RECREATION IN THE COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM, GRAND CANYON

Jeff Behan

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

October, 1999
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was researched and written with support from the Grand Canyon

Monitoring and Research Center. I thank Ruth Lambert and Barry Gold for the

opportunity to work on it. Terry Gunn (Lees Ferry Anglers), Dave Cohen (Trout

Unlimited) and Mark Grisham (Grand Canyon river Outfitters Association) provided

valuable information concerning commercial outfitting of trout fishing in Glen Canyon,

and river running in Grand Canyon.

Several expert reviewers commented on earlier drafts: Dr. R.W. Behan, Susan Cherry,

Dr. Barry Gold, Dr. Troy Hall, Dr. David Harpman, Ruth Lambert, Dr. Robert Manning,

Dr. William Stewart and Dr. Merton Richards. I thank each of them for taking time to

read a rough and unfocused piece of work, and for providing many useful and insightful

suggestions. This paper was much improved by their input, but any errors in

interpretation of legislation and research, unsubstantiated assertions, or omissions of

relevant material that remain are my own responsibility and not theirs.
3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. RATIONALE FOR THE RECREATION COMPONENT OF

THE GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: A

REVIEW OF GUIDING DOCUMENTS

The Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan and Colorado

River Management Plan

The Wilderness Act

The Grand Canyon Protection Act

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Operation of Glen Canyon

Dam

The Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Charter

The Office of the Solicitor’s Report on Federal Advisory Committee Act

Guidance for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

The United States Department of the Interior Office of the Assistant Secretary

of Water and Science Guidelines for the Grand Canyon and Monitoring and

Research Center

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Draft FY2000-2004

Monitoring and Research Strategic Plan

The National Research Council Review of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

 Management Program

CHAPTER 2. THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING RECREATION

RESOURCES

Overview of recreation in the Colorado River Ecosystem

Recreation and physical resources

Recreation and biological resources

Recreation and cultural resources

Recreation and hydropower resources

Recreation and economic resources

Wildland recreation as experiences and benefits

Crowding and social carrying capacity

Prior studies of river recreation

Current studies of river recreation

 CHAPTER 3. RECREATION AND THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

The role of social science in the Adaptive Management Program

The problem of defining recreation resources

Suggestions for updating information needs and future research

Social benefits and the Adaptive Management Program

5

8

10

11

14

16

17

18

20

21

23

24

26

28

28

30

33

34

35

39

42

45

47

49

52

52

54

58

62
4

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

Management Objectives and Information Needs for recreation resources

 (from Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Draft 1998 Strategic

Plan)

65

77
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recreation in the CRE between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead consists primarily

of boat-based use of the blue ribbon trout fishery and day rafting trips in Glen Canyon

National Recreation Area, and multi-day whitewater rafting trips in Grand Canyon

National Park. Hikers and foot-based anglers also access the river corridor. Raft trips

originating at Lees Ferry are recognized as internationally significant and unique ; and

managed by the National Park Service to provide a Wilderness river experience.

Continually affected by operations at Glen Canyon Dam, recreation resources are cited

commensurately with physical, biological and cultural resources in the Grand Canyon

Protection Act, Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, which

established the Colorado River Adaptive Management Program (AMP) and the GCMRC.

This document delineates the relevance and scope of a recreation resource component

for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) and the Colorado

River Adaptive Management Program (AMP). The significance of Colorado River

recreation is specifically addressed in legislation and guiding documents for the AMP,

but has been only partially articulated by subsequent direction given to the AMP and

GCMRC. Because recreation resources have been incompletely defined, there is a

tendency to equate them with biophysical settings, while important social components of

recreation experiences are frequently overlooked. Professional expertise and knowledge

gained through recreation and other social science research should be more fully utilized

to understand recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE).

Notably, the GCMRC mentions wilderness experience opportunities in its 1998 Draft

Strategic Plan, and is supporting research into attitudes and preferences of users toward

recreation opportunities and setting attributes related to river flows, changing attitudes

and preferences of users, and user attitudes and preferences in relation to stakeholder

visions. The GCMRC has also instituted a more focused effort toward monitoring of

camping beaches in critical reaches of the river corridor.

GCMRC-supported recreation research is currently limited to investigation of river

flow related effects, while most other experiential aspects that underlie significant

individual and societal benefits of this world-class resource remain poorly understood.

Current research is geographically restricted to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon,
6

although other resources are analyzed regionally to establish baseline comparisons and

potential substitutes. Due, perhaps, to the interdisciplinary nature of factors that

comprise recreation resources, the ways recreation fits within other GCMRC resource

programs are not clearly presented by the 1998 Draft Strategic Plan. Explanation of the

substantial social and economic benefits of Colorado River recreation is incomplete.

Based on a more precise conceptualization of wildland recreation (anchored in the

professional literature and supported by ongoing research) the following definition is

proposed: Recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem consist of a

spectrum of actual and potential, non-substitutable, world-class experience

opportunities (comprised of an array of interactions between biophysical,

socioeconomic, cultural and managerial factors) that produce many market and

nonmarket benefits for individual visitors, social groups and society.

To be consistent with the spirit of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, Environmental

Impact Statement and Record of Decision, it should be clarified within the Adaptive

Management Program that recreation opportunities in the Colorado River ecosystem are

unique and of international significance. The biophysical, social and managerial

components of recreation resources are highly interrelated, indicating that research in

more than one discipline is necessary to understand linkages between recreation and other

types of resources.

Two additional information needs are suggested as being necessary for the AMP to

properly account for recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem:

1. “Characterize and define the scope of recreation experience opportunities

presently and potentially available in the Colorado River ecosystem, and

individual and social benefits associated with them. Consistent with the adaptive

ecosystem management paradigm, include both biophysical and sociocultural

parameters, and describe relationships between them. Compare and contrast

these experience opportunities with other river recreation opportunities in the

region.”

2. “Generate an up to date valuation of market and nonmarket, individual and

social benefits generated by use of recreation resources in the Colorado River

ecosystem. Include multiplier effects and a thorough regional economic analysis.

Use market economic measures as well as contingent valuation, travel cost,
7

conjoint analysis and other professionally accepted nonmarket economic

techniques where relevant and needed.”

To meet these information needs, a recreation research component for the Colorado

River AMP is suggested, consisting of:

1. Onriver research to establish (1) why and how the experience is perceived as

unique, and (2) an inventory of benefits (physical, psychological, personal/social,

spiritual) that visitors value, the relative importance of these benefits, and their

relationship to ecological factors in specific reaches.

2. A regional comparison of river recreation experience opportunities to complement

regional comparisons of substitutes for other resources.

3. An up to date inventory of all camping beaches currently used on a regular basis.

4. A unified effort to monitor a subset of camping beaches inventoried: all camping

beaches in critical reaches, and sample of camps in non-critical reaches. These

sites should be established through consultation with commercial and private river

runners.

5. Analysis of regional market and nonmarket economic benefits of Colorado River

recreation to complement data used to regionally analyze other economic

resources.

Portions of this research component are being addressed by current and proposed

GCMRC studies, but other portions are not.

Finally, it is suggested that implicit valuations of social benefits associated with

various resources should be made explicit to the degree possible (as the National

Research Council advises) by acknowledging the normative nature of statements in AMP

planning documents, and generating better and more complete economic data for

recreation and other socioeconomic resources.
8

Introduction

The 240-mile reach of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon supports one of the

world’s premier wilderness river trip experiences. Approximately 22,000 visitors per

year take part in trips on various portions of the river, spending from 3 to 21 days

floating, running rapids, day hiking and camping in the river corridor. Between Diamond

Creek and the upper reaches of Lake Mead the river is utilized by a commercial river

running business operated by the Hualapai Tribe, which offers 2-3 day trips. The last

remaining riverine section of Glen Canyon (the 15-mile segment of the Colorado River

between the tailwaters of Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry) also supports day rafting

trips in which more than 33,000 people participate annually. The renowned rainbow

trout fishery in this reach is visited by more than 20,000 anglers each year, and supports

about 20 commercial fishing guiding services.

Several aspects of these unique recreation resources are continually and significantly

affected by operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Concern about effects on recreational,

natural and cultural resources along the river led to the Grand Canyon Protection Act of

1992, a Final Environmental Impact Statement for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam

(1995), a Record of Decision (1996) and ultimately to creation of the Grand Canyon

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) in late 1996. Currently, the GCMRC is

charged with overseeing monitoring and research of the effects of dam operations on

downstream resources, including recreation resources, as part of an Adaptive

Management Program (AMP) for Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River ecosystem.

For the purposes of the AMP, “the Colorado River ecosystem is defined as the Colorado

River mainstem corridor and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace

zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary

of Grand Canyon National Park, a distance of approximately 300 river miles” (GCMRC

1998, p. 1).

The purposes of this paper are to:

1. Review AMP/GCMRC guiding documents that delineate the GCMRC Recreation

Resource Program, and describe the rationale for a recreation resource research

and monitoring component.
9

2. Summarize the current state of knowledge and relevant literature concerning

recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem, including both previous

and current studies.

3. Generate a more explicit description/definition for recreation resources.

4. Discuss gaps in current knowledge and monitoring of recreation resources in the

Colorado River ecosystem, and suggest studies and alternative methodologies

which could be utilized to increase understanding and effectively monitor these

resources.
10

CHAPTER 1

RATIONALE FOR THE RECREATION COMPONENT OF THE GLEN CANYON

DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: A

REVIEW OF GUIDING DOCUMENTS

Recreation resources of the Colorado River ecosystem are managed by the National

Park Service (NPS) through its administration of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP)

and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA). Areas affected by Glen Canyon

Dam are within GCNP and GCNRA, which is why the NPS is the major stakeholder in

the AMP. Language describing NPS management objectives for recreation and visitor

use is contained in the General Management Plan and Colorado River Management Plan

for GCNP (USDOI National Park Service 1995). Because most of GCNP (including the

Colorado River) is potential wilderness, the scope of recreation experience opportunities

that are managed for here is also governed by the Wilderness Act.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA, 1992), Final Environmental Impact

Statement for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (EIS, USDOI Bureau of Reclamation,

1995a) and Record of Decision (ROD, USDOI 1996) are the principal guiding documents

for the AMP. They clearly specify visitor use and recreation as resources that fall within

the purview of activities overseen by the AMP for Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado

River ecosystem. Other documents that frame AMP/GCMRC activities concerning

recreation are the Charter for the Adaptive Management Work Group (USDOI 1998), the

Department of Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Guidelines for the

GCMRC (USDOI Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, undated), the

GCMRC 1998 Draft Strategic Plan (GCMRC 1998) and the Programmatic Agreement.

