Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Committee Synopsis
In July 1986, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) asked a National
Research Council (NRC) committee to help evaluate their environmental
studies being conducted on the lower Colorado River and to provide advice
on alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Glen Canyon Dam,
completed in 1964, is one of several high-head, multipurpose storage projects
in the Colorado River system (see map). For more than 30 years issues
concerning the effect of dam operations on the natural resources of the
Grand Canyon National Park have been raised. The USBR's Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies (GCES) were intended to evaluate the relationships
between dam operations and the natural resources of the Grand Canyon.
Based on these analyses, modified reservoir operating policies were to be
considered.
It may be useful for the reader to refer to a previously issued committee
report, River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of Reclamation's
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (NRC, 1987) to assist in understanding
the scope of GCES issues and the NRC's involvement in providing advice
to the Bureau of Reclamation. In its 1987 report, the committee found that
the GCES gave insufficient attention to early planning and to careful articu-
lation of GCES objectives and that it inadequately considered management
options. The NRC report also noted that recommended management op-
tions made by the Bureau of Reclamation were not supported by the GCES
research results and that researchers had failed to identify the rationale for
OCR for page 2
2
COLORADO RIVER ECOLOGY AND DAM MANAGEMENT
LOCA TION MA P
-
~~ -- L~ ~ - - - ~
., · ~\ _ i
; ORES J ~ ~ S. OK
_ art' ~ 4 - <
CALF. " ~ - - -at'
` ~ ~ ~ N. - K I ~ _ . -
~~ TED. j
COLORADO — ~ i/
RIVER BASIN ~x~co Act
.
~~-r~ ~ =5
I ~ ALIKE; _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _
NEVADA, ~ ~ ~~t Colorado
STUDY AREA ~~ ~ ~ \\Riv r
\~RIZO/N~
~W MEXICO
,, ~ Lower
~J 3~l ~ by) >~Colorado River
\~ Basin
Location map of the Colorado River basin.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987.
_ _ _ _
0 so
1 .
MILE
OCR for page 3
COMMITTEE SYNOPSIS...
assigning values to downstream resources so that management goals could
be set. The USBR's report, issued in 1987 (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1987), recommended several management options. The NRC committee
stated that, of those, only the recommendations that called for continued
study of dam operations and nonoperations alternatives, along with addi-
tional research and monitoring of the Colorado River, were justified.
Since 1987, a reorganized committee has worked with the USBR's GCES
program manager and GCES researchers to help implement many of the
recommendations in the NRC's 1987 report. One of that report's findings
suggested that the results of the GCES (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1987) represented a substantial increase in knowledge of the Colorado River
ecosystem as it exists in the Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon. Existing
historical information had not been fully reviewed at the beginning of the
GCES. This finding led to the committee's criticism that in the GCES too
much of the existing information had been ignored in the planning stages of
the research. As a result of the varying agency budgets, missions, and pools
of researchers, the planning process for the GCES did not treat the ecosys-
tem components as part of a whole. Had the researchers been given the
time and funds to review the extant literature about the Colorado River
ecosystem, the committee believes they would have recognized at a much
earlier stage, the need to address interaction of ecosystem components.
The NRC committee recommended that a review of existing knowledge
precede future investigations. The review should be an early step in the
planning phase and should result in the preparation of written documenta-
tion. The USER began Phase II of the GCES (GCES II) in 1988. In 1989
the Secretary of the Department of the Interior ordered that an environmen-
tal impact statement (EIS) be developed and that the GCES II results be
incorporated into the EIS. The NRC committee was asked to continue
providing advice to the GCES and to help by reviewing the existing knowl-
edge about the Colorado River ecosystem in the Grand Canyon. To under-
take that task, the NRC sponsored a symposium in May 1989 in Santa Fe,
New Mexico, entitled "Colorado River Ecology and Dam Management."
These proceedings document that event.
Approximately 200 people attended the symposium. Eleven invited pa-
pers were prepared to (1) review extant information about the river from an
ecosystem perspective and (2) serve as the basis for discussions on the use
of ecosystem/earth science information for river management, and dam op-
erations.
The report has two sections: the committee's findings and recommenda-
tions, and background papers presented at the symposium. The findings
and recommendations integrate the steering committee's review of the background
papers, the lively discussion at the symposium, and the committee's own
judgements about USER management of the Glen Canyon Environmental
OCR for page 4
4
COLORADO RIVER ECOLOGY AND DAM MANAGEMENT
Studies. The background papers contain the conclusions of individual au-
thors, many but not all of which are reflected in the committee's synopsis.
The authors of the papers were chosen for their expertise and interest in
the subject. The committee thanks them for their excellent work and timely
response to the task set before them. As scholars from different back-
grounds, they showed impressive skill in moving toward the integrated view
that will be required to address the complex issues involving decisions
about the operation of Glen Canyon Dam.
