Difference between revisions of "RECREATION"

There were two primary drivers responsible for the net loss in campsite area — (1) increases and decreases in campsite area as a result of deposition and erosion associated with controlled floods and regular dam operations and (2) long-term declines in campsite area due to vegetation encroachment. Gains and losses in campsite area associated with topographic change can cancel each other out, whereas vegetation change, for the most part, only leads to losses in campsite area. In terms of net change, vegetation encroachment contributed to 47 percent of the overall net loss in campsite area, and topographic change contributed to 53 percent of the overall net loss in campsite area.

Controlled floods can lead to increases in campsite area and are currently the only management strategy used to improve campsites along the Colorado River corridor. However, erosion of flood-deposited sandbars during normal dam operations following controlled floods causes these increases in campsite area to be short lived. At the same time, vegetation cover continues to increase, resulting in the progressive decline of campsite area.

One potential strategy to increase campsite area more often is more frequent implementation of controlled floods to build sandbars. This strategy was initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2012 by the adoption of a high-flow experimental protocol. This protocol allows for the implementation of a controlled flood every year, provided there is sufficient sand supplied by the Paria River (Bureau of Reclamation, 2012). Preliminary findings indicate that the protocol is resulting in larger sandbars (Grams and others, 2015). However, there is not always a direct correlation between increases in sandbar size and increases in campsite area. Whether this strategy leads to increases in campsite area that meet the management objectives set forth by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program for increasing the size of campsite area in critical and noncritical reaches remains uncertain.

Removal of vegetation may be another viable strategy for increasing the size of campsite area. Although most vegetation expansion is occurring in noncritical reaches, these sites tend to be larger in size and more numerous along the river corridor. Physically removing vegetation at these sites would likely accomplish little in terms of increasing recreational carrying capacity, because many of these sites can still accommodate large river groups despite having increases in vegetation cover. Instead, targeting smaller sites in critical reaches and focusing on removal of groundcover shrubs such as arrowweed and camelthorn (and (or) removal of tamarisk that is impacted by tamarisk beetle herbivory) would likely be the most practical and successful vegetation removal strategy. [2]

• Marble Canyon (river miles 9-41)
• Upper Gorge (river miles 71-114)
• Muav Gorge (river miles 131-165)

Changes to Grand Canyon Camping Beaches, Year 2000: Annual Report of Repeat Photography by Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. (Adopt-a-Beach Program)

• The threshold of 8 degrees is used to describe the approximate threshold for areas considered flat enough to use for camping (Kearsley and others, 1994; Hadley and others, 2018).

• GCMRC Annual Reports page
• 2006 Colorado River Management Plan
• Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) Page
• Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG) Page
• Boatman's Quarterly Review
• GCMRC Campsite Atlas (requires microsoft silverlight plug-in)
• GCMRC Campsite photo tour
• Sediment Page
• Vegetation Page
• The Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout Fishery Page
• Over Flights Page

Colorado River Runners Oral History Project

The Colorado River Runners Oral History Project is unparalleled within river running communities: though there are many regional organizations, no others have undertaken a project of this scope. GCRG unofficially began collecting oral history interviews in 1990 at “Woman of the River” Georgie White Clark’s 80th birthday party. Since that time, GCRG’s oral history project has produced nearly 100 interviews. Those interviews continue to serve as the centerpiece for each issue of our publication, the Boatman’s Quarterly Review.

Adopt a Beach Project

Implemented in 1996 after the first historic “Flood Flow,” Adopt-a-Beach is a “watch dog” program that allows volunteer guides to keep close tabs on changes to the recreational resource that we depend upon – camping beaches in Grand Canyon. To be specific, this long term photo-matching, beach monitoring effort documents changes in sand deposition on camping beaches along the Colorado River resulting from Glen Canyon Dam flows. The results are disseminated to strategic river managers including Grand Canyon National Park, the Adaptive Management Program, and the Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Center. Adopt-a-Beach is a fabulous example of a stewardship in action as we endeavor to “take care of our own back yard.” Please check out our extensive photo gallery as well as the Executive Summaries of past AAB reports. Full Reports are available upon request. And contact [email protected] if you’d like to volunteer! [3]

• 2009 Executive Summary
• 2008 Executive Summary
• 2006-2007 Executive Summary
• 2005 Executive Summary
• 2004 Executive Summary
• 2003 Executive Summary
• 2002 Executive Summary
• 2000-2001 Executive Summary

