National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 3 The Adaptive Management Program
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

4
Ecosystem Monitoring and Science

The Center has adopted an ecosystem approach to understanding the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on the Grand Canyon. This chapter thus begins with comments on ecosystem studies and monitoring, then reviews the Center's physical, biological, cultural, socioeconomic, and information technology programs. As pointed out in previous National Research Council reviews (1987, 1996a), an ecosystem approach seeks an understanding of interrelationships among important physical, chemical, biological, and social processes. Here we evaluate the Center's progress toward planning and implementing an integrated and comprehensive ecosystem-level monitoring and research program. In particular, two key components are evaluated: development of a conceptual model of the Grand Canyon ecosystem and the long-term monitoring program.

Much of the Center's efforts in these areas build upon earlier programs and data gathered by the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. The Center's use of GCES data and methods is uneven, ranging from good use of past physical sciences and cultural studies to little use of past work in studies on socioeconomic values of resources. The Center has assembled a large amount of information from Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, however, including synthesis projects to determine the limits of those data and methods. This chapter discuss instances in which data from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies have proven useful for the Center's resource programs.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

CONCEPTUAL MODELING

The conceptual model was specified in the 1997 Strategic Plan and the 1998 Strategic Plan. Development and analysis of the conceptual model is the most tangible evidence that the Center is advancing concepts of ecosystem science and management toward a perspective of how alternative dam operations affect downstream resources that is integrated across physical, biological, and social science disciplines.

While no single model will capture all processes important to Grand Canyon resources, the Center's efforts in conceptual modeling have helped draw together previously disparate and independent data sets. The Center has built upon Glen Canyon Environmental Studies' conceptual models that were not computerized, and has provided a forum for discussion and interaction among stakeholders and scientists of diverse disciplines. The model and a 1999 Colorado River Ecosystem Science Grand Canyon Symposium are helping integrate the scientific thinking of Center staff and other scientists working in the Grand Canyon. That the Center was able to implement a modeling exercise with leading experts in the field (Korman and Walters, 1998) is encouraging evidence that it is capable of overseeing an excellent ecosystem-level science and monitoring program.

Conceptual modeling is proceeding on a reasonable schedule, with the initial contract likely to be completed in fiscal year 1999. Although the original Strategic Plan indicated continuing efforts to refine the model, based on future monitoring and research, there is no firm evidence in the 1998 Strategic Plan of continuing model development. It is anticipated that the most useful outcomes from the current modeling effort will be the identification of key ecosystem uncertainties and stimulation of discussion and action regarding data shortcomings. For example, one weakness identified in the exercise is a lack of long-term comparable data on trends in native and nonnative fish populations. Other preliminary results suggest that interim flows may have been beneficial to some fishes due to increased primary production in the Lee's Ferry reach of the Colorado River. They also indicate that the predam ecosystem may not have supported a great abundance of native fishes. It seems clear that the model already has been useful in framing important ecosystem-level questions.

The conceptual model project is not, however, designed to address all questions of interest to the Center. For scaling reasons, some processes at fine spatial or temporal scales are not included, such as

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

modeling the dynamics of individual sandbars critical to understanding processes leading to their erosion and development. For this and other excluded processes, the development of separate, more focused models will be required. Some socioeconomic data have been included, but not as systematically as ecosystem data, and cultural resources had not been incorporated at the time of this review. The Center rightly emphasizes that the conceptual model should not be viewed as a predictive tool. Its primary value is obtained through its construction, which can help guide further studies, rather than its specific predictions. For similar reasons, the Center has rightly cautioned stakeholders that the conceptual model is not a decision-making tool. However, development of a new decision support system could certainly build upon lessons learned in conceptual modeling.

The model's development should be viewed as an early and significant success, and the Center should be encouraged to use the exercise and its methodology as a vehicle for integrating future programs of science, monitoring, and adaptive management. Improvements in the conceptual model of the Colorado River ecosystem represent an important step forward, as synthesis and integration are areas where Center programs lag behind the goals expressed in the original Strategic Plan.

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LONG-TERM MONITORING PLAN

The past fifteen years of research in the Grand Canyon have left a mixed legacy. On one hand, there has been progress in understanding sediment movement, the effects of water-level fluctuations on some aspects of benthic community dynamics, short-term responses to an experimental controlled flood (AGU, 1999), and other issues. On the other hand, there is still inadequate understanding of how long-term physical and biological dynamics are affected by dam operations. There are relatively few internally consistent, long-term data sets that span these fifteen years. Such data sets are needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of how variations in dam operations have affected Grand Canyon resources (for recent syntheses see Grams and Schmidt, 1999; Patten, 1998; Valdez and Carothers, 1998).

One reason there are few long-term data sets useful in quantitative assessment of ecological changes in the Grand Canyon is that a long-term monitoring strategy and plan were not developed and implemented for

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

reasons reviewed in Chapter 1. The Center has correctly identified the need for a scientifically sound, comprehensive, long-term monitoring program as a major priority. The Strategic Plan discusses many principles on which a sound, long-term program should be based. These include analysis and synthesis of existing data, development of a conceptual ecosystem model, the need to be conservative in modifying a monitoring program once started (both in terms of items monitored and methods used), and provision of an information management system capable of safeguarding and assuring easy access to long-term data. The Center has also developed an Integrated Water Quality Program, which builds upon monitoring activities initiated in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies period (Vernieu and Hueftle, 1999). The Integrated Water Quality Program encompasses quarterly reservoir surveys, monthly forebay surveys, and selected downstream monitoring. It uses the Lake Powell split criteria to indicate which monitoring activities—and associated management objectives and information—fall into ''white," "gray," and "black" categories. It also specifies sampling locations, frequencies, and analysis.

The Center is clearly aware of the many issues that must be considered in designing a successful long-term monitoring program. The committee is concerned, however, that in contrast to the excellent materials in the Strategic Plan regarding principles of monitoring, there are few details about the emerging monitoring plan itself, or about application of these concepts to the Grand Canyon ecosystem. The Strategic Plan falls short in its lack of discussion of the major next steps toward implementing long-term monitoring. For example, with the exception of the Integrated Water Quality Program, there are no tabulations of existing long-term data sets, no tentative lists of variables that might be considered for measurement, and little mention of where within the ecosystem it may be best to make measurements. The Strategic Plan calls for protocol evaluation programs to critically evaluate sampling protocols proposed by each resource group, but it is unclear if there is a mechanism to ensure integration across resource groups.

The Center should place a high priority on developing a detailed, long-term, integrated monitoring plan. The lack of a plan will hamper the rest of its functions, including development of requests for proposals. The monitoring plan must be designed to provide data necessary to evaluate long-term responses to current and future adaptive management. While the flows prescribed in the Record of Decision are now the main adaptive

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

management experiment, the range of alternatives considered will likely broaden over time. There are, for example, at least two additional adaptive management experiments currently under consideration: short-term beach/habitat-building flows and installation of a temperature control device at Glen Canyon Dam. In the long term, it is likely that other management options not currently envisioned will become available. Perhaps the only way to ensure that a long-term monitoring program will be relevant to evaluating the broad suite of experiments that may be conducted is to adopt a long-term ecosystem-level perspective. The following suggestions are offered in support of the Center's efforts:

  • A long-term view of the monitoring program should be adopted. Long-term monitoring often yields few benefits in the first several years. A program designed to detect long-term (five- or ten-year scales to a multidecadal scale) changes should not be expected to yield significant results in the first few years. A lack of short-term results must not be allowed to impede development and implementation of a long-term program. Some of the more effective long-term data sets consist of relatively simple variables whose values accrued because of long-term sampling. An excellent example of a simple, yet powerful, long-term data set is the Secchi disk record collected since 1967 at Lake Tahoe, California (Jassby et al., 1999), which has documented slow but definite reduction in water clarity related to biologic responses to increased nutrient inputs from the watershed.

  • Because ecological processes operate over various temporal and spatial scales, a long-term monitoring program should be effective at several different scales. Focusing evaluation of processes at a single spatial or temporal scale may result in an overly narrow view of Grand Canyon dynamics. The Center should consider a hierarchical design, consisting of a few local sites monitored frequently in detail, several index sites that receive less detailed monitoring at longer intervals, and broader reaches that might be monitored least intensively, perhaps using airborne (or other) remote sensing at annual or longer frequencies.

  • The core variables forming the basis of the monitoring program should be explicitly identified. Core data sets should consist of simple, basic data whose value will accrue over time. Core data sets should be selected using an ecosystem-level, multispecies perspective, ensuring salience of variables over the long-term. Even at this early stage, there should by now be an identified list of candidate variables and

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

measurement locations, frequencies, and methods. It is troubling that a preliminary listing is not in the 1998 Strategic Plan.

  • Once established, the monitoring program must be protected from fluctuating budgets and changing short-term interests. A monitoring program's value is in its long-term nature. Mechanisms must therefore be developed to buffer it from short-term fluctuations in the Center's budget. A consensus should be developed among scientists and stakeholders that the monitoring program receives first priority in lean budget years.

  • Short-term research projects must be closely linked with the monitoring program. These short-term research projects should be identified by scientists and can be overseen by the stakeholder groups. Prospective short-term research projects should be partly evaluated in the peer-review process by their likelihood of providing a better understanding of relationships among or within the core monitoring data. Examining how short-term projects will enhance understanding of linkages between and among long-term data sets can provide an important way to focus research toward the needs of adaptive ecosystem management.

  • Physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic measures should be co-located in space and time wherever and whenever practical. Co-location of monitoring variables, sites, and times among programs is an excellent way to assure integration across resource groups (such as monitoring of the controlled flood event in 1996). It may be increasingly important as the Grand Canyon National Park implements wilderness and other research permit regulations. While co-location is not always possible, there should be strong reasons before making the decision not to measure variables across resource groups at the same place or time. Optimizing co-location of sampling sites requires that the monitoring program for each resource group be developed in parallel with mechanisms for meaningful interactions among groups. The Physical Resources Program has made significant progress toward a long-term monitoring plan and has already convened a meeting of its protocol evaluation program team. The committee is concerned that because other resource groups are behind the physical group in planning and implementation, it will become increasingly difficult to develop integration across groups.

The Center should also ensure that a search for a perfect monitoring plan does not become the greatest impediment to implementing an effective long-term monitoring program. It is understood that no

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

long-term monitoring program will be able to measure all the important variables with the frequency and spatial coverage that might ultimately be desired. Every program is thus open to valid criticism that it does not measure one or more important variables. The Center must avoid making the long-term monitoring program so ambitious and complex that it is too unwieldy to implement.

The Center should consider designing the monitoring program in stages. With each resource program using the conceptual model and with clarified information needs as a framework, the Center might wish to draft a comprehensive list of candidate variables. It could then assign variables to one of several priority lists and begin a process of determining acceptable frequencies and measurement locations. For some variables this will be procedurally straightforward; for others it will become clear that methods are inadequate or benefits of measurement are unclear, and a decision to include it will be held in abeyance until more information becomes available. Through iteration at both the individual resource group and across resource group levels, a draft monitoring plan will emerge. Involving protocol evaluation program teams for each resource group should be encouraged early in this process.

THE CENTER'S RESOURCE PROGRAM AREAS

Physical Resources Program

Management options for addressing downstream impacts of the Glen Canyon Dam are defined primarily in terms of physical controls: flow rates and temperatures of water released at the dam. Adaptive management experiments intended to improve ecosystem resources are linked to dam operations through processes of water flow, sedimentation, and erosion. A description of the physical responses of the Grand Canyon to past and future dam operations provides the framework needed to formulate adaptive management experiments and test hypotheses regarding ecosystem responses to dam operations.

A primary focus of the Physical Resources Program is sand within the Grand Canyon and its sources, sinks, and rates of transport. Sand deposits form camping beaches, provide terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and preserve cultural artifacts. Research and monitoring are focused on understanding how to maintain adequate volumes and appropriate mor-

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

phology of these deposits in order to preserve associated ecological, recreational, and cultural resources. A sand budget quantifying inputs, storage, transfers, and output provides the conceptual framework for most sediment research in the Grand Canyon. Individual projects focus on inputs from gauged and ungauged tributaries, transport rates within the mainstem, and changes in storage within the channel and along its margin. A budget focuses attention on the large post-dam decreases in sand supply and the need to carefully manage the available sediment.

A second focus of the Physical Resources Program is on coarser sediments (cobbles, boulders) that form debris fans at tributary canyons, creating rapids and anchoring most of the larger sandbars in the mainstem. The post-dam flow regime has reduced the river's ability to rework these debris fans. A better understanding is needed of the ability of available floods to rework these deposits and maintain navigability of the rapids.

Synthesis of Previous Knowledge

Evaluation of past data and research is an active part of the Physical Resources Program, and the committee noted that this program was actively and carefully reviewing and building on past research. The 1998 Strategic Plan includes two research efforts that reanalyze existing data sets for the purpose of developing a consistent historical record of sand storage and transport. One is a compilation of past observations of sandbar volumes. Work conducted at various times by different organizations using a variety of methods has produced historical data on sand bar changes that are difficult to compare and interpret (Grams and Schmidt, 1999). The ability to predict future changes in sand bars will clearly benefit from a better understanding of their history. A second project is reanalyzing historical records of sediment transport in the Grand Canyon and its immediate tributaries. This work has improved understanding of sand transport before and after the dam (Topping et al., 1999) and has contributed to a fundamental revision of the sand budget and a reevaluation of the frequency and timing of floods that would best conserve sand resources.

The sand budget paradigm has provided a consistent organizing concept for sediment research over two decades (e.g., Howard and Dolan, 1981; Randle et al., 1993; Schmidt, 1999; Smillie et al., 1993, cited in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995; Topping et al., 1999). Revisions in the sand

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

budget reflect important advances toward understanding and managing sand resources in the Grand Canyon. A revision currently under investigation is the channel's ability to store tributary-derived sediment, which has important implications regarding the timing of controlled floods needed to preserve available sand. While the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement was being written, it was believed that tributary sand was stored in the channel in years without large dam releases, leaving it available for redistribution to bars and channel margins by occasional controlled floods. This model was based on sand budgets developed from U.S. Geological Survey gauging records and was based on the assumption that relations between sand transport and discharge were stable over time (Randle et al., 1993; Smillie et al., 1993, cited in U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1995). U.S. Geological Survey cross-sections of the Colorado River were used in determining sand storage in the channel, information important to planning the controlled flood of 1996. Reanalysis of sediment gauging records (Topping et al., 1999) and observations during the 1996 controlled flood (Rubin et al., 1998; Smith, 1999; Topping et al., 1999) indicated the concentration and size of sediment transported at a given discharge can vary depending on the duration of mainstem flows and their timing relative to tributary sediment inputs. The existence of previously assumed multi-year-in-channel storage is now in question, raising important new questions concerning the effective timing and duration of future controlled floods.

A previous National Research Council committee recommended several areas of research and monitoring to support management of the sand resource, including developing triggering criteria and flow specifications for beach/habitat-building flows, monitoring rates of beach deposition during beach/habitat-building flows, and creating a procedure for determining sand budgets for different parts of the Grand Canyon (NRC, 1996a). Research and monitoring supporting all of these recommendations is ongoing, and much of it is incorporated in the 1998 Strategic Plan. Results of ongoing work in each of these areas are also being used to evaluate and revise management decisions. Studies of beach deposition during the 1996 beach/habitat-building flows (Andrews et al., 1999; Center, 1997a; Hazel et al., 1999; Kearsley et al., 1999; Schmidt et al., 1999b) and research on channel-eddy sand exchange (Rubin et al., 1998; Smith, 1999; Topping et al., 1999; Wiele et al., 1999) contributed directly to ongoing discussions of the most effective magnitude and duration of such management events.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Beach/habitat-building flow triggering criteria have been developed (Technical Work Group, 1997), and information produced by the Physical Resources Program is being used to evaluate the combination of beach/habitat-building flow magnitude, duration, and post-flood flow regime that will provide the best test of the effectiveness of such efforts in conserving sand. Although a sand budget is not yet complete, ongoing research is effectively focused on components that are the least understood.

Likely Effectiveness of the Strategic Plan

Progress in developing understanding of the physical behavior of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is evident in the revision of the Strategic Plan. The 1998 Strategic Plan focuses attention on river reaches nearest the dam, where impacts of post-dam reductions in sediment supply are largest. Reaches in Glen and Marble canyons are considered critical because they have little sand input and have shown progressive loss of stored sand in the post-dam period (Schmidt and Graf, 1990; Schmidt et al., 1995; Webb, 1996). The long-term volume of sediment that may be stored in Glen and Marble canyons, its variability in space and time, and, therefore, the viability of related biological and recreational resources, remains to be determined. The 1998 Strategic Plan identifies needs for greater understanding of sand storage potential and sediment residence time in Marble Canyon. The 1998 Strategic Plan places increased emphasis on a fine-grained sediment budget as the primary organizing principle for continued research and monitoring. A sand budget serves to focus attention on parts of the system for which understanding is weakest (e.g., storage and evacuation of sand on the channel bed), while also supplying an internally consistent accounting as a strong basis for long-term monitoring.

The 1998 Strategic Plan also emphasizes the need for a complete map of topography and sediment content of the river corridor from the channel bed up to pre-dam flood elevations. Such a map will provide the basis for accurate routing of flow and sediment through the canyon and gives a baseline for effective, long-term monitoring of sediment. The need for a synoptic channel sediment map was recognized by a review panel convened in August 1998, and the Physical Resources Program responded within a month with an end-to-end (from Lee's Ferry downstream to

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Diamond Creek, located at River Mile 225), side-scan sonar survey of the channel bed.

The magnitude, duration, and post-flood flow regime of future beach/habitat-building flows are currently under debate (Argonne National Laboratory, 1999; Melis, 1998). One proposal involves releases of up to 60,000 cfs for several days, followed by fluctuating (load-following) flows. Discussion of this proposal focused on issues of hypothesis testing and multiple treatments (Sit and Taylor, 1998). This is an appropriate discussion within the framework of designing adaptive management experiments and focuses on the appropriate magnitude and duration of beach/habitat-building flows, the sequence of experimental floods most likely to demonstrate clear results, and the utility of a fluctuating post-flood regime for conserving deposited sand.

Research during and after the 1996 controlled flood suggests that a shorter-duration beach/habitat-building flow of larger magnitude may be more effective than the flood in 1996 (Schmidt, 1999). The concentration of sediment in suspension decreased during the 1996 flood, indicating that channel sediments available for redistribution decreased over its course (Smith, 1999; Topping et al., 1999). Bar deposition rates were larger, while suspended sand concentrations were higher early in the flood (Andrews et al., 1999; Schmidt, 1999), a result supported by numerical simulations of the flow and transport field (Wiele et al., 1999). A shorter-duration beach/habitat-building flow is also supported by observations that most debris-fan reworking occurred during the initial hours of the controlled flood (AGU, 1999).