The Department of Interior Office of the Solicitor’s report (USDOI Office of the Solicitor

1999) and the National Research Council review of the AMP (National Research Council

1999) provide very specific guidance regarding the program’s scope and direction.

In this chapter, pertinent language from each of these documents is examined in detail.

First, the basis for considering recreation a downstream resource of concern to the AMP

is introduced by reviewing NPS management plans that address recreation opportunities

in the Colorado River ecosystem. Relationships between the Wilderness Act, river

recreation, NPS management and the AMP are then outlined. Next, the GCPA, EIS,
11

ROD and Solicitor’s report are analyzed for language that describes how the authors of

these guiding documents envisioned recreation resources fitting within the AMP.

Finally, the GCMRC 1998 Draft Strategic Plan and 1999 NRC review of the AMP are

examined for specific directions the GCMRC is currently taking regarding recreationoriented research and monitoring.

The Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan and Colorado River

Management Plan

The United States National Park system was initiated when Yosemite National Park

was protected (though not yet named as such) in 1864, and Yellowstone National Park

was established in 1872. Grand Canyon National Monument was designated in 1908 and

elevated to national park status in 1919. The National Park Service itself came into being

with passage of the National Park Service Act in 1916. The purpose of national parks, as

defined in a key clause of the act drafted by Fredrick Law Olmstead, Jr., “is to conserve

the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for

the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” (Runte 1987.) While the dialectic

between visitor use and ecological preservation in national parks continues to spark

debate, opportunities for humans to enjoy them (i.e. recreation) is a primary reason the

parks were designated, and continues to be one of their principal purposes today.

Administration of Grand Canyon National Park is guided by the 1995 General

Management Plan (GMP) and more detailed plans for specific park regions. The GMP

specifies that the park will be managed to:

1.) preserve and protect its natural and cultural resources and ecological processes, as

well as its scenic, aesthetic and scientific values

2.) provide opportunities for visitors to experience and understand environmental

interrelationships, resources and values of the Grand Canyon without impairing the

resources (USDOI National Park Service 1995b, p. 1).

Among reasons the GMP cites for the national and international significance of GCNP

are its status as a World Heritage Site, and recreational opportunities on the Colorado

River, recognized as “...one of the world’s premier river experiences, including one of
12

the longest stretches of navigable whitewater on earth” (U.S. Department of Interior,

National Park Service 1995b, p. 3). Several management objectives listed for the

Colorado River in the GMP pertain to recreation or recreational conditions in the river

corridor:

1. To the maximum extent possible, restore altered ecosystems to their natural

conditions.

2. Manage the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon to protect and

preserve the resource in a wild and primitive condition. Actively pursue the

designation of eligible sections of the Colorado River and its tributaries as part of

the National Wild and Scenic River System.

3. Provide a variety of primitive recreational activities consistent with Wilderness

and NPS policies on accessibility. In deciding which opportunities would be

provided in the Park’s undeveloped areas, consider both the recreational

opportunities available in Park developed areas, and recreational opportunities

outside the Park.

4. Consistent with park purposes and the characteristics of each landscape unit,

preserve and protect the maximum opportunities in every landscape unit of the

park for visitors to experience the solitude, natural conditions, primitiveness,

remoteness and inspirational value of the Grand Canyon.

5. Provide a Wilderness river experience on the Colorado River. This objective will

not affect decisions regarding the use of motorboats on the river.

6. Establish indicators and standards for desired visitor experiences and resource

conditions, monitor those indicators on a regular basis, and take action to meet the

standards if they are not being met. (USDOI National Park Service 1995b, p. 7-8,

11.)

Thus, the NPS intends to manage Colorado River trip experience opportunities to be as

close to the intent of the Wilderness Act as possible (within the constraint of prior

existence of motorized trips). The relative substitutability or uniqueness of river

experience opportunities within park boundaries will be assessed by considering them in

relation to recreational opportunities beyond the actual park borders. NPS management

of the River Corridor is also currently guided by the older, but more specific Colorado

River Management Plan (CRMP) of 1989. Among the goals and objectives listed in the

1989 CRMP are these concerning river recreation:
13

-To provide Colorado River users the opportunity to participate in and appreciate a

variety of the unique experiences offered by Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) as

a whole and by the riverine environment in particular.

-To provide a quality Colorado River experience through GCNP by determining the

impact of crowding and use levels on visitor experience (considering trip size,

number of contacts per day, visitor expectations, and time of year) through social

science research.

-To establish, design, and implement an integrated, long-term monitoring program to

assess changes in the status of [natural, cultural and] experiential resources.

- To initiate social science research to develop visitor profiles and user expectations

for the Colorado River whitewater experience.

-To allow for visitation to attraction sites, for hiking side canyons, and for general offriver versus on-river time.

-To provide the opportunity to experience solitude, quiet, and the unique and natural

environment of the canyon.

To meet these objectives, the year was divided into a high density use primary season

(6/1-8/15), medium density use primary shoulder seasons in the spring and fall (5/1-6/1,

8/15-9/30), and a low density use secondary season (10/1-4/30). Among assumptions

made during development of these guidelines were (1) that commercial trip customers

taking a trip during the primary season have the least defined set of preferences and will

be the least impacted by high density use, (2) secondary season visitors likely have the

most defined expectations with respect to crowding and solitude, and (3) that both private

and commercial visitors who wish to avoid the periods of highest density use could visit

during the primary shoulder season. Density is managed by varying the number of

people allowed to launch (daily or weekly) during each season. Specific numbers of

contacts with other groups, and probabilities of camping within sight or sound of another

group are targeted for each season as well, and monitored via the Limits of Acceptable

Change approach (U.S. Department Of the Interior, National Park Service 1989).

 At the time of this writing, the 1989 CRMP is being revised to conform with direction

given in the 1995 GMP, and to be more consistent with the GCNP Wilderness

Management Plan. River management issues identified through the scoping process will

be addressed, and methods described to manage and distribute recreational use along the
14

River will be based primarily on meeting resource protection and Wilderness

management objectives (USDOI National Park Service 1997). The revised CRMP is

scheduled to be submitted in draft form in late 2000, and finalized in 2001.

The 1995 GMP also expresses the intention of park managers to integrate (to the

extent possible given that management objectives sometimes conflict) their goals with

regional plans and projects beyond park boundaries: “The revised [CRMP]

will...conform to NPS direction and responsibilities as set forth in the Operation of Glen

Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (Bureau of Reclamation)” (USDOI

National Park Service 1995, p. 57). This language reflects the spirit of the AMP, in

which the various stakeholders are to address ramifications of decisions and goals that

cross jurisdictional boundaries, and to be cognizant of how managing for one kind of

resource affects others.

The Wilderness Act

The NPS 1995 General Management Plan includes the management objective to

“provide a wilderness river experience on the Colorado River” (U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service 1995). Although management of river experiences is

primarily the responsibility of the NPS, wilderness qualities of these experiences are

inextricably linked to, and affected by, operations of GCD. In 1993 the NPS updated its

1980 recommendation for designating 980,088 acres within Grand Canyon National Park

as wilderness and proposed an additional 131,814 acres of potential wilderness additions,

much of this along the River Corridor. This “potential proposed” designation is currently

undergoing legal and policy review within the NPS (USDOI National Park Service

1998a) and action by Congress on the recommendation is pending, though the issue is

unlikely to be resolved soon. In the meantime, as noted in the EIS, “NPS is mandated by

the Wilderness Act to protect wilderness values in the park, including those along the

river, and to take no action that would potentially compromise future wilderness

suitability” (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a, p.154).

The EIS points out that “wilderness is both a legal and philosophical concept- an area

that appears to be influenced primarily by the forces of nature” (USDOI Bureau of

Reclamation 1995a, p. 154). The Wilderness Act of 1964 gave legal definition to
15

wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled

[uncontrolled] by man...retaining its primeval character and influence, without

permanent improvements...”, and instructed managers to “administer [wilderness areas]

for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them

unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness” (quoted in USDOI National Park

Service, 1998b). As many have noted (e.g. Nash 1982, Oelschlager et al. 1989),

wilderness is at the same time a rather fuzzy philosophical concept, with connotations

that have changed over time. Our prehistoric ancestors would have been baffled by ideas

of wilderness as somehow separate from daily routines. Historically, wilderness was

often characterized as useless at best, and at worst as dangerous, forbidding and in need

of human control. Conversely, in late 20th century industrial societies most people live

in greater isolation from the natural world than ever before, and the concept of wilderness

is generally viewed much more positively. Knowledge of legal details concerning the

Wilderness Preservation System may be limited among the general public (Hall 1999),

but there is broad awareness that wildernesses are valuable as ecological refuges, and as

counterpoints to built environments where humans can find solitude and recover from

pressures of modern life. Although the exact meaning of wilderness varies between

people, three central themes consistently emerge: experiential, the direct value of

wilderness experiences in wilderness; the scientific values of wildernesses as

environmental baselines, and the symbolic and spiritual values of wilderness to the nation

and the world (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas 1990).

