The heart of Glen Canyon is in the Colorado River corridor below its confluence with the Green River, where it joins the San Juan, Escalante, and Dirty Devil Rivers. But the ecosystem of Greater Glen Canyon expands well beyond, connecting hundreds of square miles of tributaries and canyons that feed into the main river system, as well as regions downstream, such as the Grand Canyon.

Grand Canyon

Drastic change in water quality has harmed ecosystems, native plant, and endangered wildlife species.

The Necessity of Sediment

The Colorado River historically carried an average of 275,000 tons of sediment through the Grand Canyon every day. Combined with huge spring floods and dynamic flow patterns, this nutrient-rich sediment helped to replenish beaches, sandbars, and other natural aquatichabitats for fish and wildlife in the area. Glen Canyon Dam now blocks 95% of this crucial sediment, preventing nutrient delivery and quickly deteriorating sediment levels within the Canyon.

Saving the Grand Canyon… Once Again

Shortly after Glen Canyon Dam was authorized by Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation announced plans to build two giant dams in the Grand Canyon that would flood this gem of the National Park System. Having realized too late the unbearable sacrifice of Glen Canyon, public opposition swelled and soundly defeated the Grand Canyon dams. Forty years later, we have learned that the Grand Canyon is in peril once again. Starving for a free-flowing Colorado River, the fragile ecosystem of the Grand Canyon is in need of public support once again.

On a visit to the Grand Canyon in 1903, Teddy Roosevelt spoke to a group of bystanders, insisting that protecting the Grand Canyon was a basic duty of the American people. Expressing his concern, he said, “Keep this great wonder of nature as it is. Do nothing to mar its grandeur, for the ages have been at work upon it. Keep it for your children, your children’s children, and all who come after you.”

Sadly, in 1963, Roosevelt’s warning was officially ignored with the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, twelve miles above Lee’s Ferry and Marble Canyon. The warm, sediment-laden natural flow cycle of the Colorado River was impounded by the massive 710-foot dam, and cold, clear, regulated flows were released into the Grand Canyon. This drastic change in water quality has damaged the Colorado River ecosystem, endangered many native plant and wildlife species, and reduced sediment levels necessary to the survival of the Canyon.

Cold Clear Water in the Desert?

Water released from Powell Reservoir is released from the bottom of the dam, causing the water to be unnaturally cold. River temperatures that used to range from 35-85 degrees annually are now a steady 46 degrees year round. Native fish species have difficulty spawning in the cold water, which has caused drastic reductions in fish populations. Following dam construction, non-native species were introduced to the Canyon. These species thrive in cold clear water rivers, increasing competition and predation of native species.

Endangered Species

The Colorado Pikeminnow, and the Bonytail Chub, fish species native to the Grand Canyon, have been completely wiped out because of Glen Canyon Dam. The Humpback Chub and the Razorback Sucker are currently listed as Endangered Species and are at risk of similar consequences. In fact, despite efforts to alter flows from the dam to better mimic a natural flowing river, only about 1100 adult Humpback Chub remain in the Colorado River. In less than forty years, the cold, clear water from Glen Canyon Dam has done untold damage, causing the extirpation of rare native fish and other wildlife in the Grand Canyon. With shrinking populations, these endangered species face a grim future unless the natural flows of the Colorado River are restored.

Growing Public Support for the Grand Canyon

Shortly after Glen Canyon Dam was completed, the negative downstream impacts became apparent and over the next thirty years, as the health of the fragile ecosystem declined, public concern over the health of the Grand Canyon steadily grew. In 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated a science-gathering program called Glen Canyon Environmental Studies to measure the impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on the Grand Canyon Ecosystem. In 1989, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam was announced. Under the Bureau of Reclamation’s direction, the EIS considered a specific assortment of dam release options, excluding the option of decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam. The Bureau of Reclamation was slow to begin work on the EIS until the United States Congress stepped in and ordered the timely completion of the study by passing the Grand Canyon Protection Act.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992

Signed into law in 1992, the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to take decisive action in order to protect and preserve the Grand Canyon ecosystem. It specifically reads, “The Secretary shall operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 and exercise other authorities under existing law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” In essence, Glen Canyon Dam is to be operated in such a way that the health of the Grand Canyon ecosystem would take priority over other initiatives, such as maximizing hydropower generation. The Act also required the ongoing operational EIS to be completed in a timely manner. Despite the clear mandate, action taken by the Bureau of Reclamation has fallen far short of fulfilling the congressional intent of the Act.

The Artificial Flood of ’96

Shortly before the completion of the EIS in 1996, Secretary Bruce Babbitt authorized an artificial flood in the Grand Canyon to help rebuild beaches and habitats that had been scoured away by the clear water releases from the dam. In an attempt to mitigate the damage to the Grand Canyon, the Bureau of Reclamation released an artificial flood designed to mimic the high flows of former spring runoffs. While the flood temporarily restored beaches and improved backwater habitat, less than a year later, the beaches and new habitat were gone–eaten away by the clear sediment-hungry water.

