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 R1
River Resource Management In
~ 11
b~ ~
ID CAI
Committee to Review the
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
Water Science and Technology Board
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Research Council
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C. ~ 996
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special com-
petences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors ac-
cording to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting
of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Meclicine.
Support for this project was provicled by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, under CooperativeAgreement Number6-FC-
40~4240.
International Standarcl Book Number 0-309~5448-6
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 95-73313
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Box285
Washington, DC 20055
800~24~242
202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
B-719
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover art by Larry Stevens, Flagstaff, Arizona
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE GLEN CANYON
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR. (Chair), University of Colorado, Boulder
GARRICK A. BAILEY, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma
BONNIE COLBY, University of Arizona, Tucson
DAVID DAWDY, Consulting Hydrologist, San Francisco, California
ROBERT C. EULER, Consulting Anthropologist, Prescott, Arizona
IAN GOODMAN, The Goodman Group, Boston, Massachusetts
WILLIAM GRAF, Arizona State University, Tempe
ClARK HUBBS, University of Texas, Austin
TREVOR C. HUGHES, Utah State University, Logan
RODERICK NASH, University of California, Santa Barbara (through 1994)
A. DAN TARLOCK, IIT Chicago Kent College of Law, Chicago, Illinois
Staff
SHEllA D. DAVID, Study Director
MARY BETH MORRIS, Senior Project Assistant
...
///
OCR for page R4
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
DAVID L. FREYBERG (Chair), Stanford University, Stanford, California
BRUCE E. RITTMAN Mice Chair), Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
LINDA M. ABRIOLA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
PATRICK L. BREZONIK, Water Resources Research Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota
JOHN BRISCOE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, The Woricl Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
KENNETH D. FREDERICK, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley
THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New
York
CAROL A. JOHNSTON, University of Minnesota, Duluth
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder
JOHN W. MORRIS, J. W. Morris Ltd., Arlington, Virginia
CAROLYN H. OLSEN, Brown and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, California
CHARLES R. O'MELIA, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
REBECCAT. PARKIN, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-ITURBE, Texas A&M University, College Station
FRANK W. SCHWARTZ, Ohio State University, Columbus
HENRYS. VAUX, JR., University of California, Oakland
Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer
CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer
GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer
JACQUELINE MACDONALD, Senior Staff Officer
JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate
ETA N GUMERMAN, Research Associate
ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Senior Project Assistant
ANITA A. HALL, Aciministrative Assistant
MARY BETH MORRIS, Senior Project Assistant
ELLEN DEGUZMAN, Project Assistant
iv
OCR for page R5
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RESOURCES
M. GORDON WOLMAN (Chair), The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland
PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
BIASES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Canada
WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas, Austin
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Foundation, Washington, D.C.
PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, Stanford, California
IUDITH E. MCDOWELL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Massachusetts
S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario
THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park
ELLEN K. SILBERGELD, University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore
STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Staff
STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director
MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director
GREGORY SYMMES, Reports Officer
JAMES MALLORY, Administrative Officer
SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate
SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant
OCR for page R6
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuat-
ing society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering
research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their
use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by
the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise
the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.
Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, underthe
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of
outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for acivising the federal government. The National Academy of
Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national
needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National
Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the
health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the
National,Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser
to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth 1. Shine is president of
the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy
of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts
and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the
National Research Council.
Vl
OCR for page R7
"This evening, as I write, the sun is going down, and the
shadows are seRlingin the canyon the gateway through which
we are to enter on our voyage of exploration tomorrow. What
shall we find?"
John Wesley Powell, THE EXPLORATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER 15 (1875).
Vll
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Preface
For about 50 years, culminating in the 1970s, the United States steadily
dammed most of its large rivers. By the end of this era, the technical, fiscal,
and political evolution of dam building had proceeded to such a refined state
that dams could be placed where previously they would have been
considered impossible, impractical, or inadvisable. Nevertheless, by 1980
America's Age of Impoundment had closed under a storm of environmental
opposition and fiscal criticism.