Most of the people who attended He symposium became active partici-
pants in the discussions. This is a measure of the importance that the
subject has for busy people. The people with management responsibilities
learned a bit more about how science can be useful to management; scien-
tists learned more about the complex tasks of management. Policy deci-
sions will be guided in new and productive directions if this alliance ma-
tures. By any measure, the meeting was stimulating; the committee hopes
that this report will be a useful stimulus to future environmental research in
the Grand Canyon.
The committee's findings and recommendations are directed to the USER
as it continues to grow in its role as a manager of the nation's natural
resources.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Initiate Long-Term Research and Monitoring in the Grand Canyon
Since 1964, the operation of Glen Canyon Dam has caused continuing
ecosystem changes in the Grand Canyon reach of the Colorado River. Some
changes were immediate (e.g., decrease in water temperature, sediment load
reductions, and flow regime alterations), but most others (e.g., geomorphic
adjustment of the channel, secondary succession of terrestrial vegetation,
and changing aquatic species composition) are occurring on longer time
scales. Introduction of and invasions by exotic species are influencing the
ecosystem as well.
Many of the changes caused by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam
are irreversible, and so the Colorado River cannot be managed to reestab-
lish the pre-dam conditions in the Grand Canyon. Because ecosystem com-
ponents are linked to one another and to the flow regime imposed by the
dam, the potential exists for manipulating the system, that is, manipulating
flows to manage the river and protect the environment in the national park.
The interaction between management and science can lead to the discovery
of new knowledge and should be useful to management for monitoring the
effectiveness of management performance. The achievement of this inter-
action will require the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to:
OCR for page 5
COMMITTEE SYNOPSIS...
s
· Establish a mechanism to develop management goals for the Colo-
rado River in the Grand Canyon National Park. Priorities for implemer'-
tatior' car' then be developed by a multi-disciplirzary management team.
· Initiate careful and intensive planning of long-term research reeds
and a long-term monitoring program to establish and refire ecological
understanding in the Grand Canyon' and to check the performance of
management actions. This planning should involve the help of experi-
enced people in all of the disciplines required. The National Research
Council (NRC) committee recommended in 1987, and continues to recom-
mend, that an advisory group be established at the secretarial level ir' the
Department of the Interior ¢DOI) so that the varying agency missions will
be less of a barrier to effective resource management.
· Establish the management and monitoring program in the Grand
Canyon as a long-term scientific investigation.
· Integrate science into its management of natural resources. This
"adaptive management,' approach strives to balance the rigors of science
with increasing requirements arid constraints within the federal decisiorz-
making process.
Ensure that Dam Operations Are Flexible
The complicated interactions of (1) the economics of hydropower gen-
eration and marketing and (2) the management of natural resources are not
well understood. The legal requirements for dam operations to meet water
allocations required by the Colorado River Compact are not a strong con-
straint on alternative operations of Glen Canyon Dam.
· The USER and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) should
integrate scientific investigation with the full range of power generation
options possible within the law of the river to make rational management
decisions.
· More effective mechanisms should be sought to meld economic and
operations research into ecosystem research. To be effective, this integra-
tion must be an or'-goir~g and flexible process.
Manipulation of dam operations to achieve management goals should be
implemented with the understanding that there is some uncertainty at this
stage. This means that operating the dam to achieve management goals in
the Grand Canyon will be, to some extent, experimental. The performance
monitoring that follows implementation will be the data collection phase of
long-term experiments. Corrections can be made as the system becomes
better known.
Issues include:
OCR for page 6
hours.
6
COLORADO RIVER ECOLOGY AND DAM MANAGEMENT
· Estimating economic costs of increased minimum releases, using hourly
historic data for developing generation and load probability distributions.
· Estimating costs of various ramping rates between peak and off-peak
· Economic costs of various marketing policies of WAPA.
· The changes in the energy load of the Colorado River Storage Project
in the short and long terms.
Seek Research Talent from the Academic Sector
When seeking scientific leadership in 1988-1989 for the GCES II, the
USBR published a request for proposals (REP) that emphasized schedules
and deliverable products rather than documentation of the skills and scien-
tific records of the principal investigators. Thus, the REP failed to attract
the sort of experienced scientist required for the planning and development
of GCES II.
A later search process was more effective because it specified the need
for a person with scientific knowledge and specific skills and experience to
do the planning and to guide He selection of scientists who would perform
the high-quality research that the USBR expects. However, a search for
researchers in the summer of 1990 reverted to use of the REP process that
had fallen short before (i.e., RFPs sent with preference given to small busi-
nesses).
Because the scientific talent to accomplish these tasks was not found in
the small-business sector, the committee believes that this particular pro-
cess is less likely to attract people with the collection of skills, talents, and
experience that will serve the project best. To succeed, this work requires
highly motivated and creative talent. The GCES needs qualified and tal-
ented scientists to perform the research required. Therefore, the committee
believes the search for this talent should be widespread and should include
the academic sector as well as others.