Numerical modeling of the flow and transport field provides a means of evaluating effects of different management options and a means of forecasting conditions at locations where monitoring is not conducted. Both the 1997 and 1998 strategic plans emphasize the utility of numerical modeling and incorporate it as part of the long-term monitoring program. Both plans also emphasize the desirability of developing remote sensing methods for basic water and sediment monitoring, and the Physical Resources Program is actively exploring less invasive means of collecting adequate monitoring data. The present state of the art in both numerical modeling and remote sensing, however, is such that on-the-ground long-term monitoring and periodic detailed measurements of local processes are still required.

The Physical Resources Program was reviewed by a protocol evaluation program panel in August 1998 (Wohl et al., 1998). The panel

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

noted that the program is well managed and integrated with an admirable degree of cooperation among investigators. Most ongoing projects received unqualified panel support. The review was wide-ranging and frank, with extensive and open cooperation by Center staff and program investigators, providing a strong example for comparable reviews in the Center's other resource programs.

Weaknesses and Alternative Approaches

The 1998 Strategic Plan identifies fundamental physical science questions that remain to be answered; however, their relative importance and connections are lost within a text that wanders among abstract monitoring goals, strategies, and external review guidelines not unique to the Physical Resources Program. To be an effective planning document, the program description needs to clearly and directly present its accomplishments, goals, and overall strategy, following an organization that parallels that of the other program descriptions.

An immediate goal is to complete a sediment budget with acceptable levels of accuracy for all components. Proposed reductions in the program budget in fiscal year 2000 and beyond may hamper this effort, delaying implementation of the long-term sediment monitoring program and impacting ecosystem experiments. A robust and accurate sediment budget is required for testing hypotheses linking ecosystem responses to dam operations. Particularly important is completion of a sand budget for Marble Canyon, including the long-term trend in storage, spatial and temporal variability in storage, and residence time of tributary-derived sediment. Sand storage in this reach may be reduced to a level that will not sustain valued recreational and ecological resources.

Management experiments designed to evaluate the effectiveness of different beach/habitat-building flows face institutional and legal constraints regarding both the magnitude and timing of the flows. Resource impacts of beach/habitat-building flows have been examined only for floods below 45,000 cfs (Ralston et al., 1998). As discussed previously (both in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and in planning before the 1996 controlled flood), this evaluation should be expanded to include a much wider range of discharge (e.g., to 90,000 cfs) so that this information is available for informed management decisions.

An additional concern is the role of flood timing in preserving

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

sand in reaches closest to the dam. Changes in concentration and grain size of sand transported during the 1996 beach/habitat-building flow suggested that sediment available for transport was reduced over the course of the flood (Rubin et al., 1998; Topping et al., 1999). This suggests that beach/habitat-building flows for conserving sand and building beaches may be most profitably scheduled shortly after tributary floods, when the amount of sediment available in the channel is at a maximum. This is particularly the case in Marble Canyon, where the post-dam decrease in sediment supply is largest and where long-term availability of camping beaches and riparian habitat depends almost entirely on sediment inputs from the Paria River. Discussions on the timing of the 1996 controlled flood included the possibility of an October flood, and the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement suggested that beach/habitat-building flows could be timed to follow tributary floods in the late summer. Subsequent analyses, however, have focused entirely on January through June. Evaluation of potential sediment conservation benefits and resource effects should be extended to other months of the year.

Mobility of large boulders and cobbles in rapids during beach/habitat-building flows also requires further investigation. Although the response of debris fans to flows is mentioned in the Strategic Plan, there appears to be no funding for continued studies of such responses. An important objective of experimental flows is to redistribute coarse grains on debris fans and maintain runnable rapids. Observations of boulder entrainment during beach/habitat-building flows of different magnitudes are needed to develop an ability to forecast their effectiveness at maintaining rapids.

Much of the work on flow and sediment has been conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey through large, multiproject contracts. This contracting method has the effect of putting a management layer between the Center and individual principal investigators, making it difficult for Center staff to hold individual principal investigators accountable, and it increases chances for murky communication. Although less than in the past, this buffering is still the case for fiscal year 1998–1999 funding. An important example occurred in September 1998. Over the course of one week, two large floods on the Paria River discharged into the mainstem a volume of sediment larger than the Paria River's mean annual load (D. J. Topping, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication, 1998). This presented an opportunity to track the transport and storage of a large sediment input, an important and poorly understood factor for evaluating

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

timing of beach/habitat-building flows for sediment conservation, particularly for Marble Canyon. Although the U.S. Geological Survey was to sample sediment transport at two downstream sites during this period, the planned sampling did not occur. Although steps have been taken to reduce chances of another missed opportunity, part of the problem lies in the physical and institutional separation between the Center and the U.S. Geological Survey and the Arizona Geological Survey staff assigned to conduct the monitoring. A more suitable long-term solution would be to give the Center more direct control of monitoring, so that the required data are consistently collected.

Biological Resources Program

The biological resources section of the Strategic Plan presents important ideas about the value of an ecosystem paradigm and monitoring principles, but the program itself is narrow, even when viewed collectively. Legal and institutional requirements mandate studies of only a few ''key" species (e.g., humpback chub), although the examination of other ecosystem components is critical to understanding the roles of the few species emphasized. The closing and subsequent operation of Glen Canyon Dam have had tremendous repercussions on the native biota. Although implicit in documents produced by Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and other documents produced later, few documents attempt overall synthesis of these effects (exceptions include, for example, Valdez and Carothers, 1998; Patten, 1998). They may thus not yet be fully appreciated by all the parties concerned. The 1998 Strategic Plan briefly mentions pre-dam and post-dam conditions and time scales for the research program. Lack of long-term historical synthesis hampers objective evaluation of the natural state of aquatic biota, as well as the establishment of "baseline" (approximately pre-dam) conditions. Perhaps it is assumed that narrative (and in some cases quantitative) syntheses for different ecosystem components in the Grand Canyon (e.g., general: Carothers and Aitchison, 1976, Johnson, 1977; vegetation: Johnson, 1991, Turner and Karpiscak, 1980, Webb, 1996; fishes: Carothers and Minckley, 1981, Minckley, 1991, Suttkus and Clemmer, 1979; birds: Brown et al., 1987; mammals: Hoffmeister, 1971, Ruffner et al., 1978), other parts of the Colorado River (general: Ohmart et al., 1988 and citations; vegetation: Anderson and Ohmart, 1985 and citations; birds: Rosenberg et al., 1991;

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

fishes: Minckley 1979, 1985), and elsewhere (vegetation: Brown, 1994, Hastings and Turner, 1966) are generally known, but this is hardly the case.

Glen Canyon Dam resulted in complex physical, chemical, and biotic impacts on biological resources in the Grand Canyon. The river corridor biota were subjected to sudden, general stabilization of essentially all variables to which they were most likely adapted. Major impacts occurred in volumes and patterns of flow and temperatures, along with altered quantity and quality of sediments, including organic materials. Chemical variations downstream, ionic composition including nutrient quantities and qualities, and dissolved organics were buffered and otherwise modified in Lake Powell. The scenario of change further involved biotic impacts amplified by direct and indirect species and community interactions as the ecosystem shifted in response to novel nutrient supply, patterns of flow, seasonality, and turbidity. Native survivors were joined by nonnative colonists, some of them having been there before the dam and others having been dispersed from elsewhere. Colonization was augmented through stocking diverse invertebrates to establish a food base for recreational fisheries.

Over time, an interacting, ever-changing species pool has resulted in the biological communities existing today, with nonnative species living in a new environment(s) along with a few surviving natives. With the installation of temperature control structures currently proposed at Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1999), the ecosystem will again be altered. Both the biota and the researchers studying it are thus confronted with a continuous "moving target," resulting in part in the complexity and confusion evident in parts of the Biological Resources Program.

Synthesis of Previous Knowledge

As noted elsewhere, the revised Strategic Plan provides modest evidence of synthesis of existing knowledge in describing research and monitoring; this is especially true for the Biological Resources Program. Much of the section on this program relates to broad, philosophical principles of research and monitoring, presented much as a textbook on ecosystem management or ecology and providing few specific indications of how it all relates to the Grand Canyon ecosystem.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Evaluation and use of past research knowledge is, however, becoming part of the program. The most comprehensive synthesis of information appearing to date has been that of Valdez and Carothers (1998), produced as part a previous U.S. Bureau of Reclamation contract. Other information (Patten, 1998) has been developed through voluntary efforts by researchers funded in the past by the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and in some cases by the Center (e.g., Douglas and Marsh, 1996, 1998; Marsh and Douglas, 1997; Marzolf et al., 1998; Schmidt et al., 1998). Other information appeared in the AGU (1999) volume on the 1996 controlled flood.

Relationships of some biological resources to physical features influenced by the Glen Canyon Dam, such as temperature, fluctuating flow, and some patterns of sedimentation (e.g., importance of "backwaters" as nursery areas for fishes) are well enough understood for formulation and testing of hypotheses relative to reproduction and recruitment of fishes. Information on the nature and interrelations of other features of the physicochemical setting, based on conditions introduced to tailwaters, and downstream on the presence and operation of the dam, provides a framework for formulating and testing hypotheses on controls and mechanisms of response of other biological components of the ecosystem, as well. Linkages between and among biological and various other resource categories remain poorly articulated. It is therefore critical that the Biological Resources Program be closely integrated within itself and that, at a minimum, the Biological Resources and Physical Resources programs be tightly interwoven; it is not yet apparent that either condition is satisfied.