Remission in the national struggle over approval of new dams has
allowed public attention to be redirected toward the operation of existing
dams. Most large dams were originally justified by water supply, flood
control, and production of hydroelectric power. Accordingly, most dams
have operated on an annual or seasonal schedule that reflects demand for
storage capacity or water delivery and on a daily or weekly schedule that
reflects hourly fluctuations in the value of hydroelectric power. In the
meantime, public interests that might previously have been considered
distantly secondary or even frivolous have become potentially serious con-
siderations affecting the operation of dams. These include fisheries that were
produced incidentally to impoundment, recreational boating or rafting, welfare
of aquatic life, protection of culturally significant sites, and even aesthetic
preferences. A case in point is the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River.
There was never any doubt that Glen Canyon Dam would change the
Colorado River. The dam traps the river's sediment and thus replaces turbid,
sediment-laden water with clear water that is hungry for sediment, but many
of the environmental effects downstream of the dam were not fully under-
stood at the beginning of the GCES. Water drawn through turbines at great
ix
OCR for page R10
x
Preface
depth is constantly cold, even in the Arizona summer. The seasonal swing of
discharge, which originally spanned an amplitude as much as 1 00-fold, was
replaced by a rhythm reflecting hourly changes in the market for electricity.
These were the most obvious consequences of the dam. No doubt some
experts also foresaw indirect consequences, but until recently these have
been poorly documented. They include displacement of native fishes through
the chilling of the river, as well as depletion and redistribution of sediment in
ways that affect camping and backwaters of importance to aquatic life. The
dam has caused physical changes in culturally important sites and has led to
the development of a new suite of riparian vegetation. The aesthetic features
of the riverthrough the Grand Canyon, although difficult to quantify, also have
changed.
Changes in resources otherthan power end waterdeliverycan potentially
be controlled or moderated by adjustments in the operation of Glen Canyon
Dam. Operational changes could be used in building and preserving
beaches, stabilizing backwaters, improving the propagation of native fishes,
protecting cultural sites, and optimizing the aesthetic experience of visitors
to the canyon. Even so, these possibilities present complications, including
sacrifice of power revenue, potential conflict among optimal operating re-
gimes for different resources, and unintended consequences less desirable
than the status quo.
The scarcity of information on environmental resources has slowed
consideration of alternative operating schemes for Glen Canyon Dam. The
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) took a significant step in acknowledging the
need for information when it authorized the Glen Canyon Environmental
Studies (GCES) in 1982. Although at first narrowly centered around Glen
Canyon Dam (hence the specific reference to it), the GCES expanded as it
became clear that the operation of Glen Canyon Dam directly affects
numerous environmental resources along the more than 250 miles of the
Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. In this way,
GCES became the vehicle by which the river corridor was first recognized as
an integrated environmental system that responcis to the operation of Glen
Canyon Dam. Quite apart from the information that it has produced, GCES
has been important in redefining the scope of responsibility for management
of Glen Canyon Dam.
The purpose of this report and the committee's task has been to review
research that has been done in connection with the Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies and to comment on the application of science in the
management program for the Colorado River. Perceiving the need for
OCR for page R11
Preface
xi
independent review and oversight of the GCES, the BOR requested the
formation of a National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
(NRC) review committee through the NRC's Water Science and Technology
Board. The committee began its work in 1986 and has continued through
several phases of reauthorization to the present. Since 1986, ~ has made
numerous recommendations, some of which have affected the design of
GCES. The committee has considered not only the technical aspects of
environmental studies, which will affect the future operation of Glen Canyon
Dam, but also the broader significance of GCES as an example of large
governmental ecosystem studies. This report reviews GCES reports received
by the committee through July 1995.
Strong political and institutional forces meet in the Grand Canyon. The
present report deals with technical issues but also attempts to describe as
completely as possible all of the factors that explain the successes and
failures of the GCES program. The report finds many shortcomings in GCES.
In identifying and analyzing them, the committee has been increasingly aware
that problems associated with GCES have, in large part, been a reflection of
the federal government's lack of experience in conducting studies that deal
comprehensively with many kinds of resources in an ecosystem context. In
addition, the committee has seen that most of the deficiencies in GCES derive
from the organizational culture of federal agencies, which are not well
acclimated to easy collaboration with each other or with external scientific
and technical communities. Many of the problems brought out by the
committee's analysis of GCES are not attributable to the individual project
participants. In fact, one irony of GCES is that it has benefited from the
energies of numerous remarkably dedicated and knowledgeable individuals
but has still shown majorflaws that were essentially beyond the control of the
individual participants.
