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 209
1 1
Lessons of the
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
INTRODUCTION
Federal management of water is undergoing a maturational change that
involves a drastic reduction in the number of new water projects and an
increase in emphasis on qualitative aspects of water management (Wilkinson,
1993~. The leadership of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has acknow-
ledged and accepted the necessity for this change, although the institutional
characteristics of the bureau cannot be expected to adapt overnight to a new
mission.
Qualitative aspects of water management include improvements in
efficiency of water use as well as adaptation of water management to a broad
range of environmental objectives such as those that are apparent from the
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES). In dealing broadly with en-
vironmental issues, the BOR must find ways to work efficiently with other
agencies that have primary expertise in and responsibility for specific kinds
of environmental resources. Thus, the GCES has, in microcosm, been a test
of the proposition that the BOR can execute a broad-ranging cooperative
environmental study of a large river ecosystem and produce results that are
useful to management.
Previous chapters have illustrated various weaknesses in the organization
and execution of GCES. In some instances, these weaknesses may be pe-
culiar to the circumstances of GCES. In other instances, the GCES has
shown why some strategies are doomed to failure while others have a much
higher chance of success. This chapter offers generalizations from the
experience of GCES, in anticipation that the BOR and other government ag
209
OCR for page 210
210
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
encies must study complex environmental systems prior to developing man-
agement strategies that take into account diverse kinds of resources.
It is easy to focus on the defects of a complex project such as GCES. It
would be a mistake, however, to overlook the milestones of achievement that
the BOR passed in improving GCES and its institutional underpinnings. The
achievements of BOR through GCES missions will be the focus of the last part
of this chapter.
ELEMENTS OF A USEFUL ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS
GCES has illustrated that a successful and cost-effective ecosystem
analysis of use to management must meet a variety of requirements that
extend well beyond the research plan, data collection, and data analysis.
Management-oriented studies of environmental systems can be more difficult
to organize than academic studies because they must operate within the
institutional framework of mission agencies, be consistent with a variety of
laws not directed to ecosystem management, reflect the interest of con-
stituencies that affect government, be subject to strong constraints of time
and budget, and produce results that are immediately useful to management.
Thus, the elements of a successful study involve organizational and admin-
istrative matters as well as scientific ones.
The Planning Sequence
The planning sequence for a successful ecosystem analysis must include
steps that take advantage of existing information, define the scope as tightly
as possible but still realisticallywith respect to programmatic objectives, and
project the products of analysis and the schedule on which they can be
delivered. The planning sequence should begin with the creation of a
planning group that is selected for its expertise in the major subject areas to
be studied. The planning group should include at least one individual having
expertise in each of the major areas of study, as well as several individuals
who have experience in the integrative collection or interpretation of infor-
mation from different areas of study. If the planning group forms primarily
around vested interests or agencies rather than the needs of the project, the
plan will likely be flawed.
OCR for page 211
Lessons of the GCES
Review of Existing Information
211
Planning begins with an intensive review of information not only on the
location to be studied but also on other similar kinds of systems. This phase
of preparation should culminate in a synopsis of all existing available infor-
mation, both published and unpublished. This step consumes time (perhaps
as much as a year), but it is the only means by which the collective exper-
iences of individuals who have dealt previously with similar issues can be
brought to bear on the creation of a study plan. GCES proceeded without
this phase, and in many instances the issues of GCES were treated as if they
were entirely novel, whereas in fact the environmental issues associated with
the operation of large dams are recurrent and have been studied extensively
in the western United States.
Definition of Scope
Following extensive review of existing information, the planning groupwill
need a list of resources, a list of management options, and an ecosystem
diagram (Chapter 2~. These three items are the basis for the definition of
scope and the study plan. As shown by GCES, most of the resources to be
listed for a particular site will be obvious, but preparation of the list may
present some unexpected difficulties. For GCES, the nonuse value of the
Colorado River corridor below Lake Powell was not originally listed as a
resource because administrative policy precluded its recognition until GCES
was almost complete. In addition, cultural resources and effects on tribes
were not considered until later in the GCES. Obviously, any intentional or
inadvertent exclusions from the list of resources will ultimately undermine the
utility of the analysis.
