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.

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
Filtering by

Clear all filters

149120-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsSchmidt, John C. (Contributor)
Created2014-10-31
149121-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsSchmidt, John C. (Contributor)
Created2014-08-28
149135-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

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

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.

ContributorsSchmidt, John C. (Author) / Webb, Robert H. (Author) / Valdez, Richard A. (Author) / Marzolf, G. Richard (Author) / Stevens, Lawrence E. (Author)
Created1998-09
149138-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

An ecological survey of the riparian zone of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to the Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona, was initiated between 1 June 1974 and 30 June 1976. The purposes of this study were:

First, to describe vegetational changes as a result of the controlled water release from Glen

An ecological survey of the riparian zone of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to the Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona, was initiated between 1 June 1974 and 30 June 1976. The purposes of this study were:

First, to describe vegetational changes as a result of the controlled water release from Glen Canyon Dam, second, preparation of a vegetation map from river level up to the 500 foot contour level, third, to describe population densities, home ranges, and demography of important vertebrates, fourth, to inventory insects of the riparian zone, fifth, to describe the distribution and impact caused by feral burros, and sixth, to describe the interrelationships of humans with the biota.

The major findings include the following: (1)The construction of Glen Canyon Dam has permitted the development of a new riparian community. This community is characterized by salt cedar, arrowweed, coyote willow, desert broom, and seep willow. (2) Botanical investigations in the riparian and adjacent habitats discerned the presence of 807 species of vascular plants representing 92 families. Also, two species, previously undescribed, Flaveria mcdougallii and Euphorbia rossii, are presented. (3) An accessment of important vertebrates and insects revealed: a) rodent communities on beaches tend to be less productive and less stable than those rodent communities of the terrace areas, b) Peromyscus eremicus appears to be the most successful small mammal in the riparian zone, c) rodent survivorship is very low and suggests a nearly annual population turnover, d) 178 species of birds utilize the riparian zone, of these 41 breed there, e) the most common bird species is the Lucy's Warbler, f) over 12,000 insect specimens in 20 orders and 247 families were collected and prepared, g) insect production on the exotic salt cedar fluctuate dramatically in comparison to insect production on dominant native plants. (4) Feral ass distribution was found to be greater than previously believed. It has been determined that the expanding feral ass populations are systematically destroying riparian and desert habitats within the study area and their immediate removal is suggested. (5) Human impact seems to be a function of visitor activities and the specific biotic sensitivity of the use area rather than a function of the total number of users. (6) In 1974, 395 different campsites were reported between Lees Ferry and Pierce's Ferry. In 1975, 350 different campsites were used. (7) Establishment and maintenance of an inner canyon trail system, the removal of all future human fecal waste material and education of river users may be the means to minimize habitat destruction rather than just setting a user-day limit.

ContributorsCarothers, Steven W. (Editor) / Aitchison, Stewart W. (Editor)
Created1976-06