Likely Effectiveness of the Strategic Plan

There is strong evidence that Center staff are actively seeking to identify issues and criteria for general biological monitoring, and the search has been fruitful for some components. Food base analyses are far enough along for formulation and testing of hypotheses, as are some aspects of on-ground monitoring of waterfowl and breeding birds, and remote sensing of such things as riparian vegetative communities (the latter are commendably integrated with physical resources such as sandbars). Further, some program components focusing on meeting the compliance and impact assessment requirements of the Glen Canyon Dam

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Environmental Impact Statement, the Record of Decision, and alternatives to avoid negative biological opinions show likelihood of success. It is also significant that, along with the Physical Resources Program, requirements anticipated for the Biological Resources Program clearly played a pivotal role in commissioning the conceptual modeling exercise. As noted, the committee considers conceptual modeling to be a major accomplishment, pointing toward an ecosystem paradigm for the Grand Canyon.

Despite these positive aspects, some important parts of the Biological Resources Program show little evidence of being based upon an ecosystem paradigm and may thus prove inadequate for developing adaptive management strategies. This is most evident when management objectives and information needs, as well as currently funded projects for fishes, are considered. Most emphasis is clearly upon: (1) recreational fisheries, (2) avoidance of jeopardy opinion under the Endangered Species Act for endangered humpback chub, and (3) enhancement and/or maintenance to assure compliance with recovery stipulations and to preclude future listing or future jeopardy opinions for other candidate species (flannelmouth sucker) or listed species (razorback sucker, Kanab ambersnail, Southwest Willow Flycatcher). Biological research on these components has been and remains driven by actual and perceived needs to satisfy reasonable and prudent alternatives and other mandates and agreements rather than by needs for ecosystem management.

Until linkages are defined among various biological resource components, single-species questions and accumulation of species-specific ecological information will prevail. Studies of fishes should include, for example, comparisons between quantities and qualities of foods (calories) acquired from different sources, such as aquatic vs. terrestrial. At the community level, comparisons of food habits between tributary vs. mainstem, or up- vs. downstream, would be informative. Inferences from food supply and demand could be expanded to other biological features, such as rates and patterns of growth and reproduction within different habitats. Annual, seasonal, and daily movements might further be examined with an eye toward defining transience vs. permanence of fish community structure. Ongoing and anticipated studies of aquatic food base, terrestrial vegetation, and terrestrial vertebrates tend to have more of an ecosystem flavor. They are, however, apparently assigned lower priorities in the program (other than for sport fishes and the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, each of which comprises a single-species initiative with strong ecosystem overtones).

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Weaknesses and Alternative Approaches

Although studies currently underway may contribute to goals for sport fishes and listed species and thus continue to add to existing databases on these few biotic ecosystem components, their integrative contribution to ecosystem understanding may prove minimal. This committee anticipates that findings and discussions from the 1998 conceptual modeling workshop may further reveal several serious experimental design problems in earlier and ongoing biological research and management in the Grand Canyon.

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II was criticized for the lack of cohesiveness of its research program, caused in large part by the unanticipated environmental impact statement preparation requirements within a research effort already underway. There seems a comparable danger in the demands on the Center to conduct, administer, and/or coordinate compliance requirements of biological opinions, programmatic agreements, and environmental assessments. Of 80 biological information needs in the 1998 Strategic Plan, more than 40 descend directly from requirements mandated by federal listing or candidacy of individual species. Only about seven information needs, or combination of needs, in the plans seem definitely positioned within an ecosystem paradigm. These are listed in Table 4.1, along with clarifications in brackets. The Biological Resources Program should be reconstructed with hypotheses directed toward anticipated needs for adaptive management of the system as the support engine for its biotic components, rather than for managing the components as impacted by operations of Glen Canyon Dam.

It seems clear this is understood and accepted by some individuals and agencies involved in the Adaptive Management Program. Others, however, either fail to understand or do not embrace the ecosystem paradigm, or are unwilling to recognize that the Grand Canyon ecosystem as a whole should ultimately be the unit of management. This results in apparent confusion, resulting in stop-gap attempts to salvage what remains of the native biota, whatever it might be (or might have been). An overall desired state toward which management may be directed has yet to be defined. An ecosystem vision, the lack of which is discussed elsewhere, clearly needs to be developed within mandated constraints before adaptive management can be fulfilled. This committee notes that a key goal should be to move the Adaptive Management Program from an exercise in

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

TABLE 4.1 -Biological Resource Program Information Needs

Information needs (of a total of 80) quoted or paraphrased from the Center's 1998 Strategic Plan, that stand alone or in combination with others (indicated by boldfaced, Roman numerals I through VII) to fall within an ecosystem paradigm for the Grand Canyon ecosystem.

(I) IN 1.1, "Determine status and trends in. . .food base species composition and population structure, density and distribution and the influence of ecologically significant processes."

(II) IN 1.2, "Determine the effects of past, present, and future dam operations under the approved operations criteria on the aquatic food base species composition, population structure, density, and distribution. . ."

(III) IN 2.1, "Determine ecosystem requirements, population character, and structure [required] to maintain naturally reproducing populations [of trout] . . ."

(IV) IN 2.7, "Determine the trophic relationship between trout and the aquatic food base including the size of. . .food base required to sustain the desired trout population [and impacts of trout on the food base relative to downstream system requirements]."

(V) IN 3/4.7, "Determine origins of fish food resources, energy pathways, and nutrient sources important to their production, and the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on these resources. . .Evaluate linkages between the aquatic food base and health and sustainability of HBC [= humpback chub; replace with 'native fish'] populations."

(VI) IN 11.1 and 12.1 combined, respectively, "Define and specify ecology of native [terrestrial] faunal components, especially threatened and endangered species; including evolutionary and environmental changes, natural range of variations, linkages, interdependencies, and requirements." And, "Identify. . .species potentially affected by dam operations and determine effects on distribution, abundance, and population structure."

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

(VII) IN 16.1 and IN 16.4 combined, respectively, "Determine distribution and abundance of native and non-native riparian and upland vegetation, including federal-, state- and tribal-listed sensitive species, old high water zone, new high water zone, and nearshore marshes." And "Determine the effects of current and proposed dam operations [on plant communities]. . ."

 

SOURCE: Center (1998).

impact assessment toward ecosystem management.

It has long been recognized (Clarkson et al., 1994) that cold, hypolimnic water releases from Glen Canyon Dam have overwhelming impacts on aquatic biota of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Thus, a lack of attention in the Strategic Plan to temperature control as a potential ecosystem manipulation (other than as a generally worded information need) is inappropriate and should be reversed. Second to temperature are impacts of nonnative fishes that prey upon and compete with native species (Minckley, 1991). These two forms of environmental resistance overlap in a justifiable concern that increased water temperature below Glen Canyon Dam will enhance populations of nonnative competitors and predators as well as native, warm-water species. Assessment of such expected and predictable interactions should take a high priority in adaptive management considerations as well, as is addressed from the operational viewpoint in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's environmental assessment (1999) on retrofitting Glen Canyon Dam with temperature-control devices.

This committee recommends the Biological Resources Program be reconstituted into two broadly overlapping elements. A first should clearly emphasize testing of hypotheses and implementation of management actions to further compliance with management objectives related to the Endangered Species Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and other agreements. The second element should be dedicated to embracing the ecosystem as a whole, which is crucial both for explaining individual and interacting resource effects and for fulfilling the intent of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The major goal of this second

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

element should pertain to maintaining ecosystem function at levels defined by historical reconstructions, tempered by realistic consideration of the constraints of human uses.

Because listed species and other organisms of concern are important parts of the ecosystem, efforts under the second element should strive insofar as possible to incorporate them into the testing of hypotheses and implementation of actions at the ecosystem level. The Adaptive Management Program should then be designed by bonding general ecosystem concerns with those for species of special emphasis to ensure sustainability near their defined levels. This committee suggests the following actions under this recommendation:

  • Efforts in the Biological Resources Program should be refocused at the community/ecosystem level, segregating yet accommodating various subunits (species or other components) of both ecological and social importance in a hierarchical manner (O'Neill et al., 1986).

  • A succinct historical synthesis should be commissioned, describing natural ecological conditions based on qualitative and quantitative (when possible) information in the literature (see, for example, Brown et al., 1987; Clarkson et al., 1994; NRC, 1991; Stevens, 1983; Turner and Karpiscak, 1980; Webb, 1996). This should be accompanied by a qualitative and quantitative systematic assessment of the individual and collective effects of dam emplacement and operations. A comparable, parallel, authoritative history should be prepared for legal and political agreements requiring environmental compliance, including assessment of their individual and collective influences on prior research and management actions (see, for example, Carothers and House, 1996; Marzolf, 1991) and how they continue to influence the Center's functions.

  • Management objectives and information needs for the Biological Resources Program should be generalized, condensed, and stated explicitly as falsifiable hypotheses, realigned within one of the two elements of emphasis. Research toward answering questions and management actions to maintain ecosystem sustainability should, whenever practical, incorporate those required for compliance with political or legal requirements.

  • Major features to be studied from the ecosystem perspective should be explicitly defined and placed in the context of the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic programs. This compilation of

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

ecological priorities would contribute to a decision-making process, weighted as objectively as possible, for evaluating alternative recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.

  • These suggestions are not exclusive to the Biological Resources Program. All Grand Canyon resources should be considered and integrated as historical documentation is prepared, major ecosystem components identified, and research and management proceeds. This provides an opportunity that, with sufficient emphasis, can contribute significantly to highly desirable, across-program integration and alternatives analysis.

Sociocultural Resources Program

The 1998 Strategic Plan combines cultural resources, including tribal programs, and socioeconomic resources under a single program. Of the Center's resource programs, the revised plan for sociocultural resources is most explicitly structured to indicate how proposed research and monitoring activities address specific information needs that address, in turn, current management objectives. Two of the three 1998 cultural resources research grants involve physical science components that assess the archaeological effects of dam operations and thus reflect a growing level of integration across programs. Progress has also been made toward coordinating the Center's Cultural Resources Program with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. National Park Service Programmatic Agreement with the tribes (Dongoske and Yeatts, 1998).

