Confluence of Values: The Role of Science
and Native Americans in the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program
By Kurt E. Dongoske,1 Loretta Jackson-Kelly,2 and Charley Bulletts3
We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are.

									

Abstract
Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are important
places on the landscape for many Native American Tribes.
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
(GCDAMP) is designed to employ science as a means for
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information on
the condition of resources. A Western science perspective
dominates this program with recognition of Native American
traditional perspectives as a valued component. Analogous to
a confluence of rivers, Native American traditional perspectives were initially envisioned as enhancing the Western
science approach by creating a more holistic understanding
of this valued ecosystem; however, this integration has not
been realized. Identified barriers to effective participation by
Native American stakeholders are vast cultural differences
that express themselves in complex sociocultural scenarios
such as conflict resolution discourse and a lack of insight on
how to incorporate Native American values into the program.
Also explored is the use of “science” as a sociopolitical tool
to validate authoritative roles that have had the unintended
effect of further disenfranchising Native Americans through

1

Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office, Pueblo of Zuni, PO Box
1149, Zuni, NM 87327.
2

Hualapai Tribe, Department of Cultural Resources, PO Box 310, Peach
Springs, AZ 86434.
3

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Tribal Affairs Building, HC 65 Box 2,
Pipe Springs, AZ 86022.

—Anaïs Nin

the promotion of colonialist attitudes. Solutions to these
barriers are offered to advance a more effective and inclusive
participation of Native American stakeholders in this program.
Finally, drawing from the social sciences, a reflexive approach
to the entire GCDAMP is advocated.

Introduction
Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are important
places on the landscape that are central to the traditional
values and histories of many Native American Tribes. During
the development of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental
Impact Statement (GCDEIS), between 1991 and 1995, the
Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged the importance of
integrating Native American perspectives and values into
the environmental analysis equation by providing five Tribes
(Hopi, Hualapai, Navajo, Southern Paiute Consortium, and
the Pueblo of Zuni) with cooperating agency status. The Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP)
was created in 1997 as a result of the Record of Decision for
the GCDEIS and is designed to employ science as a means for
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information on the
condition of natural and cultural resources to the appropriate
managers.
A critical examination of the past 10 years of Tribal
participation in the GCDAMP reveals a failure of the program
to effectively integrate Native American perspectives. Our
analysis and conclusions of the GCDAMP are based on direct
participation as Tribal representatives. Our participation as
Tribal stakeholder representatives began during the development of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and continues in the GCDAMP at the time this paper

134   Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium
was written.4 In this paper, we identify several barriers to
effective participation by Native American stakeholders in the
GCDAMP. Identified barriers include vast cultural differences
among stakeholders that express themselves in complex
sociocultural scenarios and a lack of insight by program
managers and scientists on ways to affirm and respond to
Tribal cultural concerns.
Also explored in this paper is the concept of Western
science as it exists within the GCDAMP and how science
is employed as a sociopolitical tool to validate authoritative
roles within the program. The heavy reliance on Western
science within the program is demonstrated to have had the
unintended effect of promoting the disenfranchisement of the
participating Tribes from the GCDAMP through the continuation of colonialist attitudes. Solutions to these identified
barriers are proposed to advance a more effective and inclusive participation by the Native American stakeholders in this
program. Finally, drawing from the social sciences, a reflexive
approach to the entire GCDAMP is advocated.

Grand Canyon as Cultural Landscape
Grand Canyon and Colorado River are culturally
important and represent astounding aspects of the landscape
for most Americans and for individuals from across the
globe. Grand Canyon has been classified as one of the seven
natural wonders of the world and is also recognized as a
World Heritage Site. Grand Canyon embodies a powerful and
inspiring landscape that overwhelms the human senses.

4

The primary author began his involvement in this program in 1991 as the
Hopi Tribe’s representative to the cooperating agencies in the development
of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (GCDEIS). He
continued to represent the Hopi Tribe as their representative to the Technical
Work Group and as the alternate representative to the Adaptive Management
Work Group during the development and implementation of the Adaptive
Management Program from 1996 to 2003. Mr. Dongoske also served as the
Chair of the Technical Work Group for 5 years and is currently the Pueblo
of Zuni’s representative to the Technical Work Group. Ms. Jackson-Kelly
represented the Hualapai Tribe during the development of the GCDEIS and
has been the Hualapai Tribe’s representative to the Adaptive Management
Work Group since 1997. Mr. Bulletts is the Southern Paiute Consortium’s representative to the Technical Work Group and the Adaptive Management Work
Group, a position that he has held since 2006. Our analysis is based on direct
participant observation and data acquired over an 18-year period that extends
from the development of the GCDEIS to the origination and implementation
of the Adaptive Management Program.