Use of designated wilderness areas and national parks is increasing, leading to the

suggestion that managers should concentrate more of their efforts on the quality of

wildland experiences (Cole 1996). Travelers on the Colorado River value wilderness

aspects of it highly: enjoying a wilderness experience is one of the attributes of an

excellent or perfect trip most frequently mentioned by river runners (Bishop et al. 1987,

Hall and Shelby, forthcoming). The EIS states that Glen Canyon Dam itself does not

render the Colorado River in Grand Canyon unsuitable for wilderness designation, but

that operation of the dam can influence wilderness attributes downstream. As the EIS

notes, “the feeling of being in a wilderness area can be affected by fluctutations in daily

flows since changes in releases from the dam would continually remind boaters of human
16

control over riverflow and thus of the recreational environment.” (USDOI Bureau of

Reclamation 1995a, p. 154). Many visitors do believe daily fluctuations detract from the

river’s wilderness qualities (Shelby, Brown and Baumgartner 1992); Bishop et al. (1987)

found that most river runners are aware of daily fluctuations, and most felt that these

fluctuations make the trip seem less like a natural setting. The magnitude of fluctuations

between high and low daily flows, and the rates at which flows are increased and

decreased (ramping rates) have been attenuated since late 1992 to comply with provisions

of the GCPA, EIS and ROD. It is presumed, but not known, that these changes in water

release patterns have reduced dam-related impacts on wilderness experience quality.

Beach erosion decreases wilderness quality by making it more difficult for river trips

to camp out of sight and earshot of one another, and because it is perceived as a human

impact that degrades natural qualities of the ecosystem. Solitude is considered one of the

most important aspects of a wilderness experience (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas 1990),

although other research suggests that while escaping crowds is important, visitors may

value natural aspects of wilderness environments even more highly (Watson et al. 1992).

In any case, opportunities for solitude, and settings where evidence of human impact is

minimal are two critical components of wilderness river experiences that are affected by

dam operations. Language in the Wilderness Act, and NPS responsibilities to manage the

River Corridor as potential wilderness, leave no doubt as to the relevance of GCMRC

studies that assess river experiences vis a vis wilderness, and how operations of GCD can

be altered to mitigate impacts on wilderness qualities along the river.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act

The most specific legal basis for a recreation component within the AMP is language

in the GCPA, Section 1802(a) which directs the Secretary of the Interior to “...operate

Glen Canyon Dam in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and

improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park...[was] established,

including, but not limited to, natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” For the

purposes of this document, “visitor use” is assumed to be synonymous with “recreation”.

Section 1804(b) of the GCPA refers to an audit of costs and benefits to water and

power users, and to natural, recreational and cultural resources in GCNP resulting from
17

long-term operational policies for GCD. Section 1805(b) specifies that “long-term

monitoring of GCD shall include research and studies to determine effect of the Secretary

[of Interior’s] actions...[of adoption of criteria and plans for the operation of GCD]...on

natural, recreational and cultural resources of GCNP...”.

It is important to note here that no hierarchy of the relative importance of natural,

recreational, or cultural resource areas is mentioned or implied in the language of the

GCPA. These are all values for which the park was established and therefore equally

worthy of research, monitoring, protection and enhancement.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam

As specified in the GCPA, recreation resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam in

Glen and Grand Canyons were addressed by the EIS. Among the resource issues

determined to be of concern by the initial scoping process were these that relate directly

to river-based recreation: beaches, rafting/boating, fish, Grand Canyon wilderness, and

non-use values. Public interests and values identified during the scoping process that

may also relate to river-based recreation included expressions about the Grand Canyon,

nonquantifiable values, nature vs. human use, and complexity of GCD issues.

The EIS team consolidated and refined issues of concern to the public and Federal,

State and Tribal Governments, and identified resources and significant issues to be

examined in detail. Although the eleven issues identified are interrelated in many ways,

one pertained specifically to recreation: How do dam operations affect recreation in the

study area? Indicators identified for this issue include whitewater boating trip attributes,

camping beaches, safety and wilderness values. Also identified was a biological resource

related to the rainbow trout fishery and recreational fishing: “How do dam operations

affect FISH-their life cycles, habitat, and ability to spawn?” Biological indicators

identified for this issue which indirectly concern recreational fishing are abundance of

cladophora and associated diatoms for the aquatic food base, level of interactions

between native and non-native fish, and reproduction, recruitment and growth of trout.

Perhaps most importantly, the EIS identified non-use value as a significant issue

relevant in the decision making process. Non-use values are described as values in which

“...the nonmarket good is the status of particular attributes of the physical environment”,
18

and arise because “the state of the natural environment affects people both in how they

use the environment and how they would prefer the environment to be”. One component

of non-use value is described as the “desire to preserve the natural ecosystem to maintain

the option for future use.” (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a, p. 174, all quotes.)

The EIS clearly describes aspects of river recreation in the Colorado River ecosystem

as unique, stating that “the Colorado River through Marble and Grand Canyons is the

longest stretch of river (278 miles long, with over 160 recognized rapids) for recreational

use entirely within a national park”, and that “some of the world’s most challenging and

exciting whitewater occurs here” (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a, p.148). It was

also noted that “river-based recreation activities in Glen and Grand Canyons are

nationally and internationally renowned for their quality and scope”. The EIS further

acknowledges that “dam operations affect the experience of recreationists using the

Colorado River in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon...”, states that resources downstream

of GCD are interrelated, and emphasizes “...the holistic pattern of system behavior”

(USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a, p.69). It was recognized that a complete

scientific study of the Colorado River ecosystem was beyond the scope of the EIS

process, that linkages among downstream resources were not fully understood and that a

program of monitoring and adaptive management were required to expand understanding

of how changes in processes affect the system.

Recreation resources are perhaps the least understood of those identified by the GCPA

and EIS. Direction provided by this and aforementioned language in the EIS specifically

gives the GCMRC latitude to fund studies designed to expand understanding and more

clearly define the world-class recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem, and

linkages between these and other downstream resources.

The Record of Decision

The Record of Decision (ROD) signed on October 8, 1996 documented Secretary of

the Interior Bruce Babbitt’s decision to implement operating criteria specified in the

Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative described in the EIS (U.S.

Department of the Interior 1996). Section 1802[a] of the GCPA (to which the GCMRC

would often refer when delineating its activities) was again cited, including the
19

stipulation requiring the Secretary to “...protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and

improve values for which GCNP was created...including...visitor use.” The ROD also

reiterated issues of public concern identified during the public scoping, and noted that

this process was accompanied by “...national attention and intense interest in the EIS.”

(Issues of public concern that relate to river-based recreation are covered in the

discussion of the EIS, above.)

It was noted that modification of upramp rates and maximum allowable releases that

occurred between the draft and final EIS phases were controversial among certain interest

groups, and allowed for review of the revised maximum flow if impacts differing from

those described in the EIS were identified by the AMP. Among the purposes of the EIS

process that reevaluated GCD operations, the ROD listed “...mitigating, consistent with

law, adverse impacts on....Native American interests in...Grand Canyon...”. Native

American interests include the Hualapai commercial river running operation between

Diamond Creek and Lake Mead.

The ROD is the first document guiding GCMRC activities that specifically includes

results of the GCES non-use value study, and thus significantly modifies and updates

language in the GCPA and EIS relating to GCMRC responsibilities concerning

recreation. It states that “although there would be a significant loss of hydropower

benefits due to the selection of the preferred alternative (between $15.1 and $44.2 million

annually) a recently completed non-use value study conducted under the Glen Canyon

Environmental Studies [GCES] indicates that the American people are willing to pay

much more than this loss to maintain a healthy ecosystem in the Grand Canyon.” (U.S.

Department of the Interior 1996).

In addition, the ROD notes a finding of the GCPA-mandated audit conducted by the

General Accounting Office (GAO) on the ways costs and benefits were calculated in the

EIS that there were “...shortcomings in the application of certain methodologies and

data...”. These shortcomings may have resulted in overestimation of impacts to

hydropower, and underestimation of impacts to recreation in the EIS. The ROD cites

findings that “reclamation’s assumptions do not explicitly include the mitigating effect of

higher electricity (price elasticity)”, that “Reclamation’s assumptions about natural gas

prices were relatively high and that two computational errors were made during the third
20

phase of power analysis” and that “according to the GAO, these limitations suggest that

the estimated economic impacts are subject to uncertainty.” Regarding impact analysis

for recreation, the ROD states that “certain data [for impact analysis] were incomplete or

outdated, particularly data used in assessing the economic impact of alternative flows on

recreational activities” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1996).

Despite these qualifications, the ROD endorsed the preferred alternative without

reassessment of cost and benefit accounting procedures and results contained in the EIS.

This decision was based on National Research Council (NRC) reviews generally finding

the analysis to be adequate, and GAO conclusions that the shortcomings and limitations

identified were “...not significant and would not likely alter findings with respect to the

preferred alternative and usefulness of the document [EIS] in the decision-making

process.” Notwithstanding this endorsement, the NRC did find that power interests had

an undue amount of influence in the economic research, particularly the work of the

Power Resources Committee (NRC 1996). That the issue has not yet been re-examined

may indicate that values and benefits of river recreation experiences are poorly

articulated and understood. The problem of incomplete economic data for recreation and

other socioeconomic concerns has been reinforced by a more recent NRC review of AMP

and GCMRC activities (NRC 1999).

The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Charter

On December 28, 1998 Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt signed a document

officially describing the background, purpose, parameters and responsibilities of the

Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG, U.S. Department of Interior 1998). The

Charter paraphrases oft-cited language in the GCPA directing the “...Secretary of the

Interior, among others, to operate GCD in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse

impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon...was created, including but

not limited to...visitor use.” The phrase “among others” (referring to those who operate

GCD) is added to this version, although these “others” are not identified. The AMWG is

directed to “define and recommend resource management objectives for development and

implementation of a long-term monitoring plan, and any necessary research and studies

required to determine the effect of the operation of GCD on the natural, recreational and
21

cultural resources of the Grand Canyon National Park...” and to “monitor and report on

compliance of all program activities and applicable laws, permitting requirements, and

the [GCP] Act.” An important stipulation is that “the duties and functions of the

AMWG are in an advisory capacity only.” This language gives the GCMRC latitude in

proposing studies not necessarily originating with, or endorsed by the entire AMWG,

provided these studies are consistent with the meaning and spirit of the GCPA and EIS.

