Difference between revisions of "RECREATION"

A private whitewater trip through Grand Canyon covers 226 river miles from Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek and typically takes about 18 days; a commercial motor trip covers the same in roughly a week. Demand for this experience has exceeded supply for decades. Use has been capped since the 1970s, around 24,000 trips annually, a fifth of those private and the wait for a private permit once stretched to 12 years before the National Park Service changed how permits are allocated. This popularity translates into real economic value: recent estimates put whitewater recreation benefits (the amount boaters would pay above what they actually spent) at roughly $30–34 million a year, on top of visitor spending that supports several hundred jobs in northern Arizona. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 specifically directs that recreation be monitored as part of managing Glen Canyon Dam, which is why whitewater experience sits alongside sediment, humpback chub, and hydropower as a core GCDAMP resource.

Because use is capped and demand still exceeds it, the number of people on the river tells us almost nothing about whether a given flow regime made trips better or worse, the boats go out regardless of the water year. To learn whether flow matters to boaters, researchers have had to ask them directly.

Two independent surveys, run 15 years apart (Bishop et al. 1987 and Stewart et al. 2000), asked boaters to rate the importance of 24 trip features. Both times, the same five features came out on top, in the same order: being in the unique setting of Grand Canyon, being in a natural setting generally, stopping at side canyons and creeks, hiking those side canyons, and observing flora, fauna, and geology. Notably, rapids themselves were not among the top five, although the size and challenge of rapids does show up strongly in later satisfaction work.

Flow connects to these attributes mainly through time. Faster flows mean less time spent rowing or motoring and more time left in the day for the things boaters said they value most. Trip-diary work by Roberts and Bieri during the 2000 low summer steady flow experiment found boaters had about 7 hours a day for swimming, hiking, and visiting sites at flows around 19,000 cfs, versus only 3.5 hours at the 8,000 cfs steady flow. Satisfaction and stated economic value both peak in a middle flow band, roughly 20,000–28,000 cfs, and fall off at both extremes: too little water means slow travel and exposed hazards, too much means intensified rapids and shrinking camp beaches.

The other flow-sensitive attribute is campsite area, the sandy beaches boaters camp, cook, and hike from. Long-term monitoring (Kearsley and colleagues in the 1990s; Kaplinski and colleagues through the 2000s) has tracked a persistent decline: total campable area above the 25,000 cfs stage fell an estimated 44% between 1973 and 1991, and a further 55% between 1998 and 2003 alone. Because beach size directly affects crowding, camp choice, and the wilderness feel of a trip, this decline bears on GCDAMP's recreation objectives.

The economics literature has gone a step further and asked boaters what they'd pay for different hypothetical flow scenarios, using a "would you pay $X more than you did" question format. This traces out something like a demand curve and lets researchers estimate consumer surplus, the federally recommended way to value recreation benefits, and a genuinely different quantity from regional spending (which barely moves with flow, since use is capped). The 1987 Bishop study and a 2017 replication by Neher, Duffield, Bair, and colleagues both found the same inverted-U shape: private boaters' trip value rising from roughly $110 at 5,000 cfs to a peak near $630 around 28,000 cfs, then declining at 40,000 cfs.

What makes the 2017 study unusual is what it tested: whether those 1985 values still held 30 years later, the longest such comparison in the willingness-to-pay literature. The two boater cohorts had experienced very different rivers (an average flow of 26,000 cfs for the 1985 sample versus about 12,000 cfs for the 2015 sample), yet their adjusted willingness-to-pay values for the same four hypothetical flow scenarios were statistically indistinguishable. The ranking of scenarios was identical across the 30-year gap. The one caveat the authors flagged is that while the mean values held up, the underlying shape of how boaters respond to bid levels may have shifted somewhat once the data are corrected for differing survey designs, a technical nuance, but one worth stakeholders knowing about, since it means "stable values" is a more solid finding than "unchanging boater psychology."

The most consequential fact in the 2017 comparison may be the baseline itself: the average boater surveyed in 2014–15 experienced roughly half the flow of their 1985 counterpart. That is a preview of the question the program increasingly faces. Sustained lower reservoir storage and reduced releases push the operative flow range further toward the low end of the historical distribution, the end where the research consistently shows trip quality erodes fastest, through both compressed discretionary time and shrinking campsites.

The reassuring half of the research record is that we are not guessing at what boaters value, three decades of consistent, replicated findings say the answer is durable. The harder half is that "what boaters value" was never really the open question; it is how much of it a given water year can deliver. Under real hydrologic constraints, the practical management question is less about re-measuring preferences and more about sequencing: which monthly or seasonal volume patterns, within a shrinking total, best preserve navigable rapids, meaningful discretionary time, and usable campsite area across the recreation season. That is fundamentally an operations and modeling question, not a new survey question, though it does depend on the same flow-to-trip-attribute relationships this research base has already established.

A second, less-studied consequence of low water is participation itself. Because commercial and private trip logistics are more directly tied to flow than to preferences, sustained low water could change trip length, launch scheduling, or route feasibility in ways that user-day caps have so far masked. Unlike the visitor-experience question, this is something that could show up in NPS and outfitter records directly, and it remains comparatively unexplored.

Finally, there are real information gaps this research base has not closed: no comprehensive systemwide campsite inventory since the early 1990s, and no willingness-to-pay survey has yet been conducted under conditions resembling a sustained low-water future rather than a single experimental flow. Given how consistently boater priorities have held across 30 years and two very different rivers, there is good reason to expect the rankings would hold again, but confirming that, and updating the quantitative flow-value relationship for a genuinely different hydrologic regime, remains open work.

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).

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 2000 Stewart Report: Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.
• The 1987 Bishop Study: Grand Canyon Recreation and Glen Canyon Dam Operations: An Economic Evaluation. pg 407-436
• The 1987 Bishop Study: Glen Canyon Dam Releases and Down Stream Recreation: An Analysis of User Preferences and Economic Values. Report to GCES. 398 pgs.

• 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
• Socioeconomics Page
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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

• 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