Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

10 INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON THE GLEN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Pages 186-208

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 186...
... The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) were strongly affected by the institutional environment within which they developed and operated.
From page 187...
... For example, when contemplating scientific experimentation with releases from Glen Canyon Dam, regional administrators naturally were most concerned with the effects of operational changes on regional power marketing PAPA, 1990~. If decisions had been made at a higher level within the BOR, other considerations of broader significance could have come into play more strongly, such as the national significance of the Grand Canyon and the importance of GCES as a prototype research effort that might be necessary in other locations for other large dams operated by the bureau.
From page 188...
... 188 River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon Secretary of the Interior Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation I Safety Office Regional Director, Upper Colorado River Basin Public | Affairs I Equal Employment Opportunity Office Assistant Regional Director Information Resource Division l Property l . Design Planning Construction Assistant Assistant Regional Regional Dirt ctor Director Contracts L Water and Land 1 Personnel Power l ~ 1 1 Colorado River Studies Office Glen Canyon Environmental Studies FIGURE 10.1 General organizational chart showing the bureaucratic position of GOES in the BOR and Department of the Interior.
From page 189...
... Wegner, Bureau of Reclamation. Wildlife Service, were included in the research, their interests were initially secondary.
From page 190...
... While the Trinity and Gunnison rivers and their canyons are smaller landscape features than Grand Canyon, the strong similarities in research questions and the use of experimental flows argue for substantial interchange of information and ideas. INTERAGENCY CONFLICT IN THE EVOLUTION OF GCES During the 13 years of GCES research, conflicts developed between the BOR and the National Park Service (NPS)
From page 191...
... GCES was charged with investigating the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on native fishes, particularly the humpback chub. Through several years early in GCES, the BOR's contractors collected data about the fishes and began formulating conclusions (e.g., Kubly, 1990~.
From page 192...
... At a symposium held in Santa Fe in 1990 on the state of knowledge for the Grand Canyon environment, the NRC committee was especially critical of the BOR's exclusive policy regarding cooperators on the environmental impact statement. Eventually, the bureau included as cooperators all the interested parties in an effort to build a consensus for a preferred alternative.
From page 193...
... The WAPA, as the federal agency marketing hydroelectric power from Glen Canyon Dam, and the BOR, as the agency using hydroelectric power revenues from the dam to repay costs, have had a direct interest in scientific research in the canyon because the conduct and outcomes of the research might affect future dam operations PAPA, 1990~. The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA)
From page 194...
... WAPA and CREDA's members were naturally opposed to adjusting dam operations for research purposes, even in the short term, because researchers wanted flows that reduced the value of Glen Canyon Dam electrical output. Through a year-long series of negotiations by GCES managers, the regional BOR office, and WAPA, a plan for research flows was agreed on.
From page 195...
... In order to obtain critical gauge data, however, the GCES budget shouldered the cost for maintaining gauges on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. Thus, instead of GCES simply supporting additional needed research on using and interpreting the data, it paid for the initial collection.
From page 196...
... Goal substitution also occurred within the BOR when the need for an EIS was announced. As the best source of information about the Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River, GCES managers and researchers immediately became involved in the preparation of the EIS.
From page 197...
... This review effort by the NRC was partly the result of a need for credibility as the BOR presented its conclusions to the public and to other components of the federal and state governments. When the NRC's Committee to Review the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies gave GCES research products decidedly mixed reviews (NRC, 1987)
From page 198...
... For example, the committee strongly urged GCES to take into account nonuse values in its calculations regarding the economics of power generation by Glen Canyon Dam. GCES was slow to include such approaches in its work, and this engenclered sharply negative responses from the committee.
From page 199...
... GCES received its funding from power revenues generated bythe operation of Glen Canyon Dam through the regional office of the BOR in Salt Lake City. The level of funding made available to GCES was therefore a function of the internal priorities of the re
From page 200...
... During GCES Phase 1, most of the research was determined by the need to understand the Grand Canyon environment. Funding for Phase 11 research was much higher than for the earlier work (Figure 10.3)
From page 201...
... When numerous archeological sees appeared to be endangered by dam operations in the canyon, laws related to the preservation of antiquities came into play that demanded some expenditure of funds to assess the sites. When the Department of the Interior decided to produce an EIS and use the GCES framework for the funding of supporting research, the diversion of funds from standard scientific research to marinated research became even more pronounced, especially with regard to endangered native fishes.
From page 202...
... 1 995 FIGURE 10.4 Portion of GCES annual budget allotted directly to GCES science and to mandated research required by other laws or customs. SOURCE: From data provided by D
From page 203...
... GCES managers learned a great deal from the failure to plan adequately for the flood, and in subsequent work they adopted innovative plans forthe research that not only allowed them to accommodate radical changes in discharge but that actually called for such changes. Researchers adjusted their own work to the timing of the natural processes and, more importantly, to those processes controlled by experimental releases of water from the dam (Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 1992~.
From page 204...
... It was only with the acivent of the long-term monitoring plan, mandated by the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, that planning horizons expanded to more realistic proportions. FUTURE INSTITUTIONS The Department of Interior is now considering the formation of a research center, based in Flagstaff, to house the administrative entity that will conduct the long-term monitoring program and research associated with Glen Canyon Dam and its operation.
From page 205...
... 9. Final integration of projects such as GCES research should be an integral part of the research plan.
From page 206...
... 1992. Letterto Sheila David, Program Officer, NRC Committeeto Review Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, February 10, from Clifford Barrett, Executive Director, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association.
From page 207...
... 1987. External threats: the dilemma of resource management on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, USA.
From page 208...
... 1990. Aggradation and Degradation of Alluvial Sand Deposits, 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.