Programs and Communities

ABSTRACT: This study assesses the impact of Glen Canyon Dam releases on rafting (white-water boating and day-use rafters) and angling recreationists in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park using attribute and contingent valuation surveys. Several sources of information were utilized in this study: knowledgeable people (fishing quides, rafting guides, resource managers, and GCES researchers), seven formal surveys (including attribute surveys), and contingent valuation survey to quantify, in dollars, the effects of dam releases on the recreational exoerience. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of alternative annual flow release patterns for Glen Canyon Dam on recreationists in the aggregate. Flow regimes combining high constant flows in the summer months with moderate or low flows during the remainder of the year would be likely to produce the largest recreational benefits. Extreme high or low flows will adversely affect all river recreation, with flows below approximately 5,000 cubic feet per second and above 35,000 cubic feet oer second to both boaters and anglers.

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and Argonne National Laboratory, completed a decision analysis to use in the evaluation of alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement concerning the long-term management of water releases from Glen Canyon Dam and associated management activities. Two primary decision analysis methods, multicriteria decision analysis and the expected value of information, were used to evaluate the alternative strategies against the resource goals and to evaluate the influence of uncertainty.

A total of 18 performance metrics associated with 8 out of 12 resource goals (fundamental objectives) were developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service in partnership with subject-matter teams composed of Federal, State, tribal, and private experts. A total of 19 long-term strategies associated with 7 alternatives were developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, and Cooperating Agencies. The 19 long-term strategies were evaluated against the 18 performance metrics using a series of coupled simulation models, taking into account the effects of several important sources of uncertainty. A total of 27 Federal, State, tribal, and nongovernmental agencies were invited by the Assistant Secretary of Interior to participate in a swing-weighting exercise to understand the range of perspectives about how to place relative value on the resource goals and performance metrics; 14 of the 27 chose to participate. The results of the swing-weighting exercise were combined with the evaluation of the alternatives to complete a multicriteria decision analysis. The effects of uncertainty on the ranking of long-term strategies were evaluated through calculation of the value of information.

The alternatives and their long-term strategies differed across performance metrics, producing unavoidable tradeoffs; thus, there was no long-term strategy that was dominated by another across all performance metrics. When the performance of each alternative was weighted across performance metrics, three alternatives (B, D, and G) were top-ranked depending on the set of weights proposed: Alternative B was favored by those stakeholders that placed a high value on hydropower; Alternative G was favored by those stakeholders that placed a high value on the restoration of natural processes, like beachbuilding and natural vegetation; and Alternative D was favored by the remaining stakeholders. Surprisingly, these rankings were not sensitive to the critical uncertainties that were evaluated; that is, the choice of a preferred long-term strategy was sensitive to the value-based judgment about how to place relative weight on the resource goals but was not sensitive to the uncertainties in the system dynamics that were evaluated in this analysis. The one area of uncertainty that did slightly affect the ranking of alternatives was the long-term pattern of hydrological input; because of this sensitivity, some attention to the possible effects of climate change is warranted.

The results of the decision analysis are meant to serve as only one of many sources of information that can be used to evaluate the alternatives proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement. These results only focus on those resource goals for which quantitative performance metrics could be formulated and evaluated; there are other important aspects of the resource goals that also need to be considered. Not all the stakeholders who were invited to participate in the decision analysis chose to do so; thus, the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and U.S. Department of Interior may want to consider other input.

Federal advisory committees — which may also be designated as commissions, councils, or task forces — are created as provisional advisory bodies that can circumvent bureaucratic constraints to collect a variety of viewpoints on specific policy issues. Advisory bodies have been created to address a host of issues, ranging from policies on organ donation to the design and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security. These committees are often created to help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues. Such committees may be mandated to render independent advice or make recommendations to various bodies within the federal government by congressional statute, created by presidential executive order, or required by fiat of an agency head.

Congress formally acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpoints from business, academic, governmental, and other interests when it passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix — Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86 Stat.770, as amended). Enactment of FACA was prompted by the belief of many citizens and Members of Congress that such committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate control or oversight. Additionally, some citizens believed the committees failed to sufficiently represent the public interest — an opinion punctuated by the closed-door meeting policies of many committees. FACA mandated certain structural and operational requirements for many federal committees, including formal reporting and oversight procedures for the advisory bodies. FACA requires that committee membership be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented,” and advice provided by committees be objective and accessible to the public. Additionally, FACA requires nearly all committee meetings be open to the public. Pursuant to statute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administers management guidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2008, GSA reported a total of 917 active committees with nearly 64,000 total members that provided advice and recommendations to 50 federal agencies. The total operating costs for these committees in FY2008 was $344.3 million. Agency administrators, the President, and Congress continue to create federal advisory committees in the 111th Congress.

Committees that fit certain FACA criteria and are created by the executive branch are governed by FACA guidelines. FACA was designed to eliminate duplication of committee expertise and make advisory bodies in the executive branch more transparent. Congress may decide, however, to place FACA requirements on a body that it statutorily created. Existing statutes are sometimes unclear as to whether a congressionally created committee would have to comply with FACA requirements — except in cases when the statute explicitly mandates FACA’s applicability.

Legislation (H.R. 1320) was reintroduced in the 111th Congress that would require members of advisory committees be selected without regard to their partisan affiliation. Also pursuant to the legislation, executive branch agency heads would be authorized to require members serving on agency advisory committees to fully disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, GSA’s Administrator would be given authority to create regulations and guidelines to further ensure that an advisory committee offered impartial advice and recommendations. The bill would also require each advisory committee to create a website, publish advance notice of meetings, and provide public access to proceedings on its website. The bill was sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and ordered to be reported from the committee on March 10, 2009. Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 5687), but was not enacted.