In the late 1800s, Clarence Dutton (as quoted in Worster,
2001, p. 326) described Grand Canyon most appropriately
when he stated that Grand Canyon is:
More than simply two walls rising from the river,
the Grand Canyon is a complex architectural wonderland some ten to twelve miles in breadth at its
widest point. What nature has done here is precisely
the work of an architect: chiseling, sculpting, cutting
out large amphitheatres, naves, arches, and columns,
leaving walls, spandrels, lintels. Hundreds of these
mighty structures, miles in length, and thousands
of feet in height, rear their majestic heads out of the
abyss, displaying their richly-molded plinths and
friezes, thrusting out their gables, wing-walls, buttresses, and pilasters, and recessed with alcoves and
panels.
Nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, the beauty, diversity, and
splendor of Grand Canyon and its importance as a natural and
cultural jewel of the American people were formally recognized when Congress established Grand Canyon National
Park. Since that time, many policies and programs have been
developed to protect and preserve the diversity and unique
qualities of Grand Canyon and the Colorado River ecosystem,
and the GCDAMP associated with the operations of Glen
Canyon Dam has become central to those efforts.
Although Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are
recognized as culturally important to the greater American
society, the Native American connection to this landscape
existed and persevered for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years before the arrival of Europeans (Schwartz, 1965; Euler
and Taylor, 1966; Euler and Chandler, 1978; Schwartz and
others, 1979, 1980, 1981). Native Americans relation to this
vast place and their resultant knowledge of this landscape and
environment are the product of a long temporal and intimate
association, including having to depend upon and survive
within this landscape. Given the brevity of this article, a full
account of the cultural importance of Grand Canyon and the
Colorado River to each of the Native American Tribes that
participates in the GCDAMP is not possible. Presented below
is a brief general summary of Grand Canyon’s importance to
participating Native Americans.

Grand Canyon and the Native American Tribes
According to multiple Tribal creation accounts, Grand
Canyon is the place of origin and emergence into this the
fourth world. The Colorado River, the canyons, the land, the
middle of the river, and the springs, seeps, and tributaries
to the river are essential to the well being, survival, and
the collective and individual identities of many of the
participating Tribes. As such, these Tribes are entrusted with
the responsibility to care for the natural environment and the
resources contained within Grand Canyon and their traditional
homelands (Hualapai Tribe and Stevens, 1998; Austin and
others, 2007).

Confluence of Values: The Role of Science and Native Americans in Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program   135
For many members of these Tribes, the Colorado River
and the components of the ecosystem are regarded as living
entities infused with conscious spirit. All of these elements in
and around the canyons are accorded powers of observation
and awareness. The Colorado River itself is regarded as an
important conscious living being that has feelings and is
expressive of calmness and anger. The river can offer happiness, sadness, strength, life, sustenance, and the threat of
death. According to many of the Tribal beliefs, if a land and its
resources are not used in an appropriate manner, the Creator
will become disappointed or angry and withhold food, health,
and power from humans.
Even though the current reservation lands of some of
the participating Tribes are located far from Grand Canyon,
these Tribes still maintain very strong ties with Grand Canyon,
the Colorado River, and the Little Colorado River because of
their origin and migration narratives. Traditional narratives
describe the locations of shrines and sacred areas and explain
why Grand Canyon is sacred. The daily prayers of many
Native Americans incorporate specific locations, including
sacred areas, shrines, springs, and other places of religious
significance within Grand Canyon (Hart, 1995; Stoffle and
others, 1995; Hualapai Tribe and Stevens, 1998). The animals,
birds, rocks, sand, minerals, and water in Grand Canyon all
have special meaning to the Native American people.

An Evaluation of Tribal Involvement
in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Program
Today, the Hualapai, Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni Tribes and
the Southern Paiute Consortium are recognized as legitimate
participants in the GCDAMP and have representatives to
the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) and the
Technical Work Group (TWG).5 The importance of Tribal
participation in the GCDAMP was recognized by the
stakeholders during the development and adoption of the
GCDAMP’s strategic plan. The strategic plan contains a
vision and mission statement that recognizes Grand Canyon as
homeland to Native American Tribes and a special place that
contains properties of traditional cultural importance to Native
Americans. It also acknowledges the “trust” responsibility of
the Federal government to these Native American Tribes and
recognizes their sovereign status and management authority.