Preparation of the list of management options is also critical, and GCES
demonstrated that its preparation can be even more difficult than the
preparation of the list of resources. Where particular kinds of management
options have not been studied administratively or are not favored by a
sponsoring agency, they may be precluded on the grounds that even listing
them or studying them would seem to legitimize their use. It is essential that
this mentality be discarded if the analysis of management options is to be
successful. At the same time, individuals conducting studies or using the
results of studies should realize that mere consideration of management
options does not necessarily justifytheir implementation, which may be com
OCR for page 212
212
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
plicated by legal, financial, or political factors that lie outside the realm of
analysis. For example, one of the major factors impairing the cost efficiency
of GCES was the inability of the BOR to separate the hypothetical range of
management options from the range of management options preferred by or
acceptable to the bureau and its cooperators.
GCES shows the peril of studies that are organized primarily around a list
of resources and management options, even though such lists are integral to
the formulation of the study plan. The context for resources and manage-
ment options in an ecosystem analysis is the ecosystem diagram. Without
a diagram, the study plan will be flawed in its failure to consider the causal
connections between ecosystem components. Such connections must be
understood before the outcomes of management options can be preclicted.
Ecosystem diagrams can be quite simplistic, in which case they may be
essentially useless. Boxes with the names of resources connected by lines
showing all possible pairwise combinations are not helpful. The ecosystem
diagram needs to be subjected to intensive scrutiny and debate among
members of the planning group and should be reviewed by individuals
(experts) outside the group who are alreadyfamiliarwith the resources or the
system. Causal connections that are essential or critical to an understanding
of the system should be distinguished from those that are not so critical. The
pathways of influence for management options should be identified because
they will be of particular interest in final use of the analysis for predictive
purposes.
GCES adopted the ecosystem concept (Chapter 2) but did not use it
effectively because it came too late and was not treated as a true driving force
for the study design even after it was adopted. The ecosystem diagram is
meaningless if it is used as window dressing or as justification a posterior)
rather than as a planning tool.
After the list of resources and management options together with the
ecosystem diagram are in place, the study group should return to a synopsis
of existing information and focus on that which is already available for the site
to be studied. The planning group should then decide whether or not existing
information is likelyto be useful in explaining some of the causal connections
shown in the ecosystem diagram. This may involve consultation with
specialists who collected information in the past or who are familiar with
particular kinds of data analysis.
OCR for page 213
Lessons of the GCES
Using What Is Already Known
213
Newly authorized studies of environmental systems often proceed as if
information collected in the past at the study site is totally irrelevant. This was
the case with GCES, which was criticized by the National Research Council
(NRC, 1987) for having ignored extensive past data collection on the
Colorado River and Luke Powell. The NRC assisted GCES by sponsoring a
workshop in 1990 to which authorities on the resources of the Grand Canyon
were invited and asked to summarize the existing state of knowledge about
the resources of the GCES study area. Had this been done early in the
planning of GCES, it would have been far more useful to the program. The
use of past information could have extended even further to the analysis of
existing records on sediment, temperature, and chemical concentrations and
biota of the Colorado River and Lake Powell. In the rush to begin new work,
planning groups characteristically are tempted to waive a hard look at existing
information, and this leads to wasted resources and unnecessary repetition
of the elementary phases of ecosystem analysis from one study to another.
Implementation of the Plan
Formation of the Study Group
The planning group should give way to a study group. One fault with
many complex studies is that the planning group becomes the study group.
Because the planning group is selected before the dimensions of the study
are known, its composition may render it ineffective as a study group.
Furthermore, one criterion for inclusion as a member of a study group should
be successful competition in a proposal solicitation process that is open to
government employees, public-sector contractors, and universities. Thus, the
study group is flexible and is dictated in any given phase of the study by the
requirements of the study, not by membership in the planning group or other
factors not related to successful completion of the study.
Contracting and Project Leadership
The GCES showed some of its most severe flaws in the implementation
phases involving contracting and formation of the study group. Government
OCR for page 214
214
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
agencies participated in the planning phase on the grounds of their vested
interests as shown by their statutory responsibilities. While this is un-
derstandable and defensible, its continuation into the study phase essentially
closed offflexibility in the solicitation of proposals or in the optimization of the
study group to meet the needs of the study. In effect, agency missions were
taken by GCES as entitlement for funding (Chapters 2 and 10~. This in turn
led to other problems, including the inability of project management to
demand performance as contractually agreed or to redirect funds when
performance of a particular contractor was deemed inadequate or of low
priority.