These developments are promising in several respects. In principle, combining cultural and socioeconomic programs would facilitate comparison of effects of dam operations on different social groups. The Center correctly recognizes that it is a mistake to treat tribal interests as exclusively "cultural" and nontribal interests as exclusively "socioeconomic." In addition, interests vary within and across groups, and they include complex combinations of conservation, preservation, and economic development interests. Among the more important and least understood issues for social research are the following: what resource effects are valued by different groups, how they are experienced and valued, and how much they are valued. Previous research within the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies addressed the ''what" and "how much" questions, with less formal research on identifying common ground and

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

basic differences, or on changes in "how" downstream resources and resource effects are experienced and valued (cf. Smith, 1998). Communication across the cultural, socioeconomic, and other research programs could shed light on these issues.

Underneath the sociocultural umbrella, the Cultural Resources and Socioeconomic Resources programs are still presented as separate programs in the 1998 Strategic Plan, so they are treated separately below. As a general concern about staffing the newly combined sociocultural program, however, it should be stressed that one full-time employee to serve both the cultural and socioeconomic programs is inadequate because of both work load considerations and the range of disciplines and level of training required to manage these two programs. Employing only one full-time staff member to manage the two programs would likely lead to ineffectiveness in both programs.

Cultural Resources Program

The Cultural Resources Program is the third largest Center program after the Biological Resources and Physical Resources programs, and it is far larger than the Socioeconomic Resources Program. It also has the most complex organizational structure. Its main components are:

  • Cultural resources monitoring and research

  • Cooperative tribal projects

  • Individual tribal projects

The monitoring and research program addresses management objectives and information needs identified by stakeholders, which established the structure of the 1998 Strategic Plan. Current management objectives focus on monitoring and protection of archaeological sites.

The tribes have a sovereign status, and the federal government has a trust responsibility toward them, which necessitates some distinct tribal programs (Tsosie, 1998). The Center has recently compiled Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Phase II synthesis reports on tribal interests in and perspectives on Grand Canyon resources for five of the six tribes that are involved; those reports provide a wealth of insight and information that has broad value for other science and stakeholder groups (Ferguson, 1998; Hart, 1995; Phillips and Jackson, 1997; Roberts et al., 1995; Stoffle et al.,

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

1994, 1995). The Center's Plan is also sensitive to the need for confidentiality for some tribal cultural resources information. Individual tribal programs support tribal monitoring and research interests. They provide for full tribal involvement in the identification, design, and completion of the research. They "may investigate resources that have cultural values to Native Americans but are outside western notions of cultural resources" (Center, 1998, p. 99). Cooperative programs emphasize education, training, and information dissemination projects with tribal groups.

These Center programs represent continuation of the trend that began in 1990 toward greater tribal involvement in cultural resources programs associated with dam operations. The Center's main challenge will be to coordinate and integrate these activities, both logistically and intellectually. If the Center's efforts are successful, the Center's program could serve as a partial model for working with other stakeholder cultural groups interested in participatory research, education, and conservation.

In addition to Center and tribal programs, there is a separate Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and seven Tribes (the Havasupai and San Juan Southern Paiute had not signed as of April 1999) to monitor and mitigate dam-operation impacts on cultural resources eligible for listing as historic properties. The Agreement's geographic scope has extended laterally to include surveys of the 256,000 cfs flood level, which roughly encompasses the 100-year flood recurrence interval (T. Melis, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, personal communication, 1999).

The Center has a broader mandate than the Programmatic Agreement to assess the effects of dam operations on downstream cultural resources, including "archaeological, ethnographic, ethnobotanical, faunal, and physical resources" (Center, 1997), whether or not they are eligible for listing as historic properties. Unlike the Programmatic Agreement, however, the Center is not required to mitigate those impacts. In an effort to coordinate the Center's Cultural Resources Program with the Programmatic Agreement, the Center was asked to administer both programs in 1997–1998. This arrangement proved unwieldy because the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service have legal responsibility for implementing the Programmatic Agreement, which cannot be delegated to the Center. This resulted in delays and procedural complications. The Bureau of Reclamation therefore resumed direct administration of the Programmatic Agreement in fiscal year 1998.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Dongoske and Yeatts (1998) developed a plan to better coordinate the two programs, which was adopted by the Technical Work Group.

During the first research cycle, the Cultural Resources Program let the following three research grant contracts:

  1. Test and apply a geomorphic model related to erosion of predam river terraces in the Colorado River ecosystem containing cultural materials. Awarded to SWCA, Inc.

  2. Model mainstem flow and sediment dynamics at selected cultural resource locations. Awarded to the U.S. Geological Survey.

  3. A cultural resources synthesis project to draw together Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and related research. Awarded to SWCA, Inc.

The first two projects indicate close coordination with physical resources monitoring and research and clearly examine the effects of flow regimes on archaeological site erosion. The third project addresses the need for synthesis and integration of previous cultural resources research.

Synthesis of Previous Knowledge  The 1998 Strategic Plan provides a clear synopsis of past research, environmental impact statements, Programmatic Agreement research, and new Center studies. The Center has begun an important synthesis of these previous cultural studies in the Grand Canyon and of data assembled under them (SWCA, 1998). A previous review of archaeological site information had been prepared with support from the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (Fairley et al., 1994).

The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies also previously commissioned broad assessments of Grand Canyon resources by tribes and tribal consortia. These include:

  1. Havasupai—Not currently participating.

  2. Hopi—Ferguson, T. J. 1998. Ongtupqa niqw Pisisvayu (Salt Canyon and the Colorado River). The Hopi People and the Grand Canyon. Produced by the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, under the guidance of the Hopi Cultural Resources Advisory Task Team, and under contract with the U.S. Bureau

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

of Reclamation. Tucson, Ariz.: Anthropological Research.

  1. Hualapai—Phillips, A. M., III and L. Jackson. December 31, 1997. Monitoring Hualapai ethnobotanical resources along the Colorado River, 1997. Annual Report. Hualapai Tribe, Cultural Resources Division.

  2. Navajo—Roberts, A., R. M. Begay, and K. B. Kelley. August 9, 1995. Bits 'iis Nineezi (The River of Neverending Life): Navajo History and Cultural Resources of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River . Window Rock, Ariz.: Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department.

  3. Southern Paiute Consortium—(1) Stoffle, R. W. et al. September 1995. Itus, Auv, Te'ek (Past, Present, Future). Managing Southern Paiute resources in the Colorado River Corridor. Pipe Spring, Ariz.: Southern Paiute Consortium, and Tucson Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, (2) Stoffle, R. W. et al. 1994. Piapaxa 'Uipi (Big River Canyon). Tucson, Ariz.: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona.

  4. Zuni—Hart, E. R. July 21, 1995. Zuni and the Grand Canyon: A Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Report. Zuni GCES Ethnohistorical Report. Seattle, Wash.: Institute of the North American West.

These reports and related publications shed light on the relationships between Grand Canyon "resources" and "values," a theme central to the Adaptive Management Program (cf. Bravo and Susanyatame, 1997; Dongoske, 1996; Kelley and Francis, 1994; and the SAA Bulletin "Working Together" series, 1993—). They present a range of ways for articulating and understanding experiences, uses, and concerns in the Grand Canyon.

The current synthesis project appears very capable of incorporating previous research on archaeological and tribal resources, which would be a major accomplishment. However, the Center's cultural resources synthesis has yet to encompass all cultural groups or to envision a dialogue among the concerns and views of different groups. The Center took an

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

important step in this direction by convening a cultural resources workshop for the March 1999 Technical Work Group meeting to present and discuss current research and synthesis projects. Regular workshops of this sort could help illuminate the cultural bases of adaptive management. To broaden the scope of the Cultural Resources Program, the Center might draw upon historical and contemporary studies by and about explorers, travelers, prospectors, developers, river runners, dam operators, environmentalists, and scientists in the Canyon (e.g., Lavender, 1985; Morehouse, 1996; Powell, 1874; Riebsame, 1997; Webb, 1996).

Likely Effectiveness of the Strategic Plan  The Grand Canyon Protection Act, the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement, and the Record of Decision all stress the importance of cultural resources protection and consultation with tribes. The Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement examines cultural resources in sections of the "Affected Environment" and "Environmental Consequences" chapters. The Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement treats cultural resources as either archaeological sites or traditional cultural properties, but it does not specifically discuss tribal concerns about other natural resources and socioeconomic issues.

Of all the Center programs, the strategic plan for cultural resources most closely follows management objectives and information needs identified by stakeholders. In that respect, it seems highly responsive to the new Adaptive Management Program. This approach, however, raises some concerns. If management objectives and information needs are revised annually or in dramatic ways, a Strategic Plan based exclusively upon them could become obsolete. If management objectives and information needs are poorly coordinated, as is the case across major sociocultural resource categories (i.e., cultural resources, recreation, water, hydropower, etc.), the program would lose coherence. And if management objectives and information needs are missing, the program has no way of identifying them for consideration by stakeholders (on this point, see the socioeconomic resources section below).

Because tribes and other social groups are differentially involved in the Adaptive Management Program, the Center may become more responsive to those that take a greater role in the process. This issue should be anticipated in the Strategic Plan by considering ways to maintain contact with and involve of all tribes and groups.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

The broader role of cultural resources in adaptive management, comparable with the role of ecosystem science, has perhaps not yet been fully envisioned. To develop a broader perspective, the Center might find it useful to consider previous research in the fields of cultural ecology (e.g., Bennett, 1969; Butzer, 1989; Denevan, 1983; Ellen, 1982), which has developed theories of adaptation, adaptive management, and adaptive strategies; global environmental change (May, 1996; Smith, 1997; Smithers and Smit, 1997); environmental philosophy (Griffiths, 1996; Light and Katz, 1996); and the emerging field of cultural studies, all of which explore different aspects of human adaptation.