• Executive Summary of Results for Years 1996–2003
• Long Term Monitoring of Camping Beaches in Grand Canyon: A Summary of Results from 1996 – 2001 Annual Report of Repeat Photography By Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. (Adopt-A-Beach Program)
• Changes to Grand Canyon Camping Beaches, Year 2000: Annual Report of Repeat Photography by Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. (Adopt-a-Beach Program)

• LTEMP Resource Goal 6: Recreational Experience
• Debris flow risk at campsites in Grand Canyon
• Assessing 50 years of ecological changes at campsites along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon
• Adopt-A-Beach
• Life Needs Rivers
• Modeling Tools for Management: Recreation in Glen and Grand Canyons
• The Adopt-A-Beach Repeat Photography Project
• Sandbars and vegetation in Grand Canyon—podcast
• Changes in sandbars and campsites during the HFE Protocol
• Before and After Monsoon Beach/Camp Photos PPT
• Hadley et al., 2018, Quantifying geomorphic and vegetation change at sandbar campsites in response to flow regulation and controlled floods, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: River Research and Applications
• Hadley et al., 2018, Geomorphology and vegetation change at Colorado River campsites, Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Report data
• Neher et al., 2018, Exploring convergent validity between willingness to pay elicitation methods—An application to Grand Canyon whitewater boaters: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
• Neher et al., 2017, Testing the limits of temporal stability—Willingness to pay values among Grand Canyon whitewater boaters across decades. Water Resource Research
• Grand Canyon Private Boater's Association (GCPBA) letter requesting slower downramp rates following the Fall 2016 High flow experiment.
• Life Before AMWG, by Gaylord Staveley, April 19, 2016
• The View from the Camp: Grand Canyon River Guides perspective on HFEs and effects on beaches
• Hadley. 2014. Geomorphology and vegetation change at Colorado River campsites, Marble and Grand Canyons, AZ, unpublished MS Thesis, School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, 158 p.
• Kaplinski et al. 2014. Colorado River campsite monitoring, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 1998-2012, USGS Open-file Report: 2014-1161, 32 p.
• Lauck. 2013. To Re-photograph or Not, That is the Question: The Adopt-A-Beach Program Marches On: Boatman’s Quaterly Review, Winter 2013-2014, 26, 4, p. 21-23.
• Camp Sites
• Hazel et al. 2010. Sandbar response in Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona, following the 2008 high-flow experiment on the Colorado River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5015, 52 p.
• Kaplinskiet al. 2010. Colorado River campsite monitoring, 1998–2006, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, in Melis et al. eds., Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5135, 275-284 p.
• [http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/GCMRC/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf Stewart et al. 2000. Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.
• Behan, J. 1999, Recreation in the Colorado River Ecosystem, Grand Canyon, white paper to GCMRC

In Bishop et al. (1987; on page 410 of the 30 page report: “Grand Canyon Recreation and Glen Canyon Dam Operations: An Economic Evaluation) fluctuating flows are defined as any operation where the daily flow fluctuation was equal to or more than 10,000 cfs/day. Bishop treated daily flow fluctuations of less than 10,000 cfs/day as “constant flow releases.” Bishop identified that this “10,000 cfs threshold was determined to be the point at which fluctuations begin to be perceptible to recreationists.”

Additionally, Stewart et al.’s (2000) follow-up of the Bishop et al. (1987) study found that angler’s did not identify river level fluctuations, at least under the MLFF operating regime, as an issue. Based on information from Stewart et al (2000) and Bishop et al. (1987), any flow fluctuation below 10,000 cfs/day should be treated the same as a steady flow release.

• The Stewart Report: Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. 2000
• The Bishop Study: Grand Canyon Recreation and Glen Canyon Dam Operations: An Economic Evaluation. 1987. pg 407-436
• File:1987 Bishop GCDam releases downstream rec analysis user pref.pdf

• RAFTING | HIKING | FISHING |CAMPING | BOATING | KAYAKING | OVERFLIGHTS

• Grand Canyon Rafting - Documentary of Major Rapids (Horn Creek, Lava, Crystal)
• A look at 4 early pioneers of Utah river running
• You Can Ride An All-Electric Raft Down The Colorado River
• More than 20,000 rafters run the river each year.
• According to the Basin Study (2012)] results suggested that ecological and recreational metrics were amongst the most vulnerable to future conditions...[Source: 2.4;Figure 2.3]*LINK
• 150210 Respectful Recreation -Source_Boatman's Quarterly
• Motorized/Non-motorized Boating Seasons