the same boat. Even people who are critical and
disappointed say this is better than the alternative that it's been good
at building relationships and trust that we are improving decision making
based on science the way we hope in a rational program we would do. Um
Nobody that we've interviewed, let's throw it out. That's pretty
interesting because you guys probably have some pretty diverse. We try
diverse, a lot of different voices. Well, that's kind of good. Well, that
then I feel like that's an accomplishment that I put in 20 years into this
all for not for not, right?
So, um if it is continued in the future, where would you like to see it go
? What kind of improvements in either the process or the outcomes would
you like to see?
I'd like to see some more definition on metrics because, you know, I think
the program now has a, we have kind of what our desired. We have our, our
, our universe of resources as big as it is, but it's still manageable.
But I would like to see from the various stakeholders that are
representing interests. What's your utopia for your resource? I can tell
you what it is for hydropower. That's we're pretty easy and, but the
metrics and I think, I think um reclamation is really trying to start at
that. How do we get at the metrics? It's, it was the, it was originally
going to be called phase two of the DF CS. That's what Anne Castle called.
It, desired future conditions. And phase two would have been the metrics
and we never got to phase two. We'd never have a formal document. She
anticipated temp would be it and it really wasn't. So, so doing that would
be a good, yes. And I think, I think that's what they're, they're starting
because we talked about it at AM wig one year ago. And that was really
kind of a need because if you don't have a goal or a metric, well, the
metric is really not a goal. Is it a metric is how you measure it? But if
you don't have a finite, almost like a physical goal, then it'd be
wonderful. If we had unlimited dollars, we could do science on, you know,
the color of this stuff. But it, it'll help us focus the science on where
are the gaps? What do we not know yet? What do we know? I've heard the
Park Service say many times in media newspapers.
We know if we know enough, we just need to operate the right way. So
there's been a lot of science in some areas, not so much in others. So
what are the gaps? And do we need to know? Do we need to do science on
things, if there isn't a logical connection to where we want to be. No. So
, um if I'm catching your meaning, are you suggesting that if we had
metrics about the goals we're heading towards, we can not only measure
whether we're making progress or not, but we will also be able to
determine whether some of the decisions we make about operations are
achieving the desire. If we know what it is that we're, if we can measure
it and that's where it gets you back to the adaptive management, we can
keep operating all day in a certain way. But is it good or not? Good? Well
, what is good? How do you define good? Right.
It really is a challenge and for some, some resources are easier than
others, we have recovery goals for endangered fish, right? So we know we
can do fish counts. Um What I don't know, and I would love recreation guys
or park service guys to tell me, what is your, what is your desire for
camping? Beaches? Is it bigger beaches? Is it or is it more frequent? More
beaches? Is a quantity? Is it quality? What is it? I, I seriously am
interested and that's never been quantified to your knowledge. No. And I,
I would love to know that there are some things that would be difficult to
quantify, like
satisfaction on the part of a canyon. Exactly. Because when you do, when
you do a survey uh, probably the majority of people that raft the canyon.
It's their first time. They don't have anything to compare it to. And
you know, how survey questions are structured, how, how would anyone not
say it was a wonderful experience unless they, if it's your second or
third time and this time the, the flows were way up or the weather was bad.
What are you going to do about that? Or camel thorn everywhere? Exactly.
Poked my foot. Exactly. The last time I went on the Am Wick river trip
was 20 years ago. This year, there wasn't that much Camel Thorn. 20 years
. I don't even know what Camel Thorn is. So I just went down the Grand
Canyon in July for 18 days and it was everywhere. I was shocked. So, where
did that? Is that a non native native? Ok. Where did it come from? Good
question. I don't know. I mean, my touch point is Tamara, you know, Tamari
was always like the big bad thing. But yeah, now it's providing shade and
that's right. The Camel Thorn and it provides housing for Southwester
Willow flycatcher, right?
So it's kind of like my comment today about life cycle impact assessment.
