Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Administrative History

ABSTRACT: The Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, is part of an adaptive management programme which optimizes dam operations to improve various resources in the downstream ecosystem within Grand Canyon. Understanding how populations of federally endangered humpback chub Gila cypha respond to these dam operations is a high priority. Here, we test hypotheses concerning temporal variation in juvenile humpback chub apparent survival rates and abundance by comparing estimates between hydropeaking and steady discharge regimes over a 3-year period (July 2009–July 2012). The most supported model ignored flow type (steady vs hydropeaking) and estimated a declining trend in daily apparent survival rate across years (99.90%, 99.79% and 99.67% for 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively). Corresponding abundance of juvenile humpback chub increased temporally; open population model estimates ranged from 615 to 2802 individuals/km, and closed model estimates ranged from 94 to 1515 individuals/km. These changes in apparent survival and abundance may reflect broader trends, or simply represent inter-annual variation. Important findings include (i) juvenile humpback chub are currently surviving and recruiting in the mainstem Colorado River with increasing abundance; (ii) apparent survival does not benefit from steady fall discharges from Glen Canyon Dam; and (iii) direct assessment of demographic parameters for juvenile endangered fish are possible and can rapidly inform management actions in regulated rivers.

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.