5
The Havasupai Tribe was invited to participate in the development of the
Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement and to participate in the
resultant Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program; however, they
declined to actively participate on the basis of cultural and financial reasons.

The strategic plan also delineates 12 goals for the natural
and cultural resources that are the focus of the GCDAMP.
Management goal 11 addresses the preservation, protection,
and management of cultural resources for the inspiration
and benefit of past, present, and future generations. The
recognition of past generations in this management goal is
the acknowledgment by the program of the active on-going
dynamic spiritual relationship contemporary Native American
people have with their ancestors. Goal 11 also recognizes
that the spirits of these ancestors still inhabit specific places
(e.g., archaeological sites) within Grand Canyon. Accompanying management objectives 11.2 and 11.3 recognize the
importance of maintaining and protecting places and resources
of traditional cultural importance to Native Americans and
ensuring unrestricted access to these places by Native American religious practitioners.
Management goal 12 seeks to maintain a high-quality
monitoring, research, and adaptive management program that
incorporates meaningful Tribal participation. Management
objective 12.5 seeks to attain and maintain effective Tribal
consultation through the inclusion of Tribal values and
perspectives in the GCDAMP. Management objective 12.6
seeks to attain meaningful Tribal participation in management
activities, research, and long-term monitoring to meet the
Tribal interests to ensure that Tribal values are incorporated
into the scientific activities of the GCDAMP and that Tribal
interpretations are considered. Both of these management
objectives are directly linked to the vision and mission
statement discussed previously.
Even though the GCDAMP recognizes the importance
of integrating Tribal involvement, a review of the past
10 years of research and monitoring programs indicates a
rapidly declining role for the Tribes. At the inception of the
GCDAMP there was significantly more Tribal involvement
in research and monitoring projects than there has been
during the past 5 years. For example, the Southern Paiute
Consortium conducted event-specific research on dam impacts
and developed a place and resource monitoring program and
a corresponding educational outreach program for Paiute
elders and youth (Stoffle and others, 1995; Seibert and others,
2007). The Hualapai Tribe conducted research and monitoring
of places and resources between 1996 and 2003, including
ethnobotanical research associated with the high-flow experiment that took place in 1996.
A sincere effort by Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center (GCMRC) to integrate Tribal perspectives
into its terrestrial ecosystem monitoring program was put
into effect between 1999 and 2002. This collaborative effort
was not successful, because integration assumed that Tribal
perspectives could be integrated into a framework defined
and directed by the tenets of Western science. Moreover,
GCMRC’s inclusive intent was seriously constrained by the
scientific perspective, which relies on credible, objective (i.e.,
numeric) data intended for model generation and a clear lack
of understanding of Tribal perspectives (Austin, 2007).

136   Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium

Sociocultural Barriers to Effective
Tribal Participation
Since GCMRC’s failed attempt to integrate Tribal perspectives into the terrestrial ecosystem monitoring, there have
been no further efforts at Tribal integration. The absence of
a defined Tribal component in the current GCDAMP science
program and a progressive decline in effective Tribal voices
within the AMWG and TWG are attributable to a number of
sociocultural factors. We submit several sociocultural barriers
that exist within the GCDAMP that are actively limiting or
marginalizing effective Tribal participation.
Cultural differences in communication present at the
AMWG and TWG tables act as a barrier to effective integration. Here, Tribes are expected to communicate and act in
the style of Western scientists and managers even though the
Tribal representatives generally do not share the same cultural
and (or) educational background of the majority of stakeholder
representatives. Tribal representatives have expressed their
discomfort with what they call the “bigger language of English” that dominates the TWG and AMWG meeting venues.
Tribal representatives have articulated how they perceive
non-Native Americans as expecting them to respond to words
that are not normally employed by Tribal people. Some Tribal
representatives have also expressed a feeling of condescension
and intimidation associated with “bigger language of English”
usage (Austin, 2007).
Strongly correlated with the discomfort associated
with the use of the “bigger language of English” is the
argumentative nature of many of the exchanges that take
place during stakeholder meetings. Tribal representatives
have expressed their discomfort with the volume and acerbity
with which communication takes place and the propensity for
interruptions that undermine one’s ability and willingness to
participate (Austin, 2007). Direct confrontation is considered
impolite and inappropriate behavior within the cultural
contexts of the participating Tribes and constrains the Tribal
representatives’ willingness to “speak up more” in meetings.
Another identified sociocultural barrier to effective
Tribal participation is the uncertainty of managers on how
to effectively respond to concerns and values expressed by
Native American Tribal representatives. This was poignantly
demonstrated when several of the Tribes expressed concern
about the mechanical removal of nonnative fish at the
confluence of the Colorado River and Little Colorado Rivers.
These Tribes expressed their disapproval of taking of life that
was associated with the planned removal and destruction of
thousands of rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout
(Salmo trutta) as an experiment to control their predation of
native fishes.
The Tribes also expressed concern about the location
where this experiment was going to take place because
the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers
represents fertility and life and is considered sacred. One