The Office of the Solicitor’s Report on Federal Advisory Committee Act Guidance for

the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

Responding to issues raised in late 1998 by stakeholders in the Adaptive Management

Work Group (AMWG), the DOI Office of Solicitor researched and answered a list of

questions developed by the AMWG which were intended to clarify several aspects of the

ROD that remained ambiguous. Responses were returned to the AMWG and GCMRC in

mid-1999 in a document referred to by these entities as the Solicitor’s Report, or herein

as simply the report (U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor 1999). Aspects

of this report that help clarify GCMRC responsibilities and activities regarding recreation

resources are discussed here.

The report quotes language in the Senate Report on the GCPA, stating this bill’s

primary purpose as “...to prevent damage to downstream resources, principally [from]

the dam’s power operations” to the extent possible within the existing “Law of the

River”. The report also states that “it is clear that Congress understood that these

objectives would have certain costs in the form of lost hydropower generating

opportunity”, and that “the basic question Congress was addressing was “how can GCD

operations be modified so as to improve conditions for downstream resources?”

The report emphasizes that the EIS was a “..rough answer to [this] question...”, that

the ROD selection of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative was the

DOI’s “...best first answer” and that discussions and analyses in the EIS “...provide a

starting point for the state of the science at the time the decision was made to implement

the [MLFF]...”. Accordingly, Congress added section 1805 to the GCPA specifically

acknowledging that more “...experience and knowledge with operations might further

improve downstream resource conditions...”. Language from the GCPA referring to
22

protection, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and improvement of “...the values for

which GCNP...was established” is once again reiterated. Since “visitor use” (i.e.

recreation) is explicitly mentioned as one of these values, this language reaffirms that

GCMRC activities assessing GCD operational impacts on recreation are consistent with

the intention of the GCPA.

The report explains the scope of AMWG responsibilities as “...to identify aspects of

dam operations that can be modified to beneficially affect...downstream resources...”.

After listing several very specific aspects of dam operations and effects as examples, the

report states that the AMWG is additionally charged with investigating “...any aspect [of

dam operations]...which has a reasonably demonstrable effect on the downstream

resources sought to be improved by the GCPA.”

Language in the Charter for the AMWG authorizing it to “...recommend research and

monitoring proposals outside the [GCP] Act which complement the AMP process [that]

will be funded separately, and [should] not deter from the focus of the Act” is clarified by

the solicitor as meaning “...anything the committee considers relevant but tangential or

attenuated in its effects on riparian resources downstream of the dam, as identified

above.” This language is still vague, but may include factors related to river recreation.

The same can be said for Senate Report language stating that the Secretary should

consider and may implement non-operational measures to address downstream effects of

GCD if such other remedial measures meet this title’s goal of protecting, mitigating

damage to, and improving the resources downstream of the dam.

As with other guiding documents for the GCMRC, the most important point is that

recreation is a downstream resource commensurate in significance with biophysical

concerns such as endangered fish and sediment, so the language quoted above also

applies specifically to recreation. The report specifies that “...long term monitoring and

research...are intended to enable finer and finer tuning of operations over time, as

additional knowledge and experience are gained.” This should include efforts to

delineate recreation resources as specifically as possible given the current state of

knowledge (in the same manner as is being done for all other affected resources), to

update this knowledge on a regular basis, and to incorporate it as it becomes available

into operational planning.
23

The United States Department of the Interior Office of the Assistant Secretary of Water

and Science Guidelines for the Grand Canyon and Monitoring and Research

Center

As the Secretary of the Interior’s Designee, the Assistant Secretary for Water and

Science drafted a document for the GCMRC, which “...specifies guidelines for

organization and administration of both short and long-term monitoring and research

programs called for in the Grand Canyon Protection Act.” (U.S. Department of Interior,

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, undated). In stating the rationale

for research and monitoring, the guidelines paraphrase pertinent language from the

GCPA, including the now familiar reference to “...natural, recreational, and cultural

resources...” and “...visitor use.” It is noted that “the [AMP] decision and management

process is constantly evolving, with continuous input of new information and science

from a Research Center”, presumably including information on poorly defined recreation

resources.

The guidelines offer a definition of the role of the GCMRC: “To conduct short and

long-term ecosystem monitoring and research programs of alternative dam operation

criteria and other information needs specified by the AMWG. To evaluate ecosystem

resource impacts and changes resulting from alternative dam operating criteria to aquatic,

terrestrial and cultural resources in the river corridor. To inform the AMWG of resource

protection, management and use implications of alternative dam operating criteria.” It is

notable that all resources except recreation are reiterated here, even though recreation

resources are specified by the GCPA.

The mission of the GCMRC is defined as “...to operate within the AMP and with the

AMWG/TWG to develop and implement scientifically sound monitoring, research and

information archiving and transfer programs for the Colorado River and associated

resources in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons.” These “...associated resources...”

include recreation resources, as specified by the GCPA, EIS, ROD and other documents.
24

The Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Draft FY2000-2004 Monitoring

and Research Strategic Plan

The GCMRC Draft Strategic Plan (GCMRC 1998) outlines scientific programming

that the GCMRC proposes to implement to fulfill its role within the AMP, toward the

goal of meeting the statutory requirements of the GCPA, EIS, and the ROD. Scientific

activities to be implemented over a 5-year period are described for physical, biological,

cultural, socioeconomic and recreational resources and “...will relate to known or

hypothesized resource impacts, primarily in the Colorado River ecosystem within Grand

Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, resulting from ‘...the

effects of the Secretary’s actions...’”. The “Secretary’s actions” are defined as including

“...dam operations or alternative operating criteria as well as other authorized actions”.

The background, status of knowledge, management objectives and information needs for

socio-cultural resources are presented separately for cultural resources, recreational

resources, and economic market activities.

Though recreation resources are not specifically defined, the Draft Strategic Plan

implicitly acknowledges that they consist of experience opportunities by stating that “the

preferred alternative considered impacts on recreation and has attempted to enhance the

recreational experience (e.g. opportunities to experience wilderness, natural quiet and

solitude, etc.) in the river corridor” (p. 100). An experiential definition for recreation is

also implied by objectives listed for long-term monitoring and research: “...to determine

whether recreational experiences and safety are affected [by] dam operations, and

whether changes in recreational patterns resulting from selected dam operational

conditions have any effect on the downstream resources” (p. 100).

The plan states that “recreational use of the river has economic and environmental

importance” and that “...as a major public use within Glen and Grand Canyons,

recreation creates jobs and financial support within the region and also has affects on

other resources” (p. 100). Discussion of the environmental importance of recreational

use is limited to potential impacts on biophysical and cultural resources. Aside from

acknowledgement that recreation has economic importance by creating jobs and financial

support in the region, no mention is made of the unique character of experience
25

opportunities on the river, or of the range of benefits these experiences produce for

individuals and social groups.

A critical component of the AMP is establishment by the AMWG of Management

Objectives (MOs) and Information Needs (INs) for each resource area. MOs and INs are

prioritized and communicated to the Technical Work Group (TWG) and ultimately to the

GCMRC, where they are formulated into work projects that become the basis of science

programming. MOs and associated INs for many resource issues have been identified by

the AMWG since its inception. Revision and prioritization of MOs and INs was the

focus of several meetings of the TWG in early 1998; INs were officially prioritized by 14

members of the TWG on April 23, 1998 (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

1998). The current MOs for recreation resources, the relevant INs, and their relative

priority (as judged by the TWG) are presented in Appendix A.

The GCMRC is currently supporting research into attitudes and preferences of users

toward recreation opportunities relative to river flows, changing attitudes and preferences

of users, and user attitudes and preferences in relation to stakeholder visions (Stewart et

al. 1997). Results from this study are due in FY2000. The GCMRC has also instituted a

more focused effort toward monitoring of camping beaches, by supporting a study

integrating methods developed by Kearsley et al. (1994, 1999) and Kaplinski et al.

(1998). This study will concentrate on 15 camping beach sites in critical reaches, and

will supplement ongoing research on the changes in Colorado River ecosystem sandbars.

GCMRC has also provided limited support for the Grand Canyon River Guides’ AdoptA-Beach Program (O’Brien et al. 1999).

Funding of sociological studies concerning flow related aspects of river visitor

experiences, and increased attention to monitoring of camping beaches, are encouraging

efforts on the part of the GCMRC to bring recreation research into parity with other

resource areas. Loss of campsites, and reductions in campable area at existing campsites,

are among the most critical issues facing recreation managers and those who benefit from

recreation resources. Studies of how visitors perceive and interact with beaches, as well

as studies of camping beach dynamics, are thus important components of understanding

recreation resources. However, new research is also needed to delineate the river

experience itself. This suggestion is discussed in detail in chapter 3.
26

The National Research Council review of the Glen Canyon Dam and Colorado River

Ecosystem Adaptive Management Program

Periodic external review of center activities is important to ensure that work

undertaken by the GCMRC is rigorous, focused and relevant to goals that guide the

AMP. As part of this ongoing process, the National Research Council (NRC) recently

completed a review of the 1997 version of the Draft GCMRC Strategic Plan and its

component programs in physical, biological, sociocultural and information technology

programs. Findings of the NRC are contained in a report entitled “Downstream:

Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River ecosystem”

(National Research Council 1999).

In an early chapter, the reviewers discuss the lack of a coherent vision for the AMP

and attribute this in part to disparity among objectives of the various stakeholders. For

the AMP to meet the tenets of the GCPA, EIS and ROD, say the reviewers, a coherent

vision of the Colorado River ecosystem is needed that merges concepts of conservation

ecology and social welfare. Later, they observe that “among the most important and least

understood issues for social research are the following: what resource effects are valued

by different groups, how they are experienced and valued, and how much they are valued.

Previous research within the GCES addressed the ‘what’ and how much questions, with

less formal research on identifying common ground and basic differences, or on changes

in ‘how’ downstream resources and resource effects are experienced and valued” (NRC

1999, p. 76). This suggests the need for research that will adequately demonstrate how

downstream recreation resources and resource effects are experienced and valued, for

comparison with other resources of concern.

