Adopt-a-Beach—Y2K Results

I've picked up the ball again after Gary O'Brien's dedicated three years of managing the Adopt-a-Beach program. Since my short term in 1996, it's good to be reminded how empowering this program is for guides who wish to contribute their volunteer efforts to long-term monitoring of their home away from home—campsite beaches in Grand Canyon. As guides, we need to continually voice our concerns to land mangers about preserving and enhancing what beaches are left. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (gcmrc) and Bureau of Reclamation (bor) folks look to our results for managing this resource, and the public sees results of a powerful stewardship program. Now it's been six years since the inception of Adopt-a-Beach. Data from this program show a well-documented timeline of beach and campsite change since the Beach Habitat Building Flood of 1996 (bhbf).
This year, I intended for Adopt-a-Beach to answer specific questions posed by scientists and guides about beach change from the year 2000 river season. Below, I summarize some of our results and conclusions gained through analysis of repeat photos and guide responses.
Do small spike flows help maintain beaches and campable space?
Two spike flows of 30,000 cfs were released from Glen Canyon Dam for four days in early May 2000 and again in September 2000. These flows deposited sand on high elevation bars (above the average flow zone of 28,000 cfs) for 63% of beaches after the spring spike and 55% after the fall spike. The photographs show that the spike flows primarily increased beach-front property, and increased beach elevation only slightly above the estimated 28,000 line. Just one beach, Hance, lost sand from any of the spikes. The rest of beaches showed no change. Unfortunately, high flows of 17,000 to 19,000 cfs followed the spring spike, and photos show that much of the newly deposited sand was eroded away. The fall spike was immediately followed by flows of 8,000 cfs, which appeared to stabilize the new sand for the period that beaches were photographed (until November 2000).
How is the 1996 flood deposit holding up on beaches?
The longevity of the bhbf deposit continues to be assessed every year. Results show that most beaches (59%) returned to their pre-bhbf condition as of fall 1999 (as determined by Gary O'Brien). Most of these decreases occurred in 1997 and 1998. Until spring 2000, this deposit has been continually winnowed away by fluctuating flows or by gullying and flash-flooding caused by rainfall. On several beaches, flash flood material has overtopped and covered this deposit. Furthermore, wind has been slowly redistributing this sand onto upper slopes. The spike flows of last year helped replenish sand to this deposit but only to the extent of the spike flows' limited stage heights. As of fall 2000, 78% of beaches were again larger than their pre-bhbf condition. This indicates that the relatively smaller spike flows are beneficial to maintaining campsite area, limited, however, by the stage height of the spikes.

2001 Adopters

Beach River Mile Adopter
Jackass, left 8.0 Johnny Douglas
Jeri Ledbetter
Soap Creek 11.0 Jeff Sorensen
Salt Water Wash 12.2 Ian Feinauer
Hot-Na-Na 16.0 Steve Wiley
19-Mile 19.1 Mark Franke
North Canyon 20.4 Andre Potochnik
Silver Grotto 29.3 Matt Winfrey
Middle Nautiloid 34.7 Lora Colten
Lower Nautiloid 34.7
Tatahatso Wash 37.7 John Toner
Bishop Camp 38.3 Kate Thompson
Buck Farm Canyon 41.0 Nancy Helin
Below Nevills 75.6 Walker Mackay
Hance Rapid 76.6 NPS River/Science
Grapevine 81.3 Kate Thompson
Clear Creek 84.0 Frank Wetmore
Above Zoroaster 84.5 Christina Parker
Trinity Creek 91.6 Andre Potochnik
Schist Camp 96.0 A.J. Reeves
Boucher Canyon 96.7 Lynn Myers
Crystal Creek 98.0 Amy Tibbetts
Lower Tuna Rapid 99.7 Andy Dicus
Ross Wheeler 107.8 Jeff Sorensen
Bass Camp 108.3 Nikolle Brown
110-Mile 109.4 Jerry Cox
Upper Garnet 114.3 Jed Koller
Lower Garnet 114.5 NPS River
Below Bedrock 131.1 Bert Jones
Stone Creek 132.0 Christina Parker
Talking Heads 133.0 Charlie Sharp
Racetrack 133.5 NPS River/Science
Lower Tapeats 133.7 NPS River/Science
Owl Eyes 134.6 Mike Long
Backeddy 137.0 Jeff Sorensen
Kanab Creek, above 143.2 Drifter Smith
Olo Canyon 145.6 Evan Tea
Matcat Hotel 148.5 Nikolle Brown
Last Chance 155.7 David Desrosiers/nps
Tuckup Canyon 164.5 Susan Wykstra
Upper National Canyon 166.4 Paul Smolenyak
Lower National Canyon 166.6 Sam Jansen
Gneiss 236.0 Mark Everett
Separation 239.8 Mark Everett