After implementing the long-term monitoring program, the USBR
should initiate a broad search for proposals, including proposals from the
academic sector, to find answers to general questions about the Colorado
River ecosystem in the Grand Canyon and about its responses to the op-
eration of Glen Canyon Dam. Proposals should include background re-
view, clear statements of work objectives and approaches to achieving
them, specific schedules, budgets, and full documentation of the talents
and experience of the investigators.
The USBR should ensure that these proposals are then reviewed on a
competitive basis by a panel of peer scientists for incorporation into the
long-term GCES program.
OCR for page 7
COMMllTEE SYNOPSIS...
7
· The USBR should plan to carry out short-term investigations selected
by this process in concert with lor~g-term monitoring. The long-term
monitoring provides documentation of the Status of the system when the
short-term work is performed.
The long-term record will aid interpretation of the results. The results of
short-term experimental work yield information about causes and effects
that cannot be extracted from long-term time series data. Such results are
useful because knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships is essential for
the development of management manipulation plans (hypotheses). This rec-
ommended interaction of long-term monitoring and short-term experimental
and theoretical work, thus, will be a powerful management combination.
Include the USGS on the Federal Executive Management Committee
A new committee, the Federal Executive Management Committee, has
been appointed by the USBR to oversee He research associated with Glen
Canyon Dam. This committee has representatives from the USBR, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, WAPA, and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
When questioned about the omission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
the USBR pointed out that the USGS had no management mission and, in
their opinion, no role on the Federal Executive Management Committee.
The USGS has had an ongoing involvement with the research studies for the
GCES and the committee believes their research and data-gathering experi-
ence will provide a useful perspective to the integration of research and
management.
· Therefore, the USGS should be included on the Federal Executive
Management Committee.
Use an Ecosystem Approach to Grand Canyon Research
A major objective of the NRC symposium was a review of current infor-
mation in the scholarly literature about the Colorado River ecosystem. This
review revealed that many events in the history of human involvement in the
development of this resource have occurred in isolation from one another, that
is, without regard for their effects on other aspects of the ecosystem.
· The USBR should conduct future GCES research in the Grand Can-
yon using an ecosystem perspective to avoid the isolated implementation
that has created problems in the past.
Examples of effects resulting from the previous limited perspective of
the GCES are as follows:
OCR for page 8
8
COLORADO RIVER ECOLOGY AND DAM MANAGEMENT
· Sediment transport records in the Grand Canyon were terminated in
the mid-1960s.
· Exotic species (invertebrates, fishes, and phreatophytes) were intro-
duced.
Thus, the committee recommends a ban on the introduction of new
exotic species to Lake Powell until the effects of dam operation on river
fish communities is better understood.
· No provision was made for the temperature and flow requirements of
now endangered species. (Previously, the law did not require such atten-
tion.)
· Narrow geographic boundaries were set for GCES I such that assess-
ment of water quality from Lake Powell was excluded.
Because of planning shortfalls prior to GCES I (NBC, 1987), there are
still major gaps in knowledge.
Better understanding is still needed on:
· Trophic structure of Glen Canyon Dam tailwaters and its relationship
to phenomena in Lake Powell and flow regimes associated with dam opera-
tion.
· Detailed water budget for Lake Powell, including better estimates of
bank storage, evaporation, and discharge from the Glen Canyon Dam.
· Requirements for the protection of endangered species.
· Magnitude and timing of sediment contributions from tributary sources.
Depositional fate of tributary sediments and documentation of their
chemical qualities.
· Flow conditions that deposit sand at the margins of the river (beaches),
which are not understood in enough detail to suggest a management strategy
that will build beaches.
The research needed to increase understanding of these topics is not
trivial. Nevertheless, investment in developing the information will make
management decisions wiser, more defensible, and more cost-effective in
the long term.
Revisit 1987 NRC Recommendations on the GCES
Sound scientific information is critical to making informed decisions
about the use of natural resources. The 1987 report of the NRC committee
made recommendations that would strengthen the scientific information base
for decisions about and management of Glen Canyon Dam based on the
results of GCES. Few of those recommendations have been implemented
except for the hiring of a senior scientist to advise the GCES researchers.
OCR for page 9
COMMITTEE SYNOPSIS...
9
Even this recommendation falls short as the scientist was not hired at the
recommended Department of the Interior level but rather under the Bureau
of Reclamation. Therefore,
· USER management should review the December 1987 NRC report
River and Dam Management for reconsideration of the applicability of
those recommendations to GCES II.
REFERENCES
National Research Council, 1987. River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of
Redamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. National Academy Press, Washing-
ton, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Report. U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Flagstaff, Ariz.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
glen canyon