Overall, the NRC is quite critical of the GCMRC socioeconomic program, stating that

“discussion of the socioeconomic dimensions of the [Draft] Strategic Plan differs from

the discussion of its other components because the plan provides little to evaluate” (NRC

1999 p. 81), and that “...management objectives and information needs for the

Socioeconomic Resources Program contain major omissions...making it unclear how

this...program is to meet the goals of adaptive management” (NRC 1999, p. 55).

Regrettably, the reviewers do not explicitly discuss how recreation resources fit into the
27

larger socioeconomic program, although GCMRC support of “...important research on

recreational sociology in the Grand Canyon..., [a] useful project on recreation” is

acknowledged, in reference to the work of Stewart et al. (1997). (NRC 1999, p. 9, 81.)

Other than these brief references to research on experiential aspects, recreation is

addressed in the context of nonmarket economic “...social benefits associated with

improved ecological or recreational conditions in the [river corridor]...” (NRC 1999 p.

83).

The reviewers unequivocally state that a priority for the GCMRC should be deriving

values for benefits associated with recreational experiences, to complement more readily

available figures for hydropower revenue (NRC 1999, p. 82-3), and specifically note that

current measures of recreation user values are incomplete (NRC 1999, p. 9). “Economic

theory is clear”, they maintain, “on the fact that revenues of collateral business activity do

not represent a measure of social value of the existence of a resource, let alone the change

in social values associated with variations in the resource’s condition....at best [such

measures address] distributional consequences of some change, not the overall benefits to

society of that change” (NRC 1999, p. 83). They add that “understanding the social

benefits associated with improved ecological or recreational conditions in the [Colorado

River ecosystem] requires information about society’s willingness to pay for

enhancement of ecological conditions or for better recreational opportunities” (NRC

1999, p. 83).

To support their argument for more transparent and explicit analysis of resource

tradeoffs, the NRC reviewers point out that decision makers often use implicit value

judgements to decide whether physical resource effects are gains or losses, who wins and

who loses, and how important these gains and losses are. They note that this informal

process stands out in sharp contrast to the rigor with which many physical effects are

measured, and that while economic values of downstream resources were included in the

EIS and previous NRC reviews, these values have not been incorporated in GCMRC

resource programs. The reviewers emphasize the importance of addressing implicit value

imputations with the same rigor as scientifically measured physical effects, and reiterate

that there “...is only one Grand Canyon” (NRC 1999, p. 85).
28

CHAPTER 2

THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING RECREATION IN THE

COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM

Wildland recreation is an area of increasing interest within U.S. land management

agencies as commodity extraction and development on public land declines and the

amount of recreation use rises. Growth in demand for outdoor recreation activities that

take place in undeveloped environments is outpacing supply, a trend that is expected to

continue (English et al. 1993). Outdoor recreation overall is increasing faster than the

rate of population growth (Cordell et al. 1995). Participation in outdoor recreation is also

projected to diversify, and to grow fastest in activities that are popular with older adults

(Dwyer 1994).

Parker (1999) suggests that natural resource managers need to reconceptualize

resources by understanding their “social content” (p. 63). Accepting that there are both

biophysical and social components to resources within ecosystems can shed light on

complex relationships among designated resource categories in the CRE. In this chapter,

a brief overview of Colorado River recreation is presented, followed by discussion of

recreation from physical, biological, cultural, hydropower and economic resource

perspectives. The complex interface between recreation and hydropower is introduced by

discussing the ways in which GCD has influenced the present state of recreation

resources, although for AMP purposes the existence of GCD is to be taken as a given

(USDOI Office of the Solicitor 1999). Relationships between recreation and power

production, which are directly linked to dam operations and therefore within the scope of

AMP activities, are also covered. Economic components of recreation, and their

relationships to hydropower revenue, are treated in the section dealing with recreation as

an economic resource.

Overview of recreation in the Colorado River ecosystem

The Colorado River through Grand Canyon has acquired a reputation as the premier

wilderness river trip in the world, frequently described as the trip of a lifetime. Rafting

trips on the Colorado are internationally famous, and supporting them has become a

major industry. Commercial trips have been available since 1938, when Norm Nevills'
29

Mexican Hat Expeditions first took paying customers down the river (Lavender 1985) but

the huge popularity of river running has occurred more recently. In 1960, only 205

people ran the river; by 1972 that number had reached 16,000 annual visitors. Increasing

use led to unacceptable ecological impacts and several years of studies to improve

management. River traffic is now closely monitored by the NPS, and allocated through a

fixed number of user days per year. Currently 115,500 user days are allocated annually

for commercial trips, and 54,450 for private groups (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation

1995).

About 75% of commercial passengers take part in 5-8 day trips on 30 to 40-foot

motorized rafts. The other 25% participate in longer (12-18 day) trips, mostly in 14-20’

oar or paddle-powered rafts, but also in hard-hulled dories, kayaks and even canoes.

More than 50% of participants choose partial trips and either hike in or out at Phantom

Ranch or fly in or out using a helipad located on Hualapai Tribal land near Whitmore

Wash. Private boaters must apply for permits that are given out in the order that

applications are received. The waiting list for a private permit is currently 15-20 years,

but about 40% of applicants obtain a permit sooner due to cancellations. In all, about

22,000 people run all, or a multi-day portion of the river each year.

Use is heavily skewed toward the summer months, when the NPS enforces a 166

person per day launch limit. Trips during this time are usually arranged a year in

advance; some companies sell their entire allocation of user days in a 24-hour period

(Stavely 1999). Commercial use is virtually non-existent from November until April, but

hardy private boaters run the river all winter long, on trips as long as thirty days. One

Colorado River concessionaire is authorized to run day river trips on the 15-mile section

of Glen Canyon between the dam and Lees Ferry. In 1991, over 33,000 visitors took

half-day tours of this reach. The Hualapai Tribe also offers commercial raft trips, taking

groups on one or two day tours from Diamond Creek (approximately 240 miles below

Glen Canyon Dam) to Lake Mead. The Lees Ferry fishery in the 15-mile Glen Canyon

reach of the river is currently serviced by about 20 fishing guides, each working

approximately 150 days per year. Current estimates are that commercial fishing guides

support about 7100 customer days annually, with private fisher/days numbering roughly

30,000 (Gunn 1999). 
30

Colorado River recreation experiences affect, and are affected by physical, biological,

cultural and economic factors, and are thus highly interrelated with these resources

(Manning 1999). In most cases, managing for biological or physical considerations will

also enhance the river running experience, because interacting with intact biophysical

resources is a key component of wildland recreation. Recreation opportunities and

ecological values are mentioned in the same context by the NRC (1999), and recreation

and biophysical resources are often managed for concurrently within the AMP, as they

were during the 1996 BHBF experiment. These examples illustrate the difficulty of

disentangling CRE resources into discrete categories, and of attributing management

goals to strictly biophysical or recreation resource values.

There are some exceptions to the general congruence between managing for recreation

and biophysical resources, although conflicts between recreation and other resource goals

are less obvious for downriver recreation than for trout fishing. The Lees Ferry trout

fishery depends totally on ecological changes caused by the dam for its existence, and

what has been good for introduced trout has been bad for native fish. The potential

conflict between goals to maintain a blue ribbon trout fishery in the Lees Ferry reach, and

protect and restore native fish populations is an instance of divergence between recreation

and other resource goals within the AMP. Similarly, if it were determined that

recreational visitation at Vasey’s Paradise threatens the endangered Kanab ambersnail,

such visitation might need to be curtailed. Minor restrictions of this type are

implemented routinely in wildland recreation areas; visitors are generally supportive of

them if they understand why they are necessary. Management actions that are perceived

to threaten entire classes of recreation experiences, such as efforts to install a temperature

control device to benefit endangered fish, are likely to be much more controversial.

Recreation and physical resources

Perhaps no other issue illustrates the complexity and tradeoffs inherent in managing

the CRE than the issue of sediment resources in the context of camping beaches.

Arguably, river runners have benefited from the longer seasons and relatively predictable

flows resulting from GCD (see discussion below) but the way the dam is managed has

also resulted in serious negative consequences. Of most concern are dam operations that
31

cause a loss of beaches that border the river intermittently between rocky slopes and

cliffs, which comprise most of the river corridor. Prior to construction of the dam, the

Colorado River carried an average of 380,000 tons of sediment a day through Grand

Canyon (Carothers and Brown 1991). Now suspended sediment drops out of the river in

upper Lake Powell, and water released through the dam is crystal clear.

Beaches and sandbars serve as campsites for rafting groups, and are thus highly

valued. Camps are preferred to varying degrees on the basis of size, boat mooring

quality, wind protection, access to side canyon hikes, scenery and shade. Finding a

suitable unoccupied camp during the summer months can challenge rafting parties, and

occasional conflicts over camps occur. Prime camps in critical reaches of the river are

occupied by 15-40 person groups on most nights during the summer. Historically, these

beaches were replenished annually by sand and silt transported by the river during spring

runoff. Since this sediment now settles out in Lake Powell, the beaches downstream are

being inexorably carved away by the river's clear, sediment free flows (Kearsley et al.

1994). Some camping beaches in Granite Gorge (a critical reach in the central part of the

river corridor) eroded a horizontal distance of more than 30 feet from 1974 to 1984

(Carothers and Brown 1991). Most predam beaches are now considerably smaller, and

some have disappeared completely. Camping beaches are also being eroded through

gullying induced by monsoon rainstorm runoff, a phenomenon related to the GCD in that

degraded beaches are not replenished under normal operations, but might be under BHBF

scenarios.