You know, every, every resource or I guess you could look at all these
river downstream resources, every resource has its good and its bad. It
has pros and cons and you know, it, it wasn't all that long ago because it
was, it was when Jack Schmidt was, was here, we started asking
what about vegetation? Don't just say that dam operations are doing in the
beaches are good or bad for the beaches. That's not the only thing that
affects the experience. What about vegetation? And that's really when they
kind of started looking at now, it's called an experiment, but I call it a
management action, vegetation removal.
And what about, what about the effects of campers on beaches? I don't know.
Did they, do they affect the sand on beaches? They got to, they've got to
have some impact. So do you think we're looking at enough resources?
Should we? Um I, I, is our focus too narrow? Is it just right? Is it too
broad? What do you think? And how has it changed over time, I think for,
for many years. And it, that was partly a function. I my opinion was
because of the capability and the expertise of the folks who were running
the center and it was all sediment all the time. There was some used to
call it the all sediment channel. And there was, you look at the budgets
and the budgets were really heavily weighted to the physical resources.
Then for a while, some voices came in saying, but wait a minute, what
about the biology? We have this endangered job. We gotta do a lot more on
that because it's regulatory and it's uh you know, and look what's
transpired bug. Flows 20 years ago, no one would have thought about that.
So again, I, I think we are doing, we are adaptively managing. Um And
we're learning, I think um in terms of a balance of resources, I'd like to
see more on the biology.
Um because I think the stuff that Bill Pine and the Florida scientists did
is fascinating. And what was that? That was the steady flow experiment,
the five year steady flow experiment because it turned thinking on, on the
head, people thought chub are all using these backwaters. So we have to do
hfes in order to create backwaters. Well, they weren't and it didn't take
, you know, $100 million experiment or a steady flow experiment that cost
$30 million to find that out. It was really just a lot of time spent in
the field by people looking at, looking at the resources. So, uh,
fisheries, people that we've talked to have also told us that there were
some surprises there too that at first they thought the trout were doing
all this predation and it turned out that, um, maybe the brown trout, yes
, but the main trout is rainbow trout and they don't eat that many trout.
And it took a long time for them to figure it out. But they, you know,
they had a hypothesis. They did some research, they found out that they
were a little bit wrong and they revised their hypothesis that's
adaptively managed a man and, and it, it has led to changes in management
and change and sort of. Well, I suppose. Can you talk a little bit about
how you've seen? So, what we're adaptively managing most of the time are
dam operations which always, as you've pointed out, always affects
hydropower. Can you talk a little bit more about how some of our learning
over time in this program um has been applied to dam operations in ways
that you think are beneficial or not. Well, I I could comment on how I
think it's been applied to more non dam solutions because translocations
of fish.
Um No long and looking at,
let me think temperature, temperature is a hard one.
because several years ago, we had a, we had a concept that we were really
proposing a temperature control device and you know, that idea kind of
went by the wayside, but that would have been a non oat it's operational
but it's not flow related, right? Um Looking at
vegetation management so maybe you can do some things to help camping
beaches where you don't have to just do a big old HFE, right? So is there
resistance to coming up with solutions to some of these ecological
problems that don't involve altering dam operations? Are there people
saying our whole objective is to tell reclamation or interior how to alter
dam operations is I think there's a lot of that because in a way it's the
easy way. It's the easy way. It's, you can go turn switches and operate
the dam. But, you know, I think if people look back at the Grand Canyon
Protection Act, it is dam operations and other management actions. And so
I would, I would really like to see some of these other management actions
like the vegetation management. I'm really glad to hear that they actually
got out there and started doing some of that and whether it is called an
experiment because then it can be funded. How would you explain that?
Please? Do you want me to explain that, please?
When the concept of um maybe doing manual vegetation removal and stuff
came about, um somebody was, someone was crafty and said, if we call it an
experiment, we can use power revenues to fund it through this program. If
it's not an experiment, it's a management action. And another source of
funding would have to be used through appropriations or service. Yeah,
interesting. So it's called stuff is called experimental.
Well, that's adaptive.
It's a actively naming things, right? So, yeah, so I'm really waiting for
the for this experiment to be written up and say, OK, you take what you
learn from an experiment, then what do you do? How do you translate it
into a management action?