Do Low Steady Summer Flows (lssf) provide better camping?
I analyzed guide responses as to the “campability,” of their adopted beaches. That is, how has available campsite space and ease of using a beach for camping changed? With the onset of lssf after the spike, 77% of beaches showed some kind of improved campability, according to responses for 31 beaches. These camps contained either more sandy beach-front property, decreased rockiness for better boat parking, or a relatively flat bench for kitchen set-up and camping. Campability was reported to be worse for 23% of beaches. These camps, such as Tuckup, Boucher, and Upper National, generally had more rocks exposed in boat parking areas which made access difficult. Several guides commented that many more beaches (other than those in our sample set) became available for camping. These would otherwise have been under water with higher flows. For example, lower water camps such as Clear Creek, Olo, and Talking Heads again became useable.
What were the main processes causing decreased beach size throughout the summer?
Guide comments and photos showed that gully formation from rainfall and flash floods had the largest effect on decreased beach size (47%). Higher fluctuating flows following the spring spike accounted for 33% of decreases. Erosion from people accounted for 7% of decreases. As in previous years, effects due to wind were less significant.
What are Adopt-a-Beachs' general conclusions about the spike and lssf of last year?
Spike flows at the beginning of the summer season helped replenish beach frontage and built lower benches which were mostly useable during lssf. Many new camps were used during the lssf, which relieved pressure on the more popular camps. After an intense monsoon season, the fall spike infilled many gullies and covered recent flash flood material with fresh sand. The fall spike merely maintained longevity of the spring spike deposit. However, the relatively small spikes cannot act as an alternative to the bhbf of 1996 for rebuilding beaches. They can only maintain beaches so they remain campable.
Probably the most disconcerting guide comments concerned the prolific crop of tamarisk seedlings observed at many beaches in the new low water zone—a result of the lssf regime. I only hope that the higher flows over this past winter have curbed this potential new problem. Otherwise, guides may have to activate their stewardship to another level.
For further clarification of the methods and analyses employed in this study, please refer to the forthcoming final report of the 2000 Adopt-a-Beach Program. As always, it will be sent to adopters who request them, appropriate agencies, and other interested parties.
Kate Thompson

The folks who help keep Adopt-a-Beach going include (in alphabetical order): Lynn Hamilton, Gary O'Brien, Andre Potochnik, and Kate Thompson. We thank everyone who adopted a beach in 2000 and all of you who signed up for the 2001 season. It's exciting to have all of the study set plus added beaches under the stewardship of people who make a living on the Colorado River. It's a great way to give back to the place we all love. And there's still room for more adopters—two adopters for a single beach is even better! Please give Lynn a call and she will send out a packet in time for your next river trip. This program is completely dependent on your participation, and the results that have been directed through the Adaptive Management Program are due completely to all of your hard work in photographing and commenting on the condition of our camping beaches year after year. Finally, we extend our gratitude to our individual contributors, the Grand Canyon Conservation Fund, and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center for their dedicated support of this program.