Although the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow water release regime has attenuated this

critical dam-related impact, erosion and/or inundation of camping beaches remains one of

the principal concerns in efforts to balance hydropower and recreation values (Kearsley

and Warren 1993, Kearsley 1995). Kearsley et al. (1994) analyzed change in campable

area of campsites over time by generating an inventory of campsites through interviews

with guides and then comparing aerial photographs of the River Corridor taken 1965,

1973, 1984 and 1990. In 1999, Kearsley, Quartaroli and Kearsley evaluated the effects of

the 1996 controlled flood on campsites. Conclusions from these studies offer a good

synopsis of the effects of GCD operations on campsites through time, and the potential

for future controlled floods to mitigate these effects:
32

“Loss of Colorado River campsites continues after nearly 30 years of dam

operations, but the rate of decline has slowed. No combination of high flows or

fluctuating discharges has reversed this process. The pattern of change has been

one of system-wide decrease in sites (1965-73), variable change during years of

regulated high flows (1983-6) and a system-wide decrease in campsites since

1984.

Sandbars in Grand Canyon do not all respond in the same manner to high

flows, fluctuating flows or vegetation encroachment, and the response differs

between narrow and wide reaches. Despite a system-wide increase in campsites

between 1973 and 1983, the [social] carrying capacity of campsites in critical

(narrow) reaches decreased. Campsite availability within critical reaches is the

limiting factor in determining the river’s aggregate [social] carrying capacity.

Thus, river managers should focus on long-term responses of campsites in critical

reaches by implementing strategies that create new or increase the size of sand

deposits there. Strategies that lead to net aggregate deposition along the river but

which cause net campsite loss in critical reaches will only exacerbate the current

problems with concentrated use at the few medium and large campsites remaining

in these reaches.” (Kearsley et al. 1994.)

“The increase in campsite number and size resulting from both the 1983 flood

and the 1996 controlled flood have been of short duration. Therefore, the longterm trend from these data suggest that similar floods will temporarily increase

campsite number and size, then campsites will continue to erode slowly. While

flood effects to campsites are temporary, they are the only feasible means of

depositing sediment above normal fluctuations, where sand is otherwise

continually eroding.” (Kearsley et al. 1999.)

Studies continue under both the GCMRC Socio-cultural and Physical Programs, but it

seems clear that campsite number and quality will continue to decrease (particularly in

critical reaches) although erosion occurs at a slower rate now than in the initial period

after GCD became operational. Thus far, it has not been necessary for the NPS to

decrease use level; river guides have been able to adjust trip itineraries to cope with

decreases in camp number and size through time. Development of computer models for

river trip scheduling and behavior offers the chance to optimize launch schedules and

allow the same number of trips to launch with fewer contacts, or accommodate greater

numbers of private boaters who may currently wait a decade or longer to obtain a launch

permit.
33

Recreation and biological resources

Experiencing biological resources in undisturbed native ecosystems is important

component of wilderness river recreation. Desert flora and fauna are exotic and unusual

for many visitors, who especially value sighting larger animals such as desert bighorn,

and bird species such as peregrine falcons or reintroduced California condors. Vegetated

side canyon riparian areas characterize several popular attraction sites. Many visitors are

concerned about endangered species, and exposure to issues surrounding their

management in the CRE is the basis of important environmental learning benefits (c.f.

Roggenbuck et al. 1990). Recreational use can have negative effects on riparian biota,

some of which are linked to interactions between dam operations and spatial distribution

of river trips, vegetation patterns, native fauna, beach morphology and other conditions.

Recreationist impact on biological resources (e.g. endangered species, vegetation cover)

is a relevant topic for future studies within the GCMRC, and should be amenable to

quantitative biological or physical research techniques. The NPS supports a Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) approach to monitoring recreation impacts along the Colorado

River (USDOI National Park Service 1989). The LAC and a number of other

management frameworks developed to assess and monitor biophysical impacts are

summarized in Cole and McCool (1997).

Colonization of camping beaches by the non-native tree species tamarisk, facilitated

by dam controlled flows, has been both a blessing and a bane to river runners. On one

hand tamarisk offers wind and sun protection, privacy for individual campsites, and

attenuates beach erosion, on the other hand it eventually takes over beaches, making them

unsuitable as campsites (Phillips et al 1986). Post-dam beach colonization by native

species such as arrowweed has also contributed to a reduction in usable campsites area

and number.

The relationship between the Lees Ferry trout fishery, because it is entirely a product

of changes incurred by GCD, is discussed below under the heading “recreation and

hydropower resources”.
34

Recreation and cultural resources

In addition to many easily accessed Hitsatsonom (Anasazi) archaeological sites,

cultural resources utilized for recreation in the CRE include landscapes important to the

Hopi, Navajo, Southern Paiute, Zuni and Navajo people. Experiencing cultural resources

and learning about native lifeways are highly valued by southwestern park visitors (Lee

and Stephens 1995) and satisfying curiosity about the significance of the CRE to past and

present native cultures is an important component of interpretation efforts by commercial

river guides. River trips run by the Hualapai offer excellent opportunities for visitors to

hear from the Hualapai themselves what the landscapes mean.

Laxson (1991) observes that many Americans, faced with the pressures of modern

Anglo society, are curious about native spiritual beliefs which are perceived to

encompass closer relationships with the natural world. While romantic notions regarding

native connections with nature are common, there is apparently substantial validity to this

perception. Several authors (e.g. Jostad et al. 1996, Booth and Kessler 1996) have cited

the potential of Native American land ethics to provide guidance for moving toward more

ecologically-attuned wildland management and decision-making.

The possibility of recreation use impacts on cultural resources such as Traditional

Cultural Properties and other archaeological sites, ethnoecological resources (Nazarea et

al. 1999) and cultural landscapes (Stoffle et al. 1997) is an important issue (Johnson and

Vande Kamp 1996). To the extent that dam operations affect river travel times and

camping beach size, they also indirectly affect the number and duration of stops

commercial river trips make at archaeological attraction sites, and camps near these sites.

If camping beaches become unusable due to erosion and/or vegetation encroachment,

river trips may begin to utilize previously unvisited areas. In these ways, dam-related

variables that affect the spatial distribution of river trips may also impact cultural

resources (Leap et al. 1999).

In addition, development of the Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery has attracted many

thousands of anglers annually to the reach of Glen Canyon immediately below the dam.

These anglers often stop for lunch and to camp at sites adjacent to the river that were

similarly attractive to prehistoric inhabitants of the area. Changes in river stage level and

attendant effects on beach size affect angler access to archaeological sites, which in turn
35

may result in impacts to cultural resources in this reach (Leap et al. 1999). Thus,

activities of both river runners and anglers may necessitate assessment of impacts to

cultural resources that arise from patterns of recreational use that develop in relation to

dam operations.

The Programmatic Agreement directs federal agencies to cooperate with Native

American tribes in monitoring and mitigation of impacts to federally listed Traditional

Cultural Properties within GCNP and GCNRA, and is administered in the Colorado River

ecosystem by the NPS River Corridor Monitoring Program. Additional cultural resource

concerns associated with GCD operations are overseen by the parallel GCMRC

Sociocultural Program. Assessment of impacts to cultural resources resulting from

recreation use may fall within the purview of the NPS River Corridor Monitoring

Program, the GCMRC Sociocultural Program, or both. The intent here is simply to note

important connections between river-based recreation, cultural resource monitoring and

preservation, and dam operations.

Recreation and hydropower resources

The popularity of river running in Grand Canyon (and the success of the industry

which supports it) is not solely the result of nationwide growth in this type of recreation.

Colorado River trips would likely be popular in any event, but control of river flows by

GCD has facilitated a stable and thriving outfitting industry. Prior to the dam's

completion, river flow volume varied greatly from year to year, and from season to

season. Spring runoff could produce flows in excess of 100,000 cubic feet per second; by

fall water levels were often less than 3000 cfs (Carothers and Brown 1991). Monsoon

rainstorms could cause the river to rise 15 or 20 feet in a matter of hours. Control of

extreme and erratic flows (the norm prior to construction of GCD) has resulted in less

complicated, more predictable, and arguably safer conditions for river runners.

GCD operations affect the Colorado River’s famous rapids by making them relatively

more or less dangerous, and more or less exciting, depending on water level (Jalbert

1992, Bishop et al. 1987, Brown and Hahn 1987). Flows in the range of 10,000 to 17,000

cfs appear to be the safest, with the chance of hitting rocks decreasing as flow increases.

The risk of accidents varies with type of boat. At very low flows (<5000 cfs) motor rigs
36

have the highest incident of accidents; at very high flows (>30,000 cfs) smaller boats

have more accidents. Larger rowboats have the lowest incidence of accidents over the

range of flows (Brown and Hahn 1987, Jalbert 1992, USDOI Bureau of Reclamation

1995a). Slow current associated with low flows adds to river travel time, resulting in

fewer and shorter duration stops at attraction sites (Underhill and Borkan 1986, Bishop et

al. 1987).

GCD has been a factor in shaping the river running industry by ensuring (generally)

that the river doesn't interfere with scheduling of trip launches by being dangerously high

or unrunnably low. Flows now rarely exceed 25,000 cfs or drop below 5000 cfs, except

for Beach/Habitat Building Flows (BHBFs), and stay within this range year round, so

dam control has also lengthened the season in which the river can be dependably run.

This has benefited commercial outfitters; commercial enterprises usually do better in a

stable environment, and Colorado River trip outfitters are no exception.

The effects of the dam on the actual river visitor experience are less clear. Little is

known of pre-dam river recreation, other than it existed in viable form (Lavender 1985),

so comparisons can only be speculative. It seems likely that the demographic range of

commercial and private river visitors has been expanded due to greater predictability and

perceived safety of dam controlled flows. That said, national park visitor experiences

cannot and should not be all things to all people (Sax 1980). Prior to the dam, outfitters

utilized different sized watercraft (depending on river conditions) that made high or low

water river trips practical, and to this day many recreationists prefer to experience

wildlands in an uncontrolled state. This is the definition of a wilderness experience, an

NPS management objective for the river (USDOI National Park Service 1995).

Similarly, clear water released from the dam undoubtedly affects river visitors, but it is

unclear whether overall effects are positive or negative. River runners may favor clear

water over muddy in a narrow aesthetic sense (all other things being equal) but in a larger

sense prefer to encounter an uncontrolled, i.e. “natural” river rather than a dam-controlled

one, muddy or not.