Well, um we're nearing the end of my list of questions. My next one is um
what advice would you give to new people coming on to the Adaptive
management program. Um One of the things that we're producing in this
project is orientation packet for new members. OK. And what, what do you
think should go into that orientation packet? What kinds of information
are really critical for somebody who's new? And what advice would you give
to somebody if you were sitting here with somebody who's just coming on,
what would you say to start? You know, this is really putting me on the
spot because I'm in the process of trying to write an orientation manual
for my organization as we speak. So I've really been struggling thinking
about this. I've been thinking about it a lot.
I'd love for you to share that with me when I get it when I get it done.
Yeah. Um I would, I would maybe, you know, say
maybe from the Bible, not a biblical person, but in the beginning there
was so where did this program come from? Start with that? And because I
think if, if people don't really understand where the program came from,
why is it here? These are the laws or the documents that created it? This
is why we're here
from that.
You know, you can, you can send them an important tool that I keep being
reminded is at wiki cause I, I always kind of forget to look because I
think we can find a lot of things there, but that's more of a tool than a
um
you know, we had uh i it, it may over the next year, it may work itself
out if the
small g guidance documents are going to be relooked at or refreshed
because there was a lot of work put in over many years for the Strategic
Science Plan. Um What were some of these other, the, the research and
monitoring plan? You know, there was a, a thinking, a lot of thinking
about a planning document and we've kind of gotten away from that. And I,
I think now the reclamation is going to rook at some of those. Are they
still relevant? Do they still do they need to be changed to reflect el
temp? But those, those were kind of the guidance and the framework from
the program. Here's what we're doing. Um Here's a science plan. I think we
seriously need a science plan that was supposed to come out of L temp. And
I don't think we have a good science plan, implementing L temp a science
plan. So that doesn't help answer your question because we don't have that
to give to someone to say here is our plan to implement L temp A science
plan. In my view is the hypotheses, you know, here again, your metrics or
your goals and objectives. These are the hypotheses we're going to look at.
These are the um this is how we're going to about go about doing it.
Here's what the science is gonna look like here's, you know, a period of
time, we don't have something like that to pick up. We have some
experiments that were identified in temp, but we don't have a
comprehensive science plan for this program. So back to, back to your
question, I would, you know, I, I if someone, someone really needs to sit
down and read a lot of, a lot of stuff and those fundamental, the
strategic science plan, the monitoring and research plan, and then the
triennial work plan and budget because that's evolved over time. So that's
really, really pretty good because it talks about what each of the program
elements are intended to do and what they're looking at and here are the
dollars associated. So that's a good, you know, that's a good beginning
foundation. What about um, ones if you were going to provide advice to
somebody joining the team, there's a, there are relationships, there's
ways of behaving that are productive and not productive in a setting like
this. What would you say about how somebody should approach their task as
a representative of as a stakeholder?
Hm,
I could probably be accused of, of doing some of the things really the
wrong way at times in these meetings. Um
But with age comes wisdom, right, we hope we hope
um really trying to listen,
you know, I, I'll look around the table and I multitask as badly as
everyone else around there. But
um try to really listen to what people are saying and we've had a pretty
big turnover, um, lately, no, recently because I, I think for quite a
while, the same reps were there for a long time and it's, it's been a
function of agency changes but also, um, just retirements, aging workforce.
And when you only meet three times, two times a year than once on a
webinar, it's very hard to develop the relationships. And then, you know,
I, I would say the relationships I have with most of these folks in large
part. It's because I see them in other forums, not just here. So the state
folks I see in other forums, that's probably why I know them better, you
know, but the, the tribal folks
starting with the river trip I went on in 1999. That's where I, that's
where I established my best relationships with. That was the first river.
That was the first river trip and Balsam I think helped to organize that
or no
Mark Schafer. OK. Mark Schafer. OK. That was the, the do I person who took
the vote on whether to leave it or leave it under reclamation or move it?
Mark Shafer was the lead on that river trip. And the the purpose really of
the river trip was to establish a vision and mission for this program.