Tribal representative expressed his concern that the proposed
mechanical removal would produce an “aura of death” over
this sacred place (Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Cultural
Preservation Office, oral commun., 2002). The solution
offered by managers was to provide the Hualapai Tribe with
the processed trout remains to be used as fertilizer in Hualapai
gardens. No solution was offered regarding the concern about
the location. The conflict of cultural values expressed by the
Tribe’s objection to the “taking of life” associated with the
implementation of this experiment was never sufficiently
addressed by the program. Today, the mechanical removal is
implemented regularly at the confluence of the Colorado and
Little Colorado Rivers as a management action without further
consideration of those expressed core Tribal concerns and
values.
An additional example of sociocultural barriers underscores the deficiency of the program in effectively dealing
with Tribal issues. The 2000 Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP)
of the GCDAMP cultural resources program recommended the
development of a Tribal consultation plan. The panel emphasized that this plan should entail more than just improved
coordination; a Tribal consultation plan would require Federal
agencies and Tribes to agree to a process for communicating,
coordinating, resolving differences, acknowledging roles and
responsibilities, and establishing government-to-government
relationships (Doelle, 2000). The development of the Tribal
consultation plan began in 2001 and has been through various
iterations; however, after 7 years and 14 drafts the plan has
yet to be finalized or implemented. The extended delay in
finalizing the Tribal consultation plan is symptomatic of the
program’s ineffectiveness and lack of ability to meaningfully
integrate Native Americans.

Science as a Sociopolitical Tool
At the foundation of the GCDAMP is the role science
plays in elucidating the integrated nature of the Colorado
River ecosystem and a core belief that the Western science
perspective is the only legitimate form of knowing the
ecosystem. At the heart of this science program is a positivist
approach to understanding the ecosystem that visualizes an
unproblematically objective world presumed knowable via
epistemologically transparent schemes of explanation (Whiteley, 2002). This perception of the world is rooted in the core
Judeo-Christian philosophical perception of man’s relationship
to nature.
The GCMRC is the science provider for the GCDAMP
and in that role it is ascribed an authoritative voice in ascertaining the condition of the ecosystem. The GCMRC employs
science as a means for evaluating the health of the Colorado
River ecosystem and the efficacy of management paradigms.
The GCMRC also employs the concept of science tautologically as a rhetorical device for validating its authoritative role
and justification of budgetary decisions.

Confluence of Values: The Role of Science and Native Americans in Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program   137
As Ogden (2008) demonstrates for the Everglades,
science when it becomes institutionalized can take on a life of
its own and often is applied to meet the bureaucratic mandates
of an agency. In the GCDAMP, resource goals have been
bureaucratized into a set of scientific research and monitoring
activities that structure the ways in which the ecosystem
is comprehended and acted on. Within this context, Native
American perspectives of the ecosystem are de-legitimized
and marginalized in favor of the continued promotion and
acquisition of scientific knowledge that supports the science
program’s philosophical underpinnings, self-interest, and
authority.
All of these factors have contributed to the dominance
of the Judeo-Christian perception of the world within the
science program, which has had the unintended consequence
of promoting antiquated colonialist attitudes toward Native
Americans. These attitudes are a peculiar paradoxical blend
of romanticized perception of Native Americans as the “noble
savage” in the Rousseauian sense and at the same time
antithetically perceiving them as a conquered people removed
from the landscape as the result of a history of American
Western expansionism. This explanation is offered not as an
indictment of the GCDAMP, but as a possible rationale for the
contradictory way in which the Tribes have been unsuccessfully included in this program.