The change from a warm and muddy to a cold and clear water ecosystem has

unequivocally benefited trout anglers, as the trout fishery simply wouldn’t exist without

GCD. Soon after the dam’s completion, the river was stocked by the Arizona Game and
37

Fish Department (AGFD) with thousands of rainbow trout, which thrived in the cold,

clear water. By the early 1970's, trout as large as fifteen pounds had been caught in the

Lees Ferry reach, and 40-pound bag limits of ten fish range were not uncommon. The

Lees Ferry fishery declined after the late 1970's due to increasing fishing pressure,

variable rates of fish stocking and fluctuations in GCD water releases, though it

recovered somewhat after 1992, and will most likely be sustainable under current flow

regimes (McKinney and Persons 1999).

Fishing is currently very good by most standards. The AGFD has stated a management

objective to provide a blue-ribbon fishery in this reach, and has limited the harvest of fish

by implementing low daily bag limits, size limits and fishing gear restrictions. Angler

use of the fishery (measured by angler hours/year) peaked in the early 1980’s, declined

for several years in response to poorer fishing (measured by fish/hour/angler) but was

rising again by mid 1990’s. This turnaround in fishing quality is probably due to

establishment of a self sustaining “wild trout” fishery with the advent of the Modified

Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) regime (McKinney and Persons 1999; Cohen 1999).

Wild trout fisheries are more highly valued by anglers than fisheries sustained through

stocking of hatchery fish (Cohen 1999).

Other recreation activities and attendant experiences, such as backpacking, waterfowl

hunting, trout fishing accessed below Lees Ferry, and river trips operated by the Hualapai

Nation have probably also been influenced by the dam, but little is known about these

effects.

GCD is operated as a peaking power facility, in which power production is increased

and decreased rapidly in accordance with times of peak power demand. Peaking power is

usually needed during the summer months, when on some days Phoenix, Arizona may

use twice as much Glen Canyon hydropower as Colorado and Utah combined. Prior to

the passage of the GCPA, peaking power releases from the dam fluctuated from as low as

3000 to as high as 31,500 cfs and back to the previous low in a 24-hour period. Patterns

of large diurnal fluctuations were followed for many weeks or months, during which time

the river would rise and then drop 10 or more vertical feet daily 5 or 6 days per week. A

peak flow takes more than 48 hours to reach Diamond Creek, 240 miles below the dam,

so daily “high tides” reached groups camped along the river at all times of day or night,
38

depending on their distance from the dam. Rapid flow decreases, or downramp rates

exacerbate beach erosion and cause considerable problems for raft trips in the form of

stranded boats, exposed rocks at rapids, and extra hours spent on the river and missed

attraction sites because of low flows (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a). Operation

of GCD also affects the Lees Ferry rainbow trout fishery. Prior to passage of the GCPA,

peaking power flow regimes hindered anglers’ access to preferred fishing sites and their

ability to safely wade in the river (Lee and Grover 1992). Large water fluctuations also

cause considerable trout mortality by stranding them in pools where they die of

overheating.

The number of kilowatts produced from a given volume of water varies with changes

in elevation difference between the surface of Lake Powell and the river at the foot of the

dam (hydraulic “head”). Income derived per unit of this hydropower is very sensitive to

the time of day or week power is delivered, and also the season. Conversely, the amount

of hydraulic head available for hydropower production at any given time is largely

unrelated to diurnal variation in volume of water released. Hydraulic head is a function

of complex interactions between annual runoff, monthly release schedules and

downstream water commitments. In short, modifications of water release patterns at

GCD to meet adaptive management goals affect hydropower revenue to a greater degree

than they affect hydropower production.

Attenuation of flow ramping rates and the magnitude of fluctuations between high and

low flows, instituted on an interim basis with the GCPA in 1992 and codified (with some

modifications) by the ROD in 1996, have resulted in a reduction in fluctuation-related

impacts on the river running experience. McKinney and Persons (1999) conclude that

attenuation of fluctuations under the MLFF alternative has also benefited the trout fishery

by mitigating the negative impacts of extended low flows on available habitat, foodbase

and spawning areas. The NRC has recommended that the AMP generate information

regarding the value of improved conditions such as these for comparison with impacts on

hydropower revenue (NRC 1999). Attenuation of peaking power releases beyond that

already prescribed by the ROD (if needed) would have additional negative impacts on

peaking power income, which would need to be weighed against the benefits of such

actions.
39

Recreation and economic resources

The national, regional and local market economic benefits of recreation are well

documented (e.g. Driver and Brown 1983, Walsh 1990), as are the contributions of

expenditures by anglers and whitewater rafters to job creation and gross business

revenues (Cordell 1990). Bishop et al. (1987) have confirmed the magnitude of

economic benefits in the Colorado River ecosystem, although the EIS specifically

acknowledges that their estimates represented a “snapshot in time”, and are thus now well

out of date.

Commercial passengers pay an average of $215 per day for the services of one of 17

NPS authorized river outfitting concessionaires, the largest of which have permits to use

more than 14,000 user days annually. In 1998, according to the Grand Canyon

Commercial River Outfitters Association, there were 479 motorized and 170 nonmotorized trip launches from Lees Ferry; a total of 649 commercial trips that served 19,

383 passengers. This activity produced a direct gross income for commercial outfitters of

around $25 million (Grisham 1999). No up to date estimates are available for

employment effects and secondary spending in the region by commercial river visitors

and businesses that serve them, or of the economic impact of private river trips.

In 1991 (the most recent year for which actual data is available for all recreation

resources) direct expenditures by anglers, and commercial and private rafters below the

dam totaled $14,452,000. Since these locally dispensed dollars are often then respent in

the area, it was calculated that direct expenditures generated an additional $23,115,000 in

local economic activity (multiplier effects based on estimators generated by Bishop et al.

1987; figures quoted from USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a). Douglas and Harpman

(1995) estimate expenditures by day-use rafters, anglers, and commercial and private

whitewater rafters at over $29 million in 1990 dollars, and that these activities generated

nearly 600 jobs in the region.

Money spent on fishing related guide services, lodging, food, tackle and other

incidentals in the Lees Ferry area has been recently estimated at around $3 million

annually, not including transportation costs or multiplier effects of money respent in the

region by guiding businesses (Gunn 1999). In 1991, the Hualapai owned and operated

business Hualapai River Runners generated 33% of the tribe's total income, including
40

fees for river trip shuttle services, tows across Lake Mead and use of the Diamond Creek

access road for river trip takeouts (USDOI Bureau of Reclamation 1995a). More recent

estimates for direct income, and for multiplier effects of secondary spending by clientele

for these trips in the economically depressed town of Peach Springs, are not available.

Bergstrom and Loomis (1999) state that “the overall goal of economic valuation of

ecosystem management is to measure the total economic value of natural resources

affected by management actions” including values for which no market data is available

(p. 184, italics in original). The EIS addressed the issue of non-use, or existence values,

acknowledging that the CRE holds value for people who may not physically utilize

resources there. Non-use value constitutes substantial economic value for CRE resources

(Welsh et al. 1995). Although option value (such as the option to partake in a future

Colorado River trip) was cited by the EIS as component of non-use value, this is not

unequivocally accepted by economists. The term non-use value arose to acknowledge

that a resource does not have to be physically used to be valued, and was seen as

particularly applicable to unique or special resources, such as the CRE. More recently,

total economic value has been recast as consisting of two categories, active use value and

passive use value (Bergstrom and Loomis 1999). For example, former river visitors who

may not visit again but still care about preserving river recreation opportunities for others

likely hold substantial passive use values for recreation resources in the CRE.

Contingent valuation (CV) methods used to generate monetary estimates for this type

of value are now well established in the economics literature (e.g. Arrow et al. 1993,

Loomis 1987a,b, Loomis 1996) and are seen as critical to generating estimates of

nonmarket values in ecosystem assessments (Bergstrom and Loomis 1999). Carson et al.

(1996) evaluated CV in relation to more conventional revealed preference (RP)

techniques by analyzing 616 direct comparisons of CV to RP estimates, and found that,

overall, CV estimates were slightly smaller than their RP counterparts. They conclude

that although some CV estimates exceed RP estimates of the same value, arbitrarily

discounting CV estimates as some critics have suggested, is unwarranted. The NRC

notes that substantial progress has been made in recent years towards refining techniques

for generating monetary estimates for environmental goods, such as improved ecological

conditions or better recreation opportunities (NRC 1999).
41

Economic valuation of all resources is stipulated by the GCPA; but the NRC (1996,

1999) concludes that this important area has been neglected by the GCMRC. Integrated

resource assessments encompassing human dimensions of ecosystems should include

economic analysis of recreation and other socioeconomic resources (Lessard et al. 1999),

including direct spending, multiplier effects and nonmarket social benefits associated

with recreation, as noted by the NRC (1999). The GCMRC Draft Strategic Plan

recognizes this need in stating that “a proposed [Cost/Benefit Analysis or CBA] model

should accommodate evaluation of all associated market and nonmarket costs and

benefits, including intrinsic and existence values of key resources” (GCMRC 1998, p.

106).