The ideal ecosystem analysis would require a high degree of authority
centralized in the project manager. The project manager for large studies
might need to be assisted continuously by a senior scientist, as was re-
commended for GCES, simply because the management of the business
component for a project of broad scope can compete with oversight of
scientific dimensions of the study. The project manager can function most
effectively, and with lowest cost, without obligations to provide supportto any
entity or individual or to continue supporting activities that prove to be
inadequate or unnecessary. Such flexibility was absent in GCES, and the
result was unreasonable distortion of project scope, failure of federal
agencies to meet contractual obligations while continuing to receive support,
and excessive focus on budget continuity rather than project objectives.
GCES shows clearly that the public sector, like the private sector, cannot
function efficiently unless there is a continuous element of merit-based
competition in the award of support and in its continuation.
Outside Advice
Another essential element of the implementation phase is an external
advisory board that is retained exclusively for the purpose of providing
independent advice and criticism to the project manager and project
participants. This element was added very belatedly to GCES and never
came to full maturation. The NRC committee fulfilled some functions of the
advisory board but was not charged with giving constant operational advice
to GCES and therefore did not provide all of the services that a true advisory
board could.
As an adjunct to the use of an advisory board, all major study products,
such as reports on project components, should be subjected to independent
OCR for page 215
Lessons of the GCES
215
critique and review rather than remaining internal to the study group. Some
review can be accomplished by publication in peer-reviewed literature, but
other mechanisms for review also can be used for study components that are
not appropriate for publication in full.
Achievements and Dissemination of Information
Another element of implementation is the organizational framework for
dissemination and processing of data. Each large project such as GCES
needs a general archiving and organizational system. Such a system was
worked out by GCES through the use of the Geographic Information System
and other computerized information storage systems. While not fully op-
erational as of the end of GCES, the framework was correctly conceived.
Reference to Final Objectives
A successful ecosystem analysis requires constant referencing of in-
dividual project components to the project's final objectives. Retention of
appropriate scope for a project is a constant responsibility of management
and cannot be executed in one step at the beginning of the project. The
manager of the project and the manager of the advisory group need to ask
continuously each project component and each participant how specific
kincis of data collection will come to bear on the evaluation of management
options. When this question cannot be answered satisfactorily, resources
should be redirected to other objectives that are more pressing.
Budgetary Continuity
Federally funded projects can be subject to particular budgetary un-
certainty if they are supported as a marginal activity of a major agency. This
was the case with GCES, which ultimatelywas continued without interruption
for 13 years but in most years was without any secure basis for budgetary
planning. Ecosystem analysis is inherently a multlyear activity, although the
primary phases of most ecosystem studies will not require as much time as
those of GCES. A sponsoring agency should require a study plan leading to
specific useful outcomes in a specified period of time, with specified costs.
OCR for page 216
216
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
Once justified, these arrangements should be a priority within the agency, and
the study manager should be responsible for producing complete study
products and adhering to the budget. In contrast to this ideal, GCES often
showed an ad hoc approach to time schedules, partly because GCES was left
in fiscal limbo toward the end of each budget year and partly because there
was no binding list of study products.
COMPLETION AND ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE NEEDS
Completion of an ecosystem analysis involves final synthesis and
recommendations to management, archiving of study results and data for
future use, and recommendations for selective additional studies or monitor-
~ng.
Synthesis
Ecosystem analysis is almost useless without some final synthesis and rev
commendations to management. Even so, this is the phase of analysis that
is least likely to be completed satisfactorily. For example, GCES, as of its end
in 1995, had not produced any synthesis above the single component level
and thus in a sense failed to reach its final objective. While the BOR con-
templates future preparation of a synthesis with post-GCES funds, the failure
of GCES to produce a more synthetic outcome directly connected to man-
agement makes for a poor demonstration of the usefulness of ecosystem
analysis to management. A study plan must incorporate a firm commitment
to final objectives, including explanation or modeling of connections between
ecosystem components under the influence of management.
Archiving for the Future
Given that environmental regulations are a constant and growing element
of management for any given site, environmental studies should be regarded
as antecedents of future studies rather than as isolated projects. All of the
basic data should be archived in standardized formats, and special studies
should be written up in ways that make them and their underlying data useful
in the future.