Weaknesses and Alternative Approaches  Two separate objectives regarding Grand Canyon archaeology should be integrated for the more effective realization of both the immediate goal of locating, monitoring, and protecting, and the long-range goal of interpreting and understanding. Sites and isolated remains to a large degree reflect the physical and biological state of the Grand Canyon ecosystem in prehistoric times. Physical and biological studies should also include efforts to describe past environmental states (historical studies) and to identify current changes in variables influenced by prior patterns of human occupation. A model or chronological series of models of land use and settlement pattern in riparian zones should be developed. With such models, the current physical and biological studies could contribute more to an understanding of human occupations than could be achieved by focusing solely on mechanistic processes of site destruction and preservation. Undiscovered isolated remains and sites can be anticipated, protected, and interpreted in light of models that relate them to environmental variables in riverine areas.

Tribal perspectives on resources affected by dam operations are a source of valuable insights into the physical and biological parameters affecting prehistoric occupations along the river. When site effects are mitigated, there is an opportunity to compare archaeological evidence for resource relationships with ethnographic accounts. Parallels and differences would be of significance to both archaeologists and tribal members.

How can the information from tribal reports and perspectives be integrated with other aspects of ecosystem monitoring, research, and modeling? A first step is encouraging the tribes to articulate their own concepts of ecosystem and its important components, particularly with

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

regard to river and riparian zones. To the extent that they identify indicators of ecosystem integrity from their perspectives, building upon the synthesis reports produced to date, the Center and other scientific monitoring programs could incorporate these variables and provide useful information in addition to that available from tribal programs in the Grand Canyon. Even though tribal concepts of ecosystems may not be the same as those of currently practiced science, points of productive intersection can be sought.

Consultation with tribes about their identification of critical ecosystem variables seems to be an urgent step. Dam operations and related changes have immediate impacts on those living in and spiritually associated with the Grand Canyon. Conceptual modeling should certainly address the interaction of ecosystem components and ecosystem integrity with respect to tribal social and economic activities and values. If this important issue has been addressed, it is not apparent in the literature provided. The key problem with present cultural resource management objectives in the strategic plan is a lack of integration—integration between the ethnographic and archaeological programs and between these programs and the ecosystem management paradigm.

It is a matter of continuing concern that the Havasupai tribe has not joined the monitoring and research program. The Center has contacted the tribe and will presumably continue to contact them in order to will fulfill its trust and scientific responsibilities, but the tribe's decision not to participate must be respected. Also, as discussed below, effective participation of the all tribes depends upon the resolution of a number of key financial and programmatic issues.

The committee is concerned about reduced funding for tribal participation in the Adaptive Management Program. Tribal participation did not receive early support in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, but it grew and contributed in important ways in the 1990s and, for reasons indicated above, should expand rather than contract (NRC, 1996a). As a federal program, the Adaptive Management Program has trust responsibilities to the tribes. The Center's Strategic Plan displays sensitivity to those responsibilities and it correctly focuses on tribal participation in monitoring and research. Any reallocation of resources that diminished participation in monitoring and research activities would aggravate the general trend away from Grand Canyon investigations. This committee recommends that resources be secured for full tribal participation in all aspects of monitoring, research, and communication in the

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Adaptive Management Program, without reducing other components of the cultural resources monitoring and research program.

Socioeconomic Resources Program

Discussion of the socioeconomic dimensions of the Strategic Plan differs from the discussion of its other components because the Plan provides little to evaluate. This section outlines what is missing and explains why it matters.

Before describing the Strategic Plan's Socioeconomics Resources Program, it should be pointed out that there are many aspects of "socioeconomics," including environmental economics, geography, historical studies, institutional and policy analysis, and recreational sociology. The Center is currently supporting important research on recreational sociology in the Grand Canyon, and this committee has recommended that historical and institutional studies be conducted as part of the broader Adaptive Management Program. This section of the report focuses on the major resource area that was included in the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and previous National Research Council reviews, but is not adequately incorporated within the Center's resource programs: economic values of downstream resources in the Grand Canyon. Given the importance of this topic for analyzing the effects of dam operations and for formulating recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, this committee is concerned that it may not be strengthened. Since the last National Research Council report, there has been a great deal of research conducted on these and related topics in natural resource valuation. Advances in environmental economics and some recent studies are described in Appendix F.

The Strategic Plan does not adequately explore the possibility that some common insights in environmental economics might be exploited to clarify the process of advising and policy-making in the Grand Canyon. The last National Research Council report concerning the Grand Canyon provided a thorough and careful review of the issues involved (NRC, 1996a); it is not necessary to reiterate that review here. Efforts of the prior National Research Council committee to explain the full scope of the "economic" dimensions of Grand Canyon management do not, however, seem to have made much of a difference regarding the Center's approaches to these matters. The Center does not presently have any in-

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

house expertise in environmental economics, which may account for this oversight.

Why is some specialized environmental economics expertise necessary? Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources among competing end uses. Any adjustment to dam operations is likely to affect Grand Canyon resources. If the effects on these resources are beneficial from the perspective of all stakeholders, then the adjustment is likely to be uncontroversial. This would imply an unambiguous improvement in the "common good," and the change would likely be made. Conversely, if stakeholders universally perceive the effects of a change as negative, then the change would likely not occur, as the status quo would then be preferred by everyone. Management decisions can be difficult, however, when an adjustment would result in winners and losers. In these cases, managers must weigh the gains to the winners against the losses to the losers. If circumstances dictate that each type of stakeholder be given equal weight in the decision process, and if the winners' gains exceed the losers' losses, the change should be implemented. Often, however, the distributional consequences of a proposed change are important, and understanding the individual magnitudes of these gains and losses is only the first step in the decision-making process.

Synthesis of Previous Knowledge A large amount of research conducted since the last National Research Council review in the mid-1990s bears on current and future efforts to establish the relative social values of competing objectives in the management of Grand Canyon resources (cf. Appendix F of this report. For an introductory discussion, see Callan and Thomas, 1996; see Hanley et al., 1997 for an intermediate treatment). Market costs and benefits are relatively easy to measure and track because they are captured by changes in prices and costs. The market component of costs and benefits is relatively uncontroversial and appears to have been accounted for adequately in the Center's work. The Center, however, does not have an economist who follows the literature on methodologies and applications concerning the valuation of "nonmarket" environmental goods. This may explain why, in Center documents, "economic" issues repeatedly devolve to a subset consisting primarily of hydropower costs and "regional economic impacts" in the form of revenues of recreational guides and outfitters.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Likely Effectiveness of the Strategic Plan The current Strategic Plan ignores all but a very restricted subset of the economic issues pertinent to Grand Canyon management and is thus unlikely to be ''effective." A small set of easy-to-measure economic quantities has been targeted for attention, but these do not constitute the full set of relevant economic quantities, nor necessarily the most appropriate ones.

In some cases, it is relatively easy to assign estimates of the costs of a management decision. Where a proposed change in management will affect the prices paid by consumers of hydroelectric power, for example, there are standard methods to determine the relevant social costs. These techniques are relatively straightforward and uncontroversial and can be estimated from observed historical market data. Also, these private cost estimates are likely to be available, because the relevant group of stakeholders is typically well organized and is adequately funded to conduct the research necessary to generate defensible cost information.

It is often much harder to generate equally defensible estimates of the social benefits associated with an environmental management decision. The only direct market information associated with conditions in the Grand Canyon ecosystem might involve estimates of the total revenues of guides and outfitters serving recreational users, along with some estimated number of local jobs attributable to the existence of these resources. Economic theory is, however, clear on the fact that revenues of collateral business activity do not represent a full measure of social value of the existence of the resource, let alone the change in social values associated with variations in the resource's condition. At best, regional economic activity effects are a measure of the distributional consequences of some change, not the overall benefits to society of that change. The correct measure, roughly speaking, is the excess of "willingness to pay" over what people actually pay to enjoy the ecological and recreational services of Grand Canyon resources. Shifts in demands for these resources as a result of changes in their management will alter this measure of social value.

Understanding the social benefits associated with improved ecological or recreational conditions in the Grand Canyon requires information about society's willingness to pay for enhancement of ecological conditions or for better recreational opportunities. The problem stems from the fact that, unlike the case for valuing hydropower market consequences, these things are not traded at explicit prices in traditional markets. Over the last two decades, the field of environmental

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

economics has greatly expanded, and a variety of methodologies designed to measure the social values associated with environmental services have been developed.

Weaknesses and Alternative Approaches

Grand Canyon management can be intuitively reduced to a set of decisions about how the Canyon's resources are to be allocated or reallocated. As mentioned above, gains and losses for any allocation decision must be compared. Weighing gains against losses across different groups of people requires that some common metric be chosen so that the units are comparable. Because losses (costs) are counted in dollars, it is common to try to convert gains (benefits) into dollar terms as well. It is not necessary to choose money as the metric, but because costs are usually in dollars, dollars are typically selected as the measure.

There is a natural tendency for many to want to avoid explicitly converting the gains into dollars, especially when environmental goods are involved. Unless this is done, however, explicitly or implicitly, the necessary weighing of gains and losses will involve comparing "apples and oranges." Decision-making is paralyzed until some such comparison is explicitly or implicitly made. At the point where some resource reallocation decision is finally made, it can be inferred that somebody has undertaken to make the conversion, even if only implicitly. It is generally preferable to force transparency upon the decision process by insisting that participants make explicit their assessments of benefits as well as costs.