Completion of the EIS and the Adaptive Management Program and the Grand Canyon Crisis

The EIS was completed shortly after the flood of ’96 and a Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) was recommended for dam operations. To measure the effects of the new operational guidelines of the dam, the Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was also initiated to ensure that the protection mandate of the Grand Canyon Protection Act was fulfilled. Consisting of various stakeholders in the Grand Canyon (including the traditional water and power interests, relevant government agencies, the affected tribes, and recreation and environmental representatives), the Adaptive Management Workgroup (AMWG) makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on how to operate the dam based upon scientific evidence. While appearing structurally sound, the consensus-building AMP process has been fraught with difficulties since it began in 1997.

AMWG has essentially become ineffective in solving the Grand Canyon’s growing problems while costing taxpayers upwards of $10 million annually. Two major baseline resources in the canyon (sediment and native fish) have been steadily monitored and have each demonstrated downward trends. Endangered native fish populations, (namely the Humpack Chub), have dropped from 5000 to 1100 since the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Of the few “band-aid” approaches attempted by the AMP to keep the precious sediment in the system, none have succeeded in the long term.

While some traditional stakeholders in AMWG work to stall progress in the canyon by proposing these “band-aid” solutions, the health of this biological gem is steadily deteriorating and endangered species populations continue to decline. The Bureau of Reclamation has studied many different options for operating the dam that would prevent further harm to the Grand Canyon., So far, they have been unsuccessful. The environmental studies in the Grand Canyon, costing more than $100 million taxpayer dollars since inception, have provided conclusive evidence that Glen Canyon Dam is the major source of environmental problems in the Grand Canyon. The only real solution for the declining health of the Grand Canyon is a free-flowing Colorado River.

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante

Two of the most important segments of Greater Glen Canyon are the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, lying directly to the east and west of Glen Canyon, respectively.

These National Monuments are especially important to those who care about the health of the Colorado River ecosystem. They contain much of the Glen Canyon watershed, so the air and water quality, wildlife habitats, scenery, and wilderness of these lands are critical to the integrity of Glen Canyon itself. Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments are essential to keeping these values intact.

In December 2017, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation reducing Bears Ears National Monument by 85%, and Grand Staircase-Escalante by 50%. This unprecedented and likely illegal action by the president was made with the clear intent of opening up the region to increased coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium extraction. These two national monuments, in their full, original size encompassing 3,232,310 acres, are crucial to the protection of the access, ecology, and watershed of Glen Canyon and the Colorado River. Shrinking and opening these monuments to exploitation is an attack on the integrity of the Greater Glen Canyon ecosystem.

Background

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was established in 1996 by president Bill Clinton using the authority of the Antiquities Act. In its original size, the monument encompassed 1.8 million acres of land, bordering the east side of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The region is home to some of the most remote land in the United States, and some of the most important archeological and paleontological sites in the country. It’s been called “Dinosaur Shangi-La” for its large volume of fossils from the Cretaceous period, which are rarely found in such well-preserved form. The monument was home to over 20,000 archeological sites, as well as hundreds of species of plants and animals.

A segment of dinosaur bone embedded in sandstone – Photo by Cory Richards, National Geographic

Once an expansive national monument spanning from the Escalante River drainage in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, to the Kaiparowits Plateau, to the boundaries of Bryce Canyon and Capitol Reef National Parks, the “new” monument boundaries have been shrunken to three small, scattered units. The BLM is quickly pushing to draft management plans before the end of the year, with only a few meetings in nearby towns. The 1996 monument plan involved 17 meetings across several states, and took over 3 years.

Bears Ears National Monument was designated by President Barack Obama in 2016. The 1.4 million acre monument designation was a smaller version of a 1.9 million acre monument originally proposed by the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. The designation of Bears Ears National Monument came only after many decades of work by these tribes Native American Tribes and conservation groups. In the 21st century, some of these lands have been proposed as an expansion of Canyonlands National Park, as a part of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument, and as a Cedar Mesa national monument or conservation area. All of these proposals were thwarted by the opposition of entrenched resource development and anti-public land interests.

In 2013, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, announced his Public Lands Initiative (PLI). The PLI was supposed to bring diverse “stakeholders” together in a “grand bargain” that would determine the future of the public lands of the region. Several years of meetings were held with county commissioners, fossil fuel and mining industries, ranchers, tribes, and conservation groups. However, the final proposal released in 2016 would have opened the vast majority of the region to resource extraction, industrial exploitation, off-road motorized recreation, and other destructive uses.

Not surprisingly, this plan was almost universally rejected by protection advocates. The deal was also opposed by anti-environmental interests, which could not accept even the small, scattered, and poorly protected “conservation” areas in the PLI. A bill to authorize the PLI was introduced in Congress in 2016, but it did not pass and has not yet been reintroduced in the current Congress.

The advocates of Bears Ears National Monument took a different approach than past protection efforts.This proposal was developed by the Bears Ears Inter­-Tribal Coalition, which includes representatives of the Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray and Zuni Tribe, in collaboration with conservationists, businesses, and other constituencies. It envisioned management of the area as a cooperative effort between the federal land agencies and the tribes, which would strengthen protection for the area while honoring and providing for Native American traditions.