Steps to a Holistic Integration
The dominance of science in the GCDAMP, to the
exclusion of other valid forms of knowing the world, is in part
the inability of the program to recogize that the fundamental
differences between the dominant Anglo-American culture
and Native American cultures lie not only in the acquisition of
knowledge but also in the broader world views about what can
be known about the world, who has the right to know it, and
what is the proper place of humans in relation to nature (Austin, 2007). For an effective adaptive management program,
differences in perception of and relating to the ecosystem must
be more than just acknowledged. These differences must be
embraced by the program with openness toward meaningful
integration through validation.
This holistic integration can be accomplished through
embracing Native American traditional knowledge in its
complex forms composed of distinctive political and social
perspectives rooted in a shared history, distinct ethical and
cosmological knowledge, and a local knowledge of the
ecosystem (Austin, 2007). The intimate ecological knowledge
that the Tribes possess about the Colorado River ecosystem
provides the authority and significance for their understanding
and relating to this important place. This ecological knowledge is embedded in hundreds of years of directly relating to
and living within the ecosystem, knowledge which has been
passed on from generation to generation. The efficacy of the
transmission and reliability of traditional knowledge has been

well documented for ecology (Berkes, 1999), history
(Whiteley, 2002), and ritual (Cushing, 1896; Bunzel, 1932).
Tribal knowledge about ecosystems is increasingly
recognized as equivalent to scientific knowledge and is
increasingly valued. As Hobson (1992, p. 2) points out:
Often overlooked is the fact that the survival of
aboriginal peoples depended on their knowledge,
their special relationship with the environment,
and their ways of organizing themselves and their
values. Traditional knowledge was passed on from
generation to the next. Today, aboriginal peoples are
aware that they must integrate traditional knowledge
into the institutions that serve them; it is essential to
their survival as a distinct people, and it is the key to
reversing the cycle of dependency which has come
to distinguish aboriginal communities.
Traditional knowledge about the ecosystem is based
then on empirical observations that are accumulated over
generations providing an important diachronic perspective.
Embodied within this perspective is an intuitive component
that is based on observing natural resource patterns and
relationships that are interpreted and integrated through the
ethical and moral values and cosmological knowledge of the
culture.
Accomplishing the holistic integration of Native American traditional knowledge into the GCDAMP necessitates
a paradigm shift in the current science program toward an
openness and willingness to accept traditional knowledge
of the ecosystem on an equal basis as Western science
generated knowledge. The past tendency of scientists and
managers has been to reject Tribal traditional knowledge as
anecdotal, non-quantitative, without method, and unscientific.
For this perspective to change, a corresponding recognition
that effective integration involves the sharing of power and
decisionmaking by managers is essential.
A critical part of this paradigm change involves the
acknowledgment by the science program that inherent in
any interpretation of data and the resultant development of
explanations about the ecosystem are developed through
biased cultural lenses of managers and scientists. Cultural
bias permeates the GCDAMP; it affects how resource data are
interpreted, how knowledge is generated and defined, and how
power for decisionmaking is ascribed and shared. Too little
attention has been paid within the GCDAMP to developing
effective mechanisms for bringing in and incorporating the
knowledge and interests of Native peoples. For example,
conspicuously absent from most discussions of Colorado
River ecosystem management, especially for a place that is
widely perceived to be a wilderness, are the poignant historical
narratives of displacement, depopulation, and suffering that
describe how this place came to be without humans and how
the affected populations should be integrated into processes
that are based in large part on assumptions that they or their

138   Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium
ancestors are irrelevant to the ecosystem today (Austin and
others, 2007).
A recommended first step toward effecting this paradigm
shift is the development of a stronger social science component to the program administered by the GCMRC. Currently,
the cultural resource program administered by the GCMRC
is focused on the present condition of archaeological sites
located along the Colorado River corridor and how current
climatic conditions adversely impact or contribute to their
preservation. In addition, the cultural program includes a
recreation component that seeks to monitor and improve the
recreational experience associated with non-Indian users of the
Colorado River through Grand Canyon. Noticeably lacking in
this cultural program is the integrated contributions that the
disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and Native
American studies can bring to this program. The integration
of these disciplines would afford the program the tools to
work toward the development of a holistic integration of
Native American perspectives and values into the GCDAMP.
Through the application of the tools that these disciplines can
bring to the GCDAMP, a process for respectfully addressing
and resolving conflicts of cultural values that arise within the
program can be developed. Additionally, this process would
allow for these conflicts to be addressed in a timely manner
and thereby hopefully reduce feelings of disenfranchisement by a stakeholder group and the potential for litigious
responses.