In many decision-making contexts, including the present one, formal analysis seems to end with an inventory of probable effects of some proposed (or recent) change measured in different physical terms (e.g., a decrease of 10 percent in the population of humpback chub, an increase of 15 percent in the population of rainbow trout, and an increase of 3 percent in average annual electricity prices). It is then left to the ultimate decision-maker to infer which of these physical effects is a gain and which is a loss, who the winners and losers are, and by how much each winner or loser values these effects. These social benefit and cost calculations are typically done informally, without the support of sufficient quantitative research and in sharp contrast to the rigor with which many of the precipitating physical effects are measured.

What needs to be done, and what are the prospects for doing it

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

correctly? For stakeholders who actually use the Grand Canyon, the environmental valuation methods most relevant to Canyon management fall into categories that can be summarized as "travel cost methods" and "contingent valuation." Travel cost methods have a longer tradition. They can still, of course, be implemented badly. They do, however, rely on actual choices made by individuals from which one can infer their willingness to pay through observations of the costs individuals are willing to incur to gain access to the environmental goods in question. Contingent valuation or contingent behavior methods have been far more controversial and are suspected to be more subject to biases because of poor implementation. Information from these methods can be combined with travel cost method information, however, to provide a fuller picture of the choices stakeholders would be likely to make under a variety of both actual and proposed Grand Canyon conditions.

But contingent methods are sometimes the only valuation method that can be used, as in the case of attempting to value changes in the ecological services of a resource where individual values are not "use" values, but "nonuse" values. The overall social values of the ecological services of the Grand Canyon would probably have to be measured in this way by policy makers attempting to compare alternative resource reallocations. Environmental economists distinguish between existence, bequest, or option values for the preservation or enhancement of ecological functions associated with unique natural resources such as the Grand Canyon. These are types of nonuse or passive-use values. That these values are probably positive and substantial is implied by the Grand Canyon's designated status as a World Heritage Site. When nobody is observed to be incurring costs in order to "use'' these valuable ecological functions, however, the only recourse is to elicit from individuals, via a general population survey, information about how much they would be willing to pay if a market did exist. Hypothetical valuation exercises are fraught with an inventory of potential biases. Nevertheless, the literature on nonmarket valuation research has been growing in response to the need for estimates of nonmarket, nonuse values in so many contexts. Wetlands policies are an example where the valuation of ecological services has been an important issue (cf. Heimlich et al., 1998).

What are the realistic prospects for measuring everything that needs to be known for a thorough benefit—cost analysis of Grand Canyon management decisions? It would be prohibitively expensive to measure accurately every social benefit and cost associated with some particular

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

suite of physical changes in the Grand Canyon. But it is certainly important that stakeholders be informed about and account for the value imputations they have selected when making recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on dam-operation alternatives. Implicitly assigned valuations deserve as much scrutiny as the scientifically measured physical effects. Even the best physical measurements can lead to bad management decisions if the social values of these changes are assigned incorrectly. The Strategic Plan contains little discussion of how the Center plans to stay abreast of research on the valuation of nonmarket environmental goods, including both use and nonuse values. More importantly, there is little discussion of how the Center plans to use these valuation methods to monitor the social effects of dam operations.

In some nonmarket valuation contexts, a strategy called "benefits transfer" is highly desirable when feasible. This is a technique of finding other studies done on the values of similar environmental goods, under sufficiently similar conditions, to allow the approximate social values from these other studies to be transferred for use in the current context. Benefits transfer is not likely to be as useful in valuing Grand Canyon resources as it is, say, for valuing the reduction in social value from small oil spills. There have been many small oil spills; there is only one Grand Canyon. For unique resources like the Grand Canyon, benefits transfer is likely to be less fruitful.

In the absence of viable benefits transfer opportunities, it is important to consider the implications of limited budgets for future economic analysis. In the near term, the Center is unlikely to have the internal resources to undertake innovative original survey research to establish social values for different components of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. If future recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior require more precise knowledge about social estimates of environmental benefits than has been needed in the past, it may become necessary to raise funding for research to learn about these benefits. In-house expertise in the relevant environmental valuation methods is a prerequisite for ensuring that the necessary research is done correctly.

Information Technology Program

Figure 4.1 shows a simple model of the flow of data and information, and its role in decision-making in the context of adaptive

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Figure 4.1

A model of the data—information—decision-making cycle for the Grand Canyon (adapted from Rob and Coronel, 1997).

management of the Grand Canyon ecosystem. In this model, the Adaptive Management Work Group proposes actions. When the Secretary of the Interior takes an action, the system is monitored: data describing the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic system are collected. These data, when compared with "without action" data, produce information about changes to the ecosystem. This, in turn, provides a basis for judging the efficacy of the action taken, thus leading to further decision-making.

In this model, two "data sets" are equally important: the set that describes the system with the proposed actions taken, and the set that describes the system prior to the action. The Center's scientific programs are charged with monitoring the former and describing the latter, where it is not already done. The Center's Information Technology Program is charged with maintaining and distributing information about the latter

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

(which is, in fact, dynamic because of natural changes in the system).

The Information Technology Program is viewed properly as a support program at the Center rather than as a research or monitoring program. According to the fiscal year 2000 plan, this program's goal is "to satisfy the information needs of stakeholders, scientists, and the public relative to the Colorado River ecosystem." To fulfill this goal, three tasks are assigned to the Information Technology Program:

  1. Archiving and delivering scientific data and other information to stakeholders, scientists, and the public.

  2. Providing technology-based solutions to data collection, manipulation, and analysis.

  3. Providing support in areas of computers, surveying, and geographic information systems.

Task 1: Archiving and delivering scientific data and other information to stakeholders, scientists, and the public.

According to the Center, the Information Technology Program (ITP) "becomes involved with scientific investigations at the point of contract award, to provide relevant background literature, scientific and remotely sensed data, and survey and other spatial data. The researcher identifies to the ITP the type and attributes of. . .data they are collecting. . . When GCMRC [Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center] receives a deliverable from a researcher. . .the ITP reviews it. . .and incorporates it into the appropriate data system [from which it is] made available to stakeholders, researchers, and the public through delivery systems" (Center, 1998).

The Information Technology Program relies on three core technologies for data archiving and delivery:

  1. A database management system. A database is a shared, integrated computer structure in which raw facts (data) are filed, along with a description of the characteristics and relationships of the data (metadata). A database management system is a set of software programs that permit a user to manage the database structure, to file and selectively to retrieve data, and to control access to the data.

    The Center staff recognizes the value of data and the value of managing these data in a systematic fashion with modern database

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

management systems. They have selected the Oracle database management system as the tool for data management. Implementing this as an enterprisewide system will facilitate: (1) interpretation and presentation of the scientific data in useful formats, (2) distribution of data and information, (3) data preservation and use monitoring, and (4) control over data duplication, internally and externally. Current efforts include installing software, documenting installation, and designing and programming the database structure. Plans for fiscal year 1999 focus on inventorying available data and designing a system for filing these in a consistent electronic format within the Oracle system (implementation of the database management system was scheduled for December 1999 but was delayed because of staff turnover).

  1. A geographic information system (GIS). A geographic information system is a software system that integrates the capabilities of a database management system with the capabilities of drawing, drafting, mapping, and coordinate geometry packages. This permits the storage, selective retrieval, and manipulation of data that are spatially referenced, and presentation of the result of the retrieval and manipulation as maps.

    Glen Canyon Environmental Studies staff, and subsequently Center staff, recognized the value of the systematic archiving of spatial data and have undertaken work to provide staff, researchers, and stakeholders with GIS capabilities. The Information Technology Program has selected protocols for geographic data storage, and plans for fiscal year 2000 include developing tools for distributing the geographic information system on the Internet, integrating the geographic information system with the database management system, and incorporating data collected in fiscal year 1999.

  2. A library. The Center's library is a conventional facility in which books, reports, maps, photographs, and videos are stored and from which these materials are loaned to staff, scientists, and stakeholders. The Information Technology Program manages the library and is responsible for the acquisition and distribution of its holdings. Work is underway to establish policies for library material use and check-out; to catalog contents; to facilitate day-to-day operation; to provide electronic searching capabilities; and to provide more information electronically.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

Task 2: Providing technology-based solutions to data collection, manipulation, and analysis.

Scientific data collection, manipulation, and analyses required for Grand Canyon research and monitoring are, in many cases, accomplished best using modern technology. The Information Technology Program is charged with promoting in-house use of this technology. It is also charged with providing coaching and encouragement to stakeholders, outside scientists, and the public in effective use of the technology.

Information Technology Program staff have devoted significant efforts to investigation of remote sensing solutions to the data collection problems, as these solutions promise to provide a cost-effective means of resource monitoring, with minimum impact. The program proposes to allocate approximately 50 percent of its fiscal year 2000 budget to this remote sensing work. Activities will include: (1) evaluation of the utility of satellite and airborne imagery, global positioning systems, telemetry, hydroacoustics, and sonar, (2) acquisition of image-processing software, hardware, and consulting services necessary to make best use of the remotely sensed data, and (3) establishment of ground control for the remotely sensed data (through allocations for topographic and hydrographic surveys).

Other efforts at providing technology-based solutions are intertwined with the database management system and GIS activities that support archiving and delivering scientific data. For example, plans for GIS activities include developing an Internet map server. This relatively new technology will significantly improve the capability of the Center to distribute spatial data to stakeholders so that they can use the information for decision-making.

