Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Administrative History
This administrative history of the Grand Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) includes government reports, oral history interviews and other relevant information about Colorado River law, environmental protection law, hydropower regulation, the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies that served as a precursor to GCDAMP, and the activities of the Adaptive Management Work Group, the Technical Work Group, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
Filtering by
- Creators: Bishop, Richard C.
- Creators: Susskind, Lawrence
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 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) has been identified as a model for natural resource management. We challenge that assertion, citing the lack of progress toward a long-term management plan for the dam, sustained extra-programmatic conflict, and a downriver ecology that is still in jeopardy, despite over ten years of meetings and an expensive research program. We have examined the primary and secondary sources available on the AMP’s design and operation in light of best practices identified in the literature on adaptive management and collaborative decision-making. We have identified six shortcomings: (1) an inadequate approach to identifying stakeholders; (2) a failure to provide clear goals and involve stakeholders in establishing the operating procedures that guide the collaborative process; (3) inappropriate use of professional neutrals and a failure to cultivate consensus; (4) a failure to establish and follow clear joint fact-finding procedures; (5) a failure to produce functional written agreements; and (6) a failure to manage the AMP adaptively and cultivate long-term problem-solving capacity.
Adaptive management can be an effective approach for addressing complex ecosystem-related processes like the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, particularly in the face of substantial complexity, uncertainty, and political contentiousness. However, the Glen Canyon Dam AMP shows that a stated commitment to collaboration and adaptive management is insufficient. Effective management of natural resources can only be realized through careful attention to the collaborative design and implementation of appropriate problem-solving and adaptive-management procedures. It also requires the development of an appropriate organizational infrastructure that promotes stakeholder dialogue and agency learning. Though the experimental Glen Canyon Dam AMP is far from a success of collaborative adaptive management, the lessons from its shortcomings can foster more effective collaborative adaptive management in the future by Congress, federal agencies, and local and state authorities.