The Bears Ears proposal immediately met with strong opposition from the same interests that obstructed past protection efforts. This time, however, advocates did an excellent job of generating broad public awareness and support across Utah and the country. This convinced President Obama to designate the Bears Ears monument, despite the aggressive opposition.

While the creation of these monuments didn’t occur until recent decades, the idea dates back to 1936 when then Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes, proposed the 6,968 square mile “Escalante National Monument”. This vast monument would have encompassed all of Glen Canyon, the Green and Colorado Rivers above their confluence, Cataract Canyon, the San Juan River, and large portions of what later became Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments. The proposal met opposition from Utah lawmakers, and was altered to be a less-protected National Recreation Area. Even that proposal failed to make it out of committee in Congress, and was ultimately forgotten as World War II began.

Threats

Energy Development

While Utah policy makers have repeatedly claimed the fight against the monuments wasn’t about mineral extraction, exposed email threads now show that oil, gas, coal, and uranium extraction was always a driving factor. Several contentious areas in the original 1.9-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument proposal were deleted by President Obama to try to appease monument opponents. This includes areas that were left unprotected in Bishop’s PLI plan, such as the Abajo Mountains, Allen Canyon, Black Mesa, Wingate Mesa, Nokai Dome, and the Deneros Uranium Mine — which is poised to expand its toxic footprint tenfold. As of March 1, 2018 the BLM has permitted expansion for these mines.

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is at a greater risk for mineral extraction on a wider scale. Much of the monument sits on top of the Kaiparowits Plateau coal deposits, one of the largest in the country. The redrawn monument borders omit the plateau, allowing access to this coal layer and reopening a battle that conservationists fought back in the 1990s.

Watershed

Downgrading Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante has put the Greater Glen Canyon watershed at serious risk. Many of the drainages in the region see infrequent seasonal flows in the form of flash floods. In areas with oil, gas, and mining operations, flash floods can pose a serious risk to river drainages by flushing contaminants downstream. Both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante drain into the Colorado River through Glen Canyon, making these drainages and side canyons critical components of Glen Canyon’s habitat, which is rebounding after decades of flooding by Lake Powell reservoir. Such ecosystems are best protected through carefully managed recreation near creeks and drainages; and by limiting as much as possible any oil, gas, and mineral extraction upstream. The health of the entire ecosystem, including plants and animals, relies on a healthy watershed.

Looting and Vandalism

Bullet holes in a 2000 year old petroglyph. photo: Josh Ewing

The majority of Bears Ears National Monument is on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), whose top priority is resource extraction and development. Protection of the natural and cultural integrity of these lands has been a low priority. As a result, this region has been subject to looting and desecration of Native American artifacts and cultural sites for decades. Archeological looting and vandalism was one of the primary drivers behind the monument designation. Instead of the loose and ambiguous BLM and local enforcement against looting, the monument status was meant to give greater protection to Native American cultural and archeological sites.

Preservation of Experience

Aside from the physical impacts to the land and the water, national monument status helps protect the heritage and quality of outdoor experiences for future generations. Throughout the history of the West, our national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas have provided a framework for preserving the unique natural qualities and recreational experiences of the region’s most spectacular landscapes. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Canyonlands National Park are shining examples of how it is possible to both protect both the quality of the backcountry and to benefit the local economy. Under Trump’s proclamations, the newly downsized monuments would only be managed by local county authorities, with little consideration given to management planning. As a result, it is almost certain that these areas will suffer from weaker protection of trails and trailheads, insufficient regulation of off-road motor vehicles, unclear signage, a lack of public education programs, and underfunded and understaffed visitor centers.

One of the most popular Glen Canyon trail access roads along the Escalante River is Hole in The Rock Road. This historic and rugged dirt road was deliberately omitted from the new monuments carved from Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, with a clear intent of allowing new development and paving. If the state is allowed to pave and further develop the road — an irreplaceable part of Utah’s pioneer heritage — would drastically increase tourist traffic to the remote region and invite increased illegal off-road motorized use, which would threaten the fragile ecosystem and degrade the remote and primitive experience for visitors to the area.

H.R. 4558 & H.R. 4532

Since President Trump’s executive order, both monuments have been threatened by Utah lawmakers. Congressmen Chris Stewart and John Curtis have introduced bills that would make  the reductions permanent.  Rep. Stewart’s H.R. 4558 makes President Clinton’s order on Grand Staircase-Escalante “null and void” and largely turns management of the lands over to county and state control. It creates drastically smaller monuments within the original area. Similarly, Rep. Curtis’ bill, H.R. 4532 creates smaller units snipped out of the original plan. These pieces of legislation are thinly disguised efforts to codify President Trump’s gutting of national monuments, which would make it much harder to reverse this harmful action.

H.R. 3990

Another bill that would add to the assault on the country that surrounds Glen Canyon is Utah representative Rob Bishop’s H.R. 3990, which would gut the Antiquities Act. This bill would omit eligibility for monument protection for all objects “not made by humans”, including geology, rockscapes, canyons, etc. If these stipulations were removed from the Antiquities Act, many of the national monuments our country holds dear would never have been protected.

Contact your representative and tell them you oppose these bad bills!