Despite its flaws, GCES has been the catalyst for major changes in the
operation of Glen Canyon Dam. In fact, if seen as an example of interaction
between science and environmental resource management, GCES is an
extraordinary success. The BOR deserves much credit for adapting its
management practices to new knowledge of the environmental system as
produced through GCES.
The committee's work on GCES has extended over a far longer interval
than most NRC committee projects. The committee benefited enormously
from the efforts of Sheila David, the NRC study director. Throughout its nine
years of operation, she provided the thread of continuity that maintained the
focus and purpose of the committee. She ensured sound management of the
OCR for page R12
xIi
Preface
committee's resources, both financial and intellectual, and provided a rational
voice in all committee debates. Her intelligence and skill are an integral part
of every product of the committee. In addition, the committee thanks Mary
Beth Morris, WSTB project assistant, for all her help during committee meet-
ings and with the production of this report. The NRC committee and the BOR
have benefited from the guidance and assistance of GOES project manager
David Wegner, whose investments of time, energy, and intellectual interest in
the research being conducted in the GOES program have been invaluable.
The committee also received much assistance from numerous other in-
dividuals of the NRC staff and of the cooperating agencies and the Native
American tribes that kept the committee informed and encouraged its work.
William M. Lewis, Jr.
Chair
Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
OCR for page R13
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Work of the NRC Committee, 2
Objectives and Design of the GCES, 2
Results of the GCES, 3
Achievements of GCES, 8
List of NRC Reports, 8
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Roleofthe NRC, 17
References, 23
SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE GLEN CANYON
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Introduction, 24
Scope as Defined by Management Options, Resources, and the
Ecosystem Concept, 24
Other Influences on the Scope of GCES, 31
Organization of the Study Group, 33
Conclusions, 35
References, 36
xiii
1
11
24
OCR for page R14
xiv
HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF
GLEN CANYON DAM
History of Grand Canyon National Park, 41
Future Basis for Management of Grand Canyon Resources, 45
References, 48
4 OPERATION OF GLEN CANYON DAM
Introduction, 50
Hydrology Through the Grand Canyon, 51
Operating Rules for Glen Canyon Dam, 56
Water Supply Above the Dam, 61
Recommendations, 68
References, 68
SEDIMENT AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
Why Sediment and Geomorphology Are Important, 70
Sediment Studies of GOES Phase 1, 72
What Is Needed Concerning Sediment and Geomorphology, 76
Where We Stand Now, 81
Recommendations, 81
References, 83
6 ORGANISMS AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Introduction, 84
Lake Powell, 85
The Colorado River Between Glen Canyon Dam and the Paria River, 96
The Colorado River from the Paria River to Lake Mead, 100
The Riparian Zone, 108
Outcomes of Biological Studies, 1 10
References, 111
7 RECREATION AND NONUSE VALUES
The Role of Economic Values in GOES and the EIS, 1 18
Overview of Recreational Uses, 120
Economic Effects of Dam Operation on Recreation, 125
Summary of Effects of Dam Operations on Recreation, 131
Studies of Nonuse Value, 131
Summary, 134
References, 135
Contents
38
50
70
84
118
OCR for page R15
Contents
8 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Native Americans in the Grand Canyon Region, 138
Archaeological Studies, 147
Ethnographic Studies, 150
Summary, 160
Recommendations, 161
References, 161
9 POWER ECONOMICS
Introduction, 165
Flows Affect Electrical Output and Costs, 166
The Institutional Context, 168
Cost Estimates for Altered Flow Regimes, 171
Recommendations, 181
References, 184
10 INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON THE GLEN CANYON
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Institutional Structure of GCES, 186
Interagency Conflict in the Evolution of GCES, 190
Goal Substitution by Agencies Working for GCES, 194
External Review-GCES and the NRC, 197
The Role of Funding in GCES, 199
Time Constraints in GCES Research, 203
Future Institutions, 204
Recommendations, 204
References, 206
xv
137
165
186
11 LESSONS OF THE GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 209
Introduction, 209
Elements of a Useful Ecosystem Analysis, 210
Completion and Anticipation of Future Needs, 216
Achievements of GCES, 217
A Hopeful View of the Future, 221
References, 221
APPENDIX A
Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and NRC Staff
222
