Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Administrative History

It is apparent that before emplacement of the dam gully degradation in terraces was restored by periodic alluvial deposition from river floods, but perhaps even more important is the redistribution of flood sands onto higher terraces by wind. Thus, we propose the term "restorative base-level hypothesis" to emphasize the dynamic equilibrium between gully erosion and renewed deposition, a process that remains active in Cataract Canyon but is disrupted in Grand Canyon by the presence and operation of the dam.

We developed type geomorphic settings to develop a conceptual process model for the diverse small-catchment geomorphic system in Grand Canyon. Research findings explain how streams are able to cross broad, flat terraces given a rainfall event and how they become progressively more integrated with the river. The primary channelization processes are ponding and overflow, alluvial fan progradation, and infiltration and piping, all of which contribute to nickpoint migration. An understanding of these processes was essential to building the geomorphic model.

The predictive mathematical model quantifies erosional vulnerability by applying a hypothetical rainfall event of 25 mm/hour onto a catchment above a "pristine" terrace sequence. The principal driving factor for erosion is basin area. The principal resisting factor for erosion is terrace diffusion capacity, which is a function of terrace sand cross-sectional area and infiltration capacity. Several important modifying factors are applied to the basic model to determine relative vulnerability of each terrace to gully erosion. Vulnerability of the top terrace at each catchment is plotted against the measured amount of gully erosion in that terrace, providing a base line against which progressive changes in gully depth can be easily monitored in the future.

Field studies and research show that: (1) gully erosion of terraces has been severe during the past 20 years in Grand Canyon due to unusually high precipitation; and (2) sediment deprivation coupled with the lack of large annual floods has caused a reduction in restorative (depositional) factors. Continued measurement and documentation of geomorphic processes in catchments, particularly at type geomorphic settings, will further refine and verify the predictability of the model. We conclude that beach-habitat-building flows are essential for initiating natural restorative processes and that one of the most important processes in gully mitigation may be eolian reworking of newly deposited flood sands onto higher terraces. Prior to the construction of Glen Canyon Dam, gully-deepening and river/wind depositional processes were in dynamic equilibrium, allowing the preservation of ancient cultural sites for the past several thousand years.

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.

Even unmanaged ecosystems are characterized by combinations of stability and instability and by unexpected shifts in behavior from both internal and external causes. That is even more true of ecosystems managed for the production of food or fiber. Data are sparse, knowledge of processes limited, and the act of management changes the system being managed. Surprise and change is inevitable. Here we review methods to develop, screen, and evaluate alternatives in a process where management itself becomes partner with the science by designing probes that produce updated understanding as well as eco- nomic product.

Renewable natural resources provide important contributions to food, fiber, and recreation in many parts of the world. The economies of some regions a r e heavily dependent on fisheries and forestry, and consumptive use of wildlife (hunting) is a traditional recreational pastime across Europe and North America. The management of renewable resources usually involves public agencies that are responsible for harvest regulation, and often production enhancement, so as to provide sustainable yields into the long-term future (resource husbandry). The track record of such agencies has been spotty: many resources have been mined to low levels before effective harvest regulation could be developed, while others have been managed so conservatively as to miss major harvesting opportunities.

Three key features of renewable resources have made them difficult to manage. First, sustainable production depends on leaving behind a "capital" stock after each harvesting, and there are definite limits to the production rates that this stock can maintain. Second, harvesting is normally undertaken by a community or industry of harvesters whose activities (investment, searching, etc.) are not completely monitored or regulated, so that dynamic responses, such as overcapitalization of fishing fleets, are common. Third, the biological relationships between managed stock size and production rates arises through a complex interplay between the organisms and their surrounding ecosystem; for any particular population, this relationship cannot be predicted in advance from ecological principles and must, instead, be learned through actual management experience.