Confluence of Values
As noted above, the confluence of the Colorado and Little
Colorado Rivers is a very important and significant place to
the participating Tribes because of its literal and symbolic
representation of fertility and life. The confluence is employed

Traditional
Paradigm

Management
Paradigm

Science
Paradigm

Successful Integration of Values

Figure
1. Confluence
Confluence
ofwithin
values
within
the Glen
Figure 1.
of values
the Glen
Canyon
Adaptive
Management
Program.
Canyon
Dam
Adaptive
Management Program.

here as a metaphor to represent the fertility of knowledge and
the beneficial outcomes that would result from the merging of
diverse paradigms (i.e., scientific and traditional knowledge)
for knowing the Colorado River ecosystem. Submitted for
consideration is the view that this confluence is represented by
three intersecting and overlapping circles of a Venn diagram
(fig. 1). One circle represents the management paradigm of the
GCDAMP, another circle represents the scientific paradigm
about the Colorado River ecosystem, and the third circle
represents the traditional paradigm of the participating Tribes
regarding the Colorado River ecosystem, including their
moral, ethical, and cosmological perspectives. The portions of
the circles that overlap and intersect represent the successful
merging of these three paradigms within the GCDAMP.
This image of the confluence of values depicts a successful program of collaboration that recognizes, accepts,
and seeks to integrate the diverse perspectives that scientific
knowledge, Tribal traditions, and management represent.
The future of working collaboratively with Native Americans
within the GCDAMP rests on an honest understanding and
appreciation of the diverse perspectives that have been
presented above and a willingness to develop good faith
communication channels between scientists, managers, and
Native peoples that will only benefit the GCDAMP. When
done correctly, the intersection of these competing paradigms
provides an avenue for multiple views of the Colorado River
ecosystem that can only enhance our understanding and
appreciation of this important place.

Reflexive Approach to the GCDAMP
Finally, drawing from the social sciences, we advocate
for a reflexive component of the GCDAMP. Reflexivity is an
act of self-reference where examination or action “bends back
on,” refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or
examination. In brief, reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect. A reflexive relationship is
bidirectional; with both the cause and the effect affecting one
another in a situation that renders both functions causes and
effects. Reflexivity is related to the concept of feedback and
positive feedback in particular.
As applied to the GCDAMP, we believe there is utility
in examining the internal social dynamics of the program
and the interaction among participating groups. Specifically,
we believe that it is important to examine and understand the
power and gender relationships that exist within the AMWG
and TWG and how these affect discourses among the stakeholders and the recommendations they generate. Moreover,
a reflexive analysis should examine the dynamics of cultural
differences that are operant within this program, some of
which have been presented above. Through the examination
of these cultural differences, a clearer understanding of the
role the dominant cultural bias plays within the program and
how that bias impacts and directs the program’s perspective on
ecosystem resources and data can be achieved. To this end, we

Confluence of Values: The Role of Science and Native Americans in Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program   139
encourage the planning and implementation of the GCDAMP
effectiveness workshop, but that it should be expanded to
include this reflexive component.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center for organizing the Colorado River Basin
Science and Resource Management Symposium—Coming
Together: Coordination of Science and Restoration Activities
for the Colorado River Ecosystem and for providing us the
opportunity to express our perspective. We would like to thank
the U.S. Geological Survey for producing this publication and
to Dr. Laura Ogden and two anonymous reviewers for their
productive comments and positive encouragement. We would
also like to thank Cindy Dongoske for drafting the Confluence of Values figure. Dr. Mike Berry, Dr. Nancy Coulam,
Dr. Diane Austin, and Cindy Dongoske are acknowledged for
their thoughtful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft
of this paper; their suggestions substantially improved the
paper’s content. Finally, all errors, omissions, or shortfalls are
entirely our own.