Mary Orton was from American, right? And she played a role in helping to,
she was on the vision and mission boat. I think when we did our interview
with her,
that was, that was, that was famous. We're going to write about that in
our administrative history. I had to come, I was only a half timer because
I had to come up halfway up Phantom because I had other commitments. But
that was a trip that I, I really got to know Arden um
bred to dry bread to dry was with Wild Southern Pipe. And so she's not
here anymore. But that's when Charlie mentioned Leslie and Brenda or
Leslie's in Brenda's flip charts. It was from that river trip. And so, and
then from there Dongas, Mike Gates. So that's how I got to know them the
best. And then I would continue to talk with them and trying to educate
about why CRSP power is important to you guys. And so I at twig meetings,
I go to a twig meeting, invite him for lunch. And you know, uh Zuni
invited me to come out and talk to the Zuni leader, leaders about
hydropower and all that. And this has been a little while, but you just,
you have to, you have to really work hard at it because again, with the
changing changing personnel, I was thinking about that today, probably on
that 1999 river trip. The only one that was on it that is still sitting
around this table is Ardent, maybe Kate from Zuni from Zuni. And I just
found out he went on this river trip last month because he came in and,
you know, we had a big hug and he said, why weren't you on the river trip
? And I went, you were on there? I would have, I would have brought, we
have a cardboard bat that we made a bat signal and I still have that
cardboard from a wine box.
So it's about building relationships and it takes a lot of extra time.
It's hard work, but it pays off,
you know, like as Kurt Danowski, I never would have thought to hire him.
Kurt used to work for Hopi when I first met him and then that
relationship terminated. So Creta, we, I hired him, I think for maybe six
years to advise us on all of this cultural stuff. So he did a great job
for us and he helped me develop that relationship with the tribes and then
, then he went to work for Zuni. So and um yeah, I, I think it's very hard
to do it sitting in a meeting twice a year. You can't do it, you just
can't. And I don't know what the solution is like, David Brown said today
, asking us to come for a three day meeting is a big time commitment. And
it really is when you're sitting there trying to absorb all this, you're
not building relationships.
And, you know, luckily back in those days, we didn't have social media
either. We had to pick up the phone and call each other. So I'm so I'm
aging myself here. But, you know, the more
now here is something Anne Castle did. When Anne Castle first came on, she
went, she came to Phoenix, she went around and met with each amw member
separately. I've never met her before
and I'd never seen that done that. That would be a really good piece of
advice for whoever the secretary's designee is, at least from a
administration to stakeholder. But she, I still remember I'd forgotten
that she came to my office and we sat down and talked about, you know,
Creta and the program and because she was new and she had never met me.
And would that be a good strategy for any stakeholder to try to do
something like that? Yeah. You know, the other things that helped develop
those relationships now that desired future condition process because it
for if, if you didn't want to have an opinion, then you didn't participate.
But if you wanted to help guide where that was going, you went and you be
your, beat your head against the wall and you argued with people and we
got to, we got done with a, I think a really important document. That was
the first time I could, I knew of in this program that there was a
consensus document that I in that kind of detail of magnitude that went up
to the secretary. And it occurs to me, when you're talking about desired
future conditions, you're really focused on values,
which is a way to really get to know somebody and establish a, as a
relationship in a sense when you're not just talking about data. Exactly.
And that was really what structured decision making was trying to do. But
I don't think it was the right tool for something this complicated. I
think it could be a real good tool. Like if you're gonna go build a road
and you have alternatives and you wanna, or build a transmission line and
you have different routes and you can kind of really define impacts. But
it was uh II, I think I would be interested to know whether the US GS
expert believed that that was a good use of that kind of a tool because I
, I think it was overwhelming, overwhelmingly beneficial, overwhelmingly,
it was too much, it was too much stuff.
All right. Well, is there anything else that you'd like to add that we
didn't cover or any closing thoughts?
No, not that I can think of. Not that I can think of. Well, I'm very
grateful, you know, I'm never shy of words. Right. I'm very grateful that
you took the time at the end of a long and difficult day. It was very
generous of you to agree to do this. Well, thank you. And I, again, I
apologize for being, for playing hard to get.
Life is busy. Yeah. Yeah. It is all right.