Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Administrative History

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 perspec-tives 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 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.

An Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management workshop process was used to assist Grand Canyon scientists and managers in developing conceptual and simulation models for the Colorado ecosystem affected by Glen Canyon Dam. This model examines ecosystem variables and processes at multiple scales in space and time, ranging from feet and hours for benthic algal response to diurnal flow changes, to reaches and decades for sediment storage and dynamics of long-lived native fish species. Its aim is to help screen policy options ranging from changes in hourly variation in flow allowed from Glen Canyon Dam, to major structural changes for restoration of more natural temperature regimes. It appears that we can make fairly accurate predictions about some components of ecosystem response to policy change (e.g., autochthonous primary production, insect communities, riparian vegetation, rainbow trout population), but we are moderately or grossly uncertain about others (e.g., long-term sediment storage, response of native and non-native fishes to physical habitat restoration). Further, we do not believe that existing monitoring programs are adequate to detect responses of native fishes or vegetation to anything short of gross habitat changes. Some experimental manipulations (such as controlled floods for beach/habitat- building) should proceed, but most should await development of better monitoring programs and sound temporal baseline information from those programs.