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: Webb, Robert H.
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.
Restoration of riverine ecosystems is often stated as a management objective for regulated rivers, and floods are one of the most effective tools for accomplishing restoration. The National Re- search Council (NRC 1992) argued that ecological restoration means re- turning "an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance" and that "restoring altered, damaged, O f destroyed lakes, rivers, and wetlands is a high-priority task." Effective restoration must be based on a clear definition of the value of riverine resources to society; on scientific studies that document ecosystem status and provide an understanding of ecosystem processes and resource interactions; on scientific studies that predict, mea- sure, and monitor the effectiveness of restoration techniques; and on engineering and economic studies that evaluate societal costs and benefits of restoration.
In the case of some large rivers, restoration is not a self-evident goal. Indeed, restoration may be impossible; a more feasible goal may be rehabilitation of some ecosystem components and processes in parts of the river (Gore and Shields 1995, Kondolfand Wilcock 1996, Stanford et al. 1996). In other cases, the appropriate decision may be to do nothing. The decision to manipulate ecosystem processes and components involves not only a scientific judgment that a restored or rehabilitated condition is achievable, but also a value judgment that this condition is more desirable than the status quo. These judgments involve prioritizing different river resources, and they should be based on extensive and continuing public debate.
In this article, we examine the appropriate role of science in determining whether or not to restore or rehabilitate the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon by summarizing studies carried out by numerous agencies, universities, and consulting firms since 1983. This reach of the Colorado extends 425 km between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir (Figure 1). Efforts to manipulate ecosystem processes and components in the Grand Canyon have received widespread public attention, such as the 1996 controlled flood released from Glen Canyon Dam and the proposal to drain Lake Powell reservoir.