Task 3: Providing support in areas of computers, surveying, and geographic information systems.

The Information Technology Program supports office automation at the Center. This is a housekeeping task presumably assigned to the Information Technology Program, rather than to administrative staff, because of expertise of the Center's staff with the technology. The Center's system includes approximately 50 computers with various peripherals. The computers are linked within the Center via a local area network and to the world via the Internet.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

In addition to this administrative chore, the program provides survey support to researchers. This support includes establishing the location of physical, biological, and cultural features of the Grand Canyon, using global positioning systems, conventional topographic surveying tools, and hydrographic surveys. Products of the survey department include spatial data, which form the basis for various GIS coverage areas, and maps of features of interest. These products are produced for both staff and contractors.

The fiscal year 2000 plan identifies development of protocols for data collection, processing, and use as "areas of focus" for the Information Technology Program. This is critical, for data standards and protocols will ensure consistency in application of technology within the Center and by its contractors. This program has adopted the principles of the National Information Infrastructure, the National Biological Information Infrastructure, and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and it has promised to incorporate their guidelines and protocols into the overall database design and into delivery systems whenever possible. This is an important and positive contribution to data maintenance at the Center. As currently programmed, data standard and protocol development will continue through fiscal year 2000. Other support activities include efforts to provide stakeholders with direct access to selected data and information in the database management system and the GIS, and to assist stakeholders in utilizing data and models incorporated in the Information Technology Program.

Strengths

The roles of the Information Technology Program within the Center are appropriate: the program has not driven the science; it is designed to support it. Its activities are managed much like a business, with goals that can be clearly defined and with performance indicators that can be measured easier and sooner than indicators in the scientific program. The efforts of the Information Technology Program managers to coordinate site surveying in the Grand Canyon have been commendable. Without this, establishing the required geographic references could be chaotic.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Weaknesses and Alternative Approaches

This committee feels that with some modifications, this program could better serve the needs of the stakeholders, scientists, and public relative to the Colorado River ecosystem. These modifications include the following:

  1. Survey information users to determine information needs. The stated goal of the Information Technology Program is to "satisfy the information needs of stakeholders, scientists, and the public relative to the Colorado River ecosystem" (Center, 1998). These needs, however, have not been well defined. We thus feel that program staff can contribute significantly to the Center's progress by surveying information users, particularly stakeholders, to identify types of information necessary for informed decision-making and the form in which that information would best be presented. This survey may provide an additional benefit of helping better formulate the questions that are to be answered by the scientific research and monitoring programs.

  2. Assign a higher priority to data archiving. Since the earliest reviews of Grand Canyon scientific programs, the lack of archiving of data and results has been criticized. For example, in 1996, the National Research Council committee reviewing the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies wrote that, "Good work was performed and excellent data were collected, but there was little coordination among the different elements of the research team. . .each project remained essentially an independent entity. There was little coordination of results and little exchange of information among research teams" (NRC, 1996a, p. 74).

    This lack of coordination is a communication problem that technology cannot solve. But using technology to archive and distribute data and research results will make coordination easier. For example, if one is interested in studying the movement of cobbles in the river, one should be able to access measurements previously taken without some special "inside track" to locate these data. Researchers at Glen Canyon Environmental Studies reported that they worked with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to create metadata reports of all data collected. An electronic metadata form was distributed to all researchers. The goals were to document the data available and to provide a georeference through the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies GIS. To the extent that these metadata reports exist, however, they are not widely available. In fact, the

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

fiscal year 2000 plan notes that "extensive data and information currently exists in the GCMRC. . .potentially equal amounts. . .exist within museums, universities, state and Federal agencies, etc. However, much of this information has not been evaluated to assess the interrelationship of resource attributes and differing flow regimes" (Center, 1998).

Various plans lay out programs for information management tasks that may remedy the problem. For example, the 1998 Strategic Plan spells out advantages of using a common database management system. The Oracle system (a good choice) was selected as the enterprise data-warehousing tool, and a plan was developed for implementing the system over several years. But in the meantime, more data will be collected, more scientific research will be conducted, and the volume of data not yet archived will grow.

This committee believes that a carefully formulated strategic plan for database development and management is important. But being correct is of little consequence if the results are too late to influence the decision-making. The delays in database design and implementation put this effort at risk of being too late. The committee thus urges either: (1) adoption of an interim solution that will use available database management tools to make more information available while design and implementation of the enterprise data-warehousing system proceeds, or (2) acceleration of the warehouse development.

We endorse the plan to continue requiring that contributor data be provided in appropriate electronic format. This will expedite data-warehousing and will minimize the risk that newly collected data and results will not be available in a timely fashion to researchers and stakeholders.

According to discussions with this committee, the condition of the Center's library has deteriorated following the transition from Glen Canyon Environmental Studies to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. Acquisitions have not been cataloged properly, and loan and recovery of materials have not been monitored carefully. A strategic plan for restoration was developed in October 1998, and a student was employed to assist with this effort. We recommend that this restoration be given higher priority. While much of the academic community is "plugged in" to the Internet and can take advantage of electronic distribution, some stakeholders and large segments of the public cannot. For this group, the documents, photographs, slides, videotapes, and other materials held in the Center's library are critical sources of information.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
  1. Expand and accelerate data and information delivery via the World Wide Web. The Information Technology Program staff have articulated well the problem that they face: "Bring together years of disparate historical data collected by multiple entities located in databases across the southwest in an organized fashion and then deliver it transparently to an equally disparate group of stakeholders for decision making and modeling purposes" (Center, 1998, p. 77–78).

    The Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, provides a partial solution to this problem. Center staff and the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation realize this. The main Center Web site (http://www.gcmrc.gov) currently provides information about activities of the Adaptive Management Work Group, the Technical Work Group, and the Center. It permits visitors to download various documents. For example, minutes of the meetings of the Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group commonly are available. The site also provides access to the annual and long-term monitoring and research plans. Furthermore, the conceptual model (described elsewhere in this report) and accompanying documentation are available for downloading through this site. Recent efforts have presented data (at least a graphical representation of the data), through graphics and animation, of Lake Powell conductivity (see http://www.usbr.gov/gces/pleth.htm on the World Wide Web). Links between the Center and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Adaptive management Program Web pages could be more clearly and closely organized.

    The Information Technology Program staff have proposed plans for broader World Wide Web distribution of data from the data warehouse and from the geographic information system, an effort this committee applauds. We feel that much could be done, however, while planning continues. Some relatively quick and inexpensive measures would permit the Information Technology Program to make strides toward satisfying the information needs of stakeholders, scientists, and the public. An example of such an interim solution is the Lake Tahoe data clearinghouse Web site (http://blt.wr.usgs.gov/tahoe/GIS.html#other). This site provides links to databases of several participating federal, state, and local agencies, universities, and tribes. From these sources, a user can retrieve, for example, geographic information system data. In some cases, the link is to a file transfer protocol (FTP) server, such as that at http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/doc/edchome/ndcdb/ndcdb.html. No sophisticated Web interface exists there, and the querying features are limited to "click here if this

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

is what you need.'' Current data can nevertheless be retrieved in common GIS formats, and with these researchers and stakeholders have access to the information critical for decision-making.

  1. Anticipate and plan for development of a computerized decision support system. As described elsewhere in this report, work underway at the Center will contribute to further development of the Grand Canyon ecosystem model. When complete, this conceptual model will provide stakeholders, scientists, and the public with an important opportunity: when used in the context of decision support systems, this model will provide important information for the Adaptive Management Program.

    We believe that the Center's Information Technology Program can play a significant role in ensuring that the conceptual model will be a useful tool for scientific investigation, and in promoting the use of the model as a decision support system within the larger Adaptive Management Program. To do this, priorities in the Information Technology Program must be revised to permit staff to interact with the model developers, and to participate in the design and programming to establish data connectivity with the Oracle database management system and the Center's GIS. Current priorities do not permit this. As of early 1999, the database administrator-developer position was vacant and had been vacant for several months. Meanwhile, development of the conceptual model was proceeding quickly, with a projected completion date of March 31, 1999. Opportunities for early coordination of modelers and database developers were thus lost.

    Fortunately, the developers of the conceptual model used Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 as the development tool. Thus, subsequent modifications to the conceptual model by the developers, by the Information Technology Program staff, or by others would be relatively straight-forward. Oracle Corporation provides Oracle Objects for OLE, a development tool that delivers Oracle database access from Visual Basic, using OLE2 technology. Microsoft provides similar access through ActiveX Data Objects. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., provides similar tools for filing, retrieving, and displaying geographic data with Visual Basic applications. With sufficient resources, these applications can be used to provide the conceptual model with access to the Center's databases as the source of state information.

  2. Manage computer-system administration independently of the other Information Technology Program activities. The Information Tech-

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×

nology Program staff has recognized that proper system configuration, maintenance, and repair comes at a high cost and has recommended that sources outside the Center administer much of this work. This is possible because such system administration requires no familiarity with specifics of scientific programs. This shift of responsibilities from the staff to a vendor, or to system administrators in the U.S. Geological Survey or the Bureau of Reclamation, will free staff for other duties. In turn, they can concentrate on more important activities that demand familiarity with the Grand Canyon scientific programs.

Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"4 Ecosystem Monitoring and Science." National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9590.
×
Page 124
Next: 5 Organization and Resources »
Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $94.00 Buy Ebook | $74.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center began long-term planning at its inception and, in May 1997, produced a Long-Term Monitoring and Research Strategic Plan that was adopted by stakeholder groups (the Adaptive Management Work Group and the Technical Work Group) later that year. The Center then requested the National Research Council's (NRC) Water Science and Technology Board to evaluate this plan.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!