OCR for page 217
Lessons of the GCES
217
Continuity into the Future
Managers of environmental studies frequently feel strong motivation to
recommend extension of their work as they are nearing completion. Such
requests are often viewed with skepticism by sponsors, who seek a definite
end to the project. There is validity in both viewpoints. A large environmental
study can be viewed much like a large construction project. A major in-
vestment is made initially to create the corpus of the environmental analysis,
much in the same way the initial investment is made in the physical structure
of a dam. To be useful, environmental analysis typically requires some sort
of long-term continuity in the form of monitoring, which might be likened to
the routine maintenance or operation of a dam following the major investment
of construction. In the absence of some extension of effort following a major
ecosystem analysis, the continuing validity of the analysis and the availability
of expertise on the system will fade rapidly and undermine the original
investment. In addition, new insights or operational changes may require
revision, including new kinds of data collection on selected components of
the system, if the analysis is to remain useful.
ACHIEVEMENTS OF GCES
Although the deficiencies of GCES were many, GCES can also claim
numerous achievements, some of which relate to major expansion in our
understanding of the Colorado River ecosystem between Glen Canyon Dam
and Lake Mead, while others are of a more general nature (Table 11.1~.
Important Discoveries of GCES
GCES made a number of basic discoveries that can be used as a basis
for optimizing the operation of Glen Canyon Dam in ways that benefit biotic
communities, recreation, and other resources. The studies of sediment
transport, which in some ways were the most satisfactory component of
GCES, showed that sand entering the Colorado River through the Paria and
the Little Colorado rivers, and to a lesser degree other small tributaries, is
sufficient to provide the mass of sand necessary for maintenance of beaches
and backwaters along the Colorado River below Lee's Ferry. Prior to GCES,
it was generally suspected that the amount of sand from these sources would
OCR for page 218
218
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
TABLE 11.1 Milestones of Achievement for the BOR Through GCES
l
1. Use of the ecosystem concept for redefinition of GCES scope.
2. Adclition of senior scientist to GCES.
3. Manipulation of discharge as a means of studying ecosystem
responses.
4. Recognition of the potential trade-off between power production and
environmental benefits.
Recognition of the importance of long-term monitoring.
6. Inclusion of Native American tribes as cooperators.
7. Commitment to active management through controlled floods (beach-
building flows).
8. Recognition of nonuse values.
9. Initiation of studies on multiple outlet withdrawal.
10. Creation of power resource studies involving external review.
11. Increase in extramural (nongovernmental) contracting.
be insufficient for this purpose. Therefore, GCES showed that management
of sand is feasible below Lee's Ferry given the existing sediment supplies
without augmentation from a slurry pipeline or other sources.
GCES also showed that controlled floods (now called beach-building
flows) must be used to manage sand and debris (cobble and large rocks) in
the canyon below Lee's Ferry. While the amount of sand entering the river is
sufficient to maintain beaches and backwaters, it will not do so in the absence
of occasional flood flows that are sufficient to lift sand from the bed of the
river and over the tops of beaches and to scour backwaters so that they do
not become filled with sediment. Beach-building flows are an ideal man-
agement tool because they present low environmental risk and cause the
sacrifice of only small amounts of power revenues in that they need to last
only a few days and need not occur every year. Beach building flows were
set for spring of 1995 but were cancelled by the BOR due to legal concerns
from the upper basin states. Another experimental flood flow is scheduled for
spring 1996.
The GCES sediment studies also showed that moderation of ramping rate
and particularly the downramp (decline of discharge) within the 24-hour cycle
could offer substantial environmental benefits. The interim flows and
subsequent preferred alternative ofthe environmental impact statement (EIS)
incorporate moderatecl ramping rates that involve small losses in power re
OCR for page 219
Lessons of the GCES
219
venue but create a flow regime that is more appealing for recreational use
(rafting and fishing), less likely to cause stranding of trout, and less likely to
accelerate loss of beach sand through the slumping that occurs during the
downramp phase. Moderation in the extremes of discharge within a given
day offers many of the same benefits and may enhance the biotic value of
backwaters along the Colorado River.
The GCES showed that the humpback chub is, as previously suspected,
almost entirely dependent on the Little Colorado River for its maintenance in
the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Luke Mead. The intensive
studies of humpback chub also showed that small populations are present
near other tributaries, suggesting that a second population center might be
established in the future. These studies were initiated late in GCES, however,
and have not yet produced final conclusions. The effects of various operating
schemes on the Kanab amber snail and the willow flycatcher of the riparian
zone also are unclear at this time.