References
Austin, D., 2007, The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and Programmatic agreement on cultural
resources for Glen Canyon Dam operations—A brief history
and assessment of Southern Paiute participation, in Austin,
D., Phillips, A., III, Seibert, D., and Bullets, K., Southern
Paiute participation in the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program—A ten year review: Salt Lake City, UT,
Upper Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation,
p. 5–25, accessed April 23, 2010, at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/
rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07oct02/Attach_05b.pdf .
Austin, D., Phillips, A., III, Seibert, D., and Bullets, K., 2007,
Southern Paiute participation in the Glen Canyon Adaptive
Management Program—A ten year review: Salt Lake City,
UT, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 146 p., accessed April 23, 2010, at http://www.usbr.
gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07oct02/Attach_05b.pdf.
Berkes, Fikret, 1999, Sacred ecology—Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management: Ann Arbor, MI,
Taylor and Francis, 240 p.
Bunzel, R.L.,1932, Introduction to Zuni ceremonialism, in
47th annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1929–1930:
Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, p. 467–544.

Cushing, F.H., 1896, Outlines of Zuni creation myths, in Thirteenth annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology
for the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1891–1892,
Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, p. 321–447.
Doelle, W.H., comp., 2000, Final report—Cultural resource
program assessment: Flagstaff, AZ, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. [Report on file with the U.S. Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand
Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ.]
Euler, R.C., and Chandler, S.M, 1978, Aspects of prehistoric
settlement patterns in Grand Canyon, in Euler, R.C., and
Gumerman, G.J., eds. Investigations of the Southwestern Anthropological Research Group—An experiment in
archaeological cooperation: Flagstaff, AZ, Museum of
Northern Arizona, p. 73–86.
Euler, R.C., and Taylor, W.W., 1966, Additional archaeological
data from the upper Grand Canyon–Nankoweap to Unkar
revisited: Plateau, v. 39, no. 1, p. 26–45.
Hart, E.R., 1995, Zuni and the Grand Canyon—A Glen
Canyon environmental studies report, Zuni Glen Canyon
environmental studies ethnohistorical report: Seattle, WA,
Institute of the North American West. [Report on file with
the Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office, Zuni,
NM.]
Hobson, G., 1992, Traditional knowledge is science: Northern
Perspectives, v. 20, no. 1, accessed April 20, 2010, at http://
www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/science.htm.
Hualapai Tribe and Stevens, R.H., 1998, Hualapai Tribe’s
traditional cultural properties in relation to the Colorado
River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Final report prepared for the
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office,
Salt Lake City, UT. [Report on file at the Office of Cultural
Resources, Hualapai Tribe, Peach Springs, AZ.]
Ogden, L., 2008, The Everglades ecosystem and the politics of
nature: American Anthropologist, v. 110, no. 1, p. 21–32.
Schwartz, D.W., 1965, Nankoweap to Unkar—An archaeological survey of the upper Grand Canyon: American Antiquity,
v. 30, no. 3, p. 278–296.
Schwartz, D.W., Chapman, R.C., and Kepp, J., 1980, Archaeology of Grand Canyon—Unkar Delta: Santa Fe, NM,
School of American Research Press, 405 p.
Schwartz, D.W., Chapman, R.C., and Kepp, J., 1981, Archaeology of Grand Canyon—Walhalla Plateau: Santé Fe, NM,
School of American Research.

140   Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium
Schwartz, D.W., Marshall, M.P., and Kepp, J., 1979, Archaeology of Grand Canyon—The Bright Angel Site: Santa Fe,
NM, School of American Research Press, 110 p.
Seibert, D., Phillips, A., III, and Bullets, K., 2007, Site
descriptions and review of ten years of monitoring data,
in Austin, D., Phillips, A., III, Seibert, D., and Bullets, K.,
Southern Paiute participation in the Glen Canyon Adaptive
Management Program—A ten year review: Salt Lake City,
UT, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, p. 26–56, accessed April 23, 2010, at http://www.usbr.
gov/uc/rm/amp/twg/mtgs/07oct02/Attach_05b.pdf.

Stoffle, R.W., Austin, D.E., Fulfrost, B.K., Phillips, A.M.I.,
and Drye, T.F., 1995, Itus, Auv, Te’ek, (Past, Present,
Future)—Managing Southern Paiute resources in the Colorado River corridor: Submitted to Bureau of Reclamation,
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Office, cooperative
agreement no. 4-FC-40-15260, 201 p.
Whiteley, P.M., 2002, Archaeology and oral tradition—The
scientific important of dialogue: American Antiquity, v. 67,
no. 3, p. 405–415, accessed April 20, 2010, at http://www.
jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1593819.pdf.
Worster, D., 2001, A river running west—The life of John
Wesley Powell: New York, Oxford University Press, 688 p.