|
<br />
<br />I.
<br />
<br />~fr; .;',,~-,
<br />
<br />146
<br />
<br />[Vol. 15
<br />
<br />147
<br />
<br />1994J ,.
<br />
<br />PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW _
<br />
<br />GRAND CANYON PROTECTION ACT
<br />
<br />flannelmouth and razorback suckers. 7lI Even before Glen Canyon Dam was
<br />completed, non-native carp and catfish had largely replaced these spe-,
<br />cies.'77 Now dam-induced changes in sections of the Colorado River have
<br />created an environment that fosters trout growth. Even so, the trout
<br />population is not completely self-sustaining, and stocking is necessary to
<br />keep up with the annual harvest.'76
<br />In the future, the native versus non-native species debate will continue
<br />to grow as an issue for resource managers. The Endangered Species Act
<br />(ESA) provides the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the authority to
<br />suggest a reasonable and prudent alternative to any federal action which
<br />may jeopardize an endangered species.79 The humpback chub, found in
<br />both the Colorado River and its tributary, the Little Colorado, has been
<br />listed as endangered since 1967. Thus, any future management decisions
<br />on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam will have to take into account
<br />possible effects on the humpback chub.80
<br />Compiling evidence of the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on the
<br />downstream environment provides a starting point for sound scientific
<br />inquiry. After reviewing the GCES report in 1987, DOl decided that
<br />additional data were needed on the relationships between the fluctuating
<br />flows and endangered species, the trout fishery, and sediment deposits.S! In
<br />addition, the GeES program needed to look at potential economic impacts
<br />that would result from operational changes.82
<br />
<br />3. GeES II and the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
<br />
<br />Phase II of the GeES began in 1988 and was estimated to last five
<br />years. In July 1989, in the wake of public pressure, Secretary of the Interior
<br />Manuel Lujan directed that an environmental impact statement (EIS) on
<br />dam operations be completed.83 The goal of the EIS is to assess alternative
<br />methods of operating (or not operating) the dam that may mitigate its
<br />adverseeffects.84 Unlike the GeES program, an EIS requires data, beyond
<br />that strictly related to the ecosystem itself. In addition to new studies on
<br />fish and wildlife, especially endangered species, DOl is conducting studies
<br />of cultural and archeological resources.35 This e~panded approach re-
<br />quires extensive coordination with Native Americans.
<br />In 1991, public concern over damage to the Grand Canyon again
<br />brought pressure on Secretary Lujan, who responded by ordering operat-
<br />ing cri~eria that ",ouId grotect d,ownriver res~urces l!ntil completion,of the
<br />EIS.' Th~ (;riteria~'we,re 'imp{(;mehted: 'on ~November 1, 1991 and, provided
<br />the following guidelines: (I) releases through the dam are to be limited to
<br />20,000 cfs unless increases are necessary to avoid anticipated spills; (2)
<br />minimum flows are to be 8,000 cfs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
<br />and 5,000 cfs at night; (3) daily fluctuations are limited to 5,000, 6,000, or
<br />8,000 cfs, depending on monthly release volumes; and (4) ascending and
<br />descending ramping rates are to belimited to 2,500 and 1,500 cfs per hour
<br />'respectively.86
<br />These restrictions caused an uproar from power interests in the West.
<br />Western, claiming that cutbacks in its peak power-producing capability
<br />would force it to pay a premium to private utilities to replace the lost
<br />capacity, convinced DOl to issue "exception criteria," which modify the
<br />interim flow requirements.87 The criteria allow Western to exceed the
<br />specified maximum flows to respond to power system disturbances, to
<br />regulate the power system, and to avoid the expense of purchasing
<br />replacement power if capacity is available from Glen Canyon (a maximum
<br />of twenty. two hours during anyone month).88 The exceptions provided a
<br />window through which Western can use the hydroelectric plantas it always
<br />has and shows the strength of utility interests in influencing operations at
<br />
<br />76. CAROTHERS & BROWN, supra note 29. al 83.
<br />77. Id.Theprincipalfactorsintbedtl;lineofnativespeciesintheCanyonaretheintroductionof
<br />non-native predators and revolutionary habitat changes that started with theconstrllction of Hoovcr
<br />Dam. Id. at 81.82.
<br />78. Id. at 90. TrolltreprodllctioninthevicinityofthedamhasgenerallybeenunsuccessfuI.
<br />Daily lIuctuations in tbe level of the river negativelyalrect reprodllc tionattemptsbecausetroutbuild
<br />theirnestsingravelbarsinsballowareasthatbecomee;o;posedwhentheriver level falls in proportion to
<br />thedecrease in powerdemand.Id. A recent report indicates, bowever. that natural spawning has been
<br />helped by the implementation of interim lIows. GCES researchers and the Arizona Game and Fish
<br />Department have observed significant numbers of unstoc!::ed fry and fingerling fish in the Lees Ferry
<br />sampling area. Dave Wegner. Slatus of Interim Flows. COLO. RIVER STUDtES OffiCE NEWSLETTER
<br />(Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City. Utah), Spring 1993. at 8.
<br />79. 16 U.s.C. U 1536(a)(2). (b)(3)(A). See also Steven W. Carothers. EIS Update-Drafl
<br />Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. COLO. RIVERS STUDIES OrnCE
<br />NEWSLETTER (Bureau of Reclamation. Salt Lake Chy, Utah). Fall 1993. at 3.
<br />80. BURE....U OF RECLAM....TION. SUMMARY; OPERATION OF GLEN C....NYON DAM-DR....FT
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMP....CT STATEMENT 12 (Jan. 6. 1994) [hereinafter SUMM....RY DR....fT EISJ. In
<br />addition ta the humpback chub. the ra:zarbacksucker is listed as endang ered.butisrareinthearea
<br />immediately affected by the dam. Thellannelrnolltb suckerisacandidate far listing under the ESAbut
<br />is'relatively abundant and reproduces in several tributaries.ld. at 49.
<br />8!. GCES COMMITTEE, supra note 8. at 230-31.
<br />82. Id.
<br />
<br />83. EIS. supra note 6. at 231. In his 1989 news release announcing tbe EIS.Secretary Lujan
<br />stated: "It is time to gather the facts about this issue, to give all interest ed parties a chance tocxplain
<br />their positions and to do so in full view of the American people." Id. at 2.
<br />84. GCES COMMITTEE. supra note 8. at 231.
<br />85. Id.
<br />86. Interim Optraling Criteria Implemen/ed.- COLO. RtVER STUDIES OrnCE NEWSLETTER
<br />(Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City. Utah). Jan. 1992, at I [hereinafter Criteria Implemented!.
<br />87. Interasency Agreemenl Between the Bureau, ofRecJamatioD and the Weslern Area Power
<br />Administration (Oct. 21. 1991) (an file with author). -
<br />88. Criteria Implemenud, supra nate 86, at 3.
<br />
<br />,
<br />------------
<br />
<br />~,~\fi
<br />
<br />\.
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I,
<br />)1
<br />;t~ '
<br />'l"
<br />,:'1
<br />,-',
<br />
<br />\!
<br />..
<br />
<br />J
<br />'.,'1 :
<br />"{
<br />('I
<br />,,'
<br />~~, I
<br />~,
<br />, :-;J~
<br />~\'4 '
<br />}.,~,
<br />,)! I
<br />:,:,:
<br />:{:~~
<br />
<br />l
<br />
<br />...it;,,;
<br />,X,
<br />j,!"
<br />:,:~,,;
<br />'t,
<br />~~rl
<br />,j~~1
<br />;~#:.l
<br />
<br />
<br />I' q'
<br />.,;;'
<br />
|