ast March the call was sounded...and river guides rallied. The Adopt a Beach program burst out of the starting blocks, following the experimental beach-building “flood” release. We chose 44 sand bar camps in 3 critical reaches—stretches of river where beaches are scarce, highly eroded and/or highly visited: Marble Canyon (RM 8-41), Upper Gorge (RM 75-114), and Muav Gorge (RM 130-167). River guides photographed the beaches and asked questions like: did the beach-building “flood” actually work?, are the new beaches lasting?, and, what changed the beaches afterwards?
Adopt a Beach originated with the idea that the extensive on-the-ground experience of river guides can contribute to scientific and monitoring work on sand bars. This approach connects several loose ends in the broader river community. It enfranchises guides with a sense of investment, knowledge, and participation in canyon science. It gives GCRG a sound basis for advocating policy about river management. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center gains an important source of information. It gives the public direct knowledge of the health of the Canyon's beaches. In general, we can build bridges between guides, scientists, the public and a place that we are all deeply concerned about. So, how else can you participate?
Now, anyone can “adopt” one of our selected Grand Canyon beaches and help support the program by making a tax-deductible contribution of $100 per year of participation. The contribution shows a personal commitment to the stewardship of a favorite patch of white river sand and to the study. Adopters will receive an annual summary of results including participants. This way, anyone can adopt a beach, by giving a donation and/or volunteering to photograph it. There is no limit to how many people can adopt a particular beach. Contact the GCRG office to sign up.
After it was all said and done, we were able to use 262 photos for our final 1996 evaluation. (Those disposable cameras aren't so bad after all.) Of the 44 beaches in our sample set, we ended up with an average of 6 photos per beach, taken from shortly after the spike to mid October. In short, 82% of the beaches gained sand, mostly in vertical relief; 11% stayed about the same; and 7% (3 beaches) lost sand. 110 mile took a pretty hard hit. But other beaches that lost in area, gained in high mounded sand, such as Ross Wheeler and upper National.

For the beaches that increased, guides reported that camping was easier because of the improved quality of beaches, in spite of the tough hike up ubiquitously steep slopes — a small price to pay for many new and improved beaches. By August, most steep slopes and cutbanks had dissolved to attain semi-stable, gentler inclines that afforded easier access.
So how did the beaches do through the summer after the spike flow hit them? Thirty percent were able to hang on to their sand with minimal changes, whereas 70% showed some kind of decrease. Out of the beaches that decreased, we identified several forces that were responsible for lost beach sand through the summer. Within the three reaches, 55-71% of beaches were noticeably cut back by the summers fluctuating flows of 15,000 to 20,000 cfs. Eighteen to 41% of beaches were visibly impacted by people, resulting in sand being pushed down steep slopes. Meanwhile, wind reworked cutbanks, scoured and mounded beach sand on 13-29% of beaches. Flash floods and gullying from rainfall blew out sand on 6-12% of beaches. On less than 10% of beaches, we were at a loss as to why they decreased.
When the relatively high summer flows subsided, 84% of beach fronts remained stable, as reflected by a gentle slope and low-water bench extending into the eddy. Interestingly, many guides reported on the process of gentle beach slopes, alluding that campers were pushing sand downhill. So, not only are we helping to change beach shape, we are ultimately contributing to beach-front stability... merely by loading and unloading boats.
The end result of the 1996 boating season is a net positive gain in sand for over 80% of adopted beaches. The spike had deposited plenty of sand, enough that erosive processes at work this summer could not strip away all that beaches had gained. Only 11% suffered a net loss, mainly from the combination of the spike and summer flows. Nine percent remained or returned to the same old beach as in preflood time.
These were only some of the compiled results. Full results will be displayed at the Guides Training Seminar this spring. We will be looking for more volunteers there, to monitor beaches, and ask the next big question: how will the newly elevated 25,000 cfs maximum flows change the beaches?

Kate Thompson, Andre Potochnik, Kelly Burke