The definitive results of GCES primarily involve the management of
sediment. While modest in number, these results are of great practical value
and have led to the acceptance of new management schemes that will
produce substantial environmental benefits with only modest loss of power
revenues.
Recognition of the Need for Comprehensive Environmental Studies
Between 1983 and 1995, the BOR expanded the scope of GCES studies
to realistic limits geographically and conceptually, accepted the ecosystem
concept as the basis of the study and for interpretation of results, and ack-
nowledged, during the EIS phase, the necessity of weighing power pro-
duction and power revenues against environmental costs and benefits. These
were all major advances in the management of the operation of Glen Canyon
Dam. The dam is now managed according to an optimization concept that
involves environmental, cultural, and recreational resources as well as power
production and water management. While some of the management ration-
ale is still not sufficiently backed by hard information, and the rationalization
process itself is still deficient in some respects, the basic approach is sound
and sets a framework that can be improved and refined in the future.
OCR for page 220
220
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
Adaptive Management and Long-Term Monitoring
The BOR and its cooperators have proposed adaptive management as
a basis for managing Glen Canyon Dam in the future. This will be a marked
contrast to the past management strategy, which was essentially static until
interim flows were adopted. Adaptive management will require frequent
review of information on all resources and adjustment of operations as
needed to optimize benefits from the suite of resources that are affected by
the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Beach-building flows (controlled floods)
will be a key feature of adaptive management. In addition, the use of a
multiple outlet withdrawal structure might become a new element of adaptive
management if comprehensive studies of this option prove to be encour-
aging. Thus, the adoption of adaptive management is an improvement in the
management strategy for Glen Canyon Dam.
The EIS team, with encouragement from GOES and the NRC committee,
has also specified that long-term monitoring of resources affected by the
dam's operations will be important in the future. The BOR has authorized the
development of a long-term monitoring plan, and the NRC committee spon-
sored a workshop on long-term monitoring in 1992 to assist in the clevel-
opment of this plan.
The commitment to long-term monitoring is essential as an adjunct to
adaptive management. The environmental system below the Glen Canyon
Dam is not static and thus will show numerous changes in the future that are
responses to dam operations or to other events outside the realm of op-
erations. These changes will be detected through long-term monitoring, and
adaptive management will allow appropriate responses.
One difficulty with the BOR's commitment to long-term monitoring has
been the absence of any specific monitoring plan that could be subjected to
debate and criticism prior to its adoption. A draft plan was formulated by
GOES following the NRC committee workshop in 1992. Although the NRC
committee criticized the draft plan in some detail, no revised plan has yet
appeared. For reasons outlined in Chapter 2, adaptive management must be
served by a specific plan that evolves around needs for information rather
than constituencies, political forces, and precedents.
External Expertise and Review
The BOR made a major administrative advance in appointing a senior
OCR for page 221
Lessons of the GCES
221
scientist to assist the project manager of GCES. The scientist was drawn
from outside the federal government and brought an independent perspective
to GCES. In addition, the BOR approved selective use of the advisory board
principle mentioned in Chapter 2, although this principle was never fully
developed by GCES. These elements, which strengthen an agency-
sponsored project by drawing on external expertise and promoting con-
structive criticism, are commendable and need to be extended in the future
by greater use of external contracting and review.
A HOPEFUL VIEW OF THE FUTURE
While agencies of the U.S. government are notoriously conservative, the
BOR has shown through GCES its ability to adapt to changing circumstances
and new societal priorities. Despite the appearance in 1983 that the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam would never be altered, the BOR has re-
directed the management of the dam in ways that take into account the many
valuable amenities and resources of the Colorado River corridor below the
clam. The GCES and the changes that have come about through preparation
of the operations EIS have modernized and reformed resource management
in the Grand Canyon region. While many problems remain to be solved, the
basic elements of a responsive and enlightened environmental management
system are in place at Glen Canyon Dam. The BOR has made a significant
step in broadening its mission from purveyor of water to environmental
manager. The lessons of GCES are, to a large extent, transferrable to other
locations and could be the basis for a new era in the management of western
waters.
REFERENCES
National Research Council. 1987. Riverand Dam Management. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Wilkinson, C.F. 1993. Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Waterand the Future
of the West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ecosystem analysis