Glen Canyon Dam is operated as a peaking power facility. This is optimum from a

market economic efficiency standpoint because hydropower plants can respond to daily

peaks in power demand more easily than coal-fired or nuclear plants, and also because

this peak demand power is sold at a premium. Sales of GCD hydropower are

administered by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), established by the

Department of Energy Organization Act. WAPA markets and transmits Federal electric

power to wholesale preference customers including rural electric cooperatives,

municipalities, public utilities, Federal and state agencies, irrigation districts and Bureau

of Reclamation projects and facilities. This involves the operation and maintenance of

nearly 17,000 miles of transmission lines and 260 substations to deliver power from more

than 50 Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Boundary Water Commission and U.S. Army

Corps. of Engineer hydroelectric plants, including GCD. Hydropower sales are required

by law to recover marketing, operating, maintenance and purchase power expenses and

repay the government’s investment in building generation and transmission facilities

within 50 years. Colorado River legislation of 1956 and 1968 requires that Glen Canyon

hydropower revenue must contribute to the support of other CRSP projects. Thus rates

must be set to cover other costs Congress has assigned to power users, such as irrigation

costs in excess of water users ability to repay and interest expenses on the unpaid balance

of power-related principal (United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power

Administration 1991).
42

Income from the sale of Glen Canyon hydropower is currently about $80 million per

year. Though the dam has paid for itself several times over, it is tied to nearly four

billion dollars in other Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) financial responsibilities

(Moore 1998) mainly upstream diversion, salinity and irrigation projects which could not

survive financially without support from the Glen Canyon Dam “cash register”. Current

repayment obligations on these projects extend through the year 2080 (USDOI Bureau of

Reclamation 1995b). The result is resistance to any limitation on WAPA’s ability to

generate peaking power from those who are asked to make up shortfalls in revenue by

paying higher rates. Beneficiaries of the sale of Glen Canyon hydropower are

represented by the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), which

lobbies WAPA for the lowest possible rates on hydropower. Changes in dam operations

to improve biophysical conditions on which river recreation depends have resulted in

impacts on hydropower revenue. The value to river recreationists of these improved

biophysical conditions is unknown.

Wildland recreation as experiences and benefits

Beginning in the early 1970’s it was recognized that recreation events are not merely

activities and the settings in which they occur but, as Driver and Tocher (1970) put it,

“experiences resulting from recreational engagement[s]”. Following this paradigm shift,

research (e.g. Clark and Stankey 1979, Knopf 1983, Driver et al. 1987) focused on

defining and managing recreation resources as experience opportunities. This

conceptualization undergirds most research in the profession and has led to wide-spread

adoption of a management approach known as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS). The ROS is a hierarchical conceptual framework for classifying, managing and

encouraging diversity in outdoor recreation opportunities (Manning 1999). It is grounded

on the assumption that recreation consists of three basic components: activities, settings

and experiences. Because combinations of activities and settings vary along a spectrum,

so too will the realization of recreation experiences (Driver et al. 1987). The ROS

incorporates behavioral definitions of user preferences and desired psychological

outcomes, setting characteristics, and managerial factors into a hierarchy of six broad

types of recreation experience opportunities ranging from pristine to rural. The NPS is
43

applying a variant of the ROS concept to manage for a spectrum of river experiences that

varies across different seasons (USDOI National Park Service 1998a).

The experiential paradigm on which the ROS is based has evolved to include benefits

that accrue to humans as a result of recreation experiences (Driver and Peterson 1986,

Driver et al. 1991.) Humans engage in wildland recreation for instrumental purposes of

realizing specific expected benefits (see Parsons et al. 1993) but many experiences also

have an emergent quality, benefiting recreationists in unforeseen ways that may be more

important determinants of satisfaction than predetermined expectations (Williams and

Patterson 1999). This is especially true for longer and highly novel recreation

experiences like Colorado River trips (Arnould and Price 1993). The relative influence

of genetic, cultural, biophysical, psychological and socioeconomic factors on recreation

experiences and benefits is the subject of current academic discussion (see Williams and

Patterson 1996) but no one working in the field today seriously maintains that recreation

resources consist solely of physical settings.

Benefits-Based Management (BBM; in Canada known as Benefits Driven

Management or BDM) focuses on identifying specific psychological and physiological

benefits that people accrue during and as a result of outdoor leisure activities, and the

circumstances associated with these benefits (Driver et al. 1991, Bruns et al. 1994,

Manfredo et al. 1996). BBM is essentially an extension of experienced-based

management to address a wider range of positive outcomes, including those that occur

offsite (Driver 1996, Lee and Driver 1999). In this sense, benefits are defined

specifically as the “realization of desired and satisfying on-site psychological

experiences; changes that are viewed to be advantageous or improvements in condition

(psychological and physiological) to individuals, to groups, to society, or even to another

entity such as an endangered species; and...the prevention of worse conditions.” (Bruns et

al. 1994.)

Improved environmental awareness, better physical health, reduced stress and

depression, strengthened social bonds, relationships with nature, spiritual growth, and

achievement are some of the many benefits that have been linked with wildland

recreation activities by progressively more reliable and valid typologies that address

virtually all positive outcomes resulting from wildland recreation activities (e.g. Driver
44

and Brown 1986; Driver et al. 1991; Bruns et al. 1994). Surveying and subsequent

monitoring of benefits has been suggested as important management tools for outdoor

recreation areas (Driver 1996). BBM also fits conceptually with the ROS, defined

recently as “...a framework for understanding and interactions between benefits and

settings” (USDA Forest Service 1997a, p. 30). BBM has been integrated with the ROS in

the Sedona District of Coconino National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1997a,b) and

implemented on several other public wildlands (Bruns et al. 1994).

Evidence for physiological benefits such as stress reduction and improved physical

health (Ulrich et al. 1990; Brown 1991; Paffenburger et al. 1991; Ulrich et al. 1991) is

perhaps the most empirically compelling as it is derived from heart rate and other

quantifiable indicators. Specific physiological mechanisms for the stress-reducing effects

of exposure to natural environments have been proposed by Parsons (1991), who

attempts to ground Ulrich’s (1983) work on preference for natural environments in

models of subcortical affective processing and neuro-endocrine responses, which he feels

offer tentative support for two types of affect (mood) initiation systems.

Though more difficult to quantify, an array of positive psychological experiences and

attendant benefits has also been identified in studies conducted over the past fifteen years

that encompass a variety of activities and settings. For example, recreation facilitates

learning benefits (Roggenbuck, et al. 1990) and is positively related to family

satisfaction, interaction and stability (Orthner and Mancini 1990). The linkage between

on-site benefits and those that occur offsite and at a later time has been termed the benefit

chain of causality (Lee 1995.)

Learning about rivers, geology, and ecology were cited in Shelby’s (1976) work as

personal benefits strongly associated with satisfaction. Recreation in the Colorado River

ecosystem results in positive environmental impacts (benefits) as well as negative ones,

although causal linkages between recreation and environmental benefits are harder to

make than with negative impacts. Improving ecological literacy has been cited as critical

to the success of ecosystem management (Cartwright and Burns 1994), learning of this

type on river trips can lead tangentially to other benefits, both individual and societal.

Real-time lived experiences in natural environments are critical to environmental learning

for people of all ages (Finger 1994, Kellert 1996) and thus have indirect, but very real,
45

environmental benefits. Learning benefits that accrue to river visitors (c.f. Roggenbuck,

Loomis and Dagostino 1990) can increase environmental awareness (Driver and Brown

1983), concern for river ecosystem management, protection of native species (Rolston

1991) and interest in preserving cultural resources.

Similarly, evidence suggests people who take a whitewater rafting trips experience

reductions in stress and improved physical fitness, which can lead to better long-term

health, family relations, work productivity and economic stability. Psychologists have

belatedly begun to note how the pace of industrial civilization and balancing work and

family gives rise to mental stress; at the same time sedentary lifestyles and the dominance

of white collar desk jobs in the modern workplace have led to record levels of health

problems related to poor physical conditioning. Natural environments appear to possess

intrinsic healing and mental restoration capacities (Kaplan 1995, Kaplan and Kaplan

1989, Ulrich 1993). As Roszak (1996) notes, “when highly stressed people are asked to

visualize a soothing scene, nobody imagines a freeway or a shopping mall. Rather

images of wilderness, forest, seascape and starry skies invariably emerge”.

The scale and variety of a trip down the Colorado River results in a multi-phase

experience described by turns as relaxing, exciting, challenging, awe-inspiring,

invigorating, and spiritually and psychologically renewing. Such trips offer the longest

immersion in a natural setting that most visitors will ever experience, unparalleled

opportunities for wilderness adventure, introspection and solitude that are increasingly

rare in modern life. Colorado River trips afford unique opportunities for virtually every

type of benefit associated with wildland recreation, but these benefits and their value to

individuals, social groups and society remain largely unaccounted for in the AMP

process. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Benefits Based Management

frameworks offer a unified conceptual orientation for putting the social benefits of river

recreation (cited by the NRC as necessary to account for) in a specific, contextual and

empirically grounded context.

Crowding and social carrying capacity

Among the many factors that can affect the motivations, experiences, benefits and

satisfaction of recreationists, perhaps the most frequently studied is crowding. Originally
46

it was assumed that increases in density equal increases in crowding, but Shelby et al.

(1989) conclude that most available evidence indicates this is overly simplistic. Density

and crowding are now understood as separate constructs. Density is a numerical

description of the actual number of people per unit area, and is thus objectively neither

good or bad. Crowding, on the other hand, is explicitly defined as a negative evaluation

of a particular level of density.

Schneider and Hammitt (1995) submit three possible responses to recreation

crowding: product shift, rationalization, and displacement. Product shift occurs when

visitors change their definition of the experience; rationalization involves cognitive

reevaluation of crowding in a more positive direction (most common in high expenditure

activities, e.g. Colorado River trips). Displacement is empirically supported more often

than product shift or rationalization and occurs when “...users leave the site due to an

unacceptable change in social, managerial or resource conditions” (Schneider and

Hammitt 1995).

Shelby and others’ work (e.g. Shelby 1976, Shelby and Heberlein 1986), in which a 9-

point crowding scale (“not at all crowded” to “extremely crowded”) was used to establish

crowding norms, has furthered understanding of this challenging issue. However, Graefe

et al. (1984) conclude that use density alone is a rather weak predictor of perceived

crowding; visitor expectations, preferences, prior experience and commitment to the

activity, and situational influences (e.g. the coping behaviors identified by Schneider and

Hammitt [1995]) are also important variables. Dawson and Watson (1996) and Whisman

and Hollenhorst (1996) also note the lack of empirical support for a strong relationship

between density and perceived crowding, despite an abundance of studies on the issue

over a 20-year period.

Notwithstanding the complexity of density/crowding relationships, use level is a

practical, easily measured and to some extent manageable indicator of recreation quality,

particularly at sites where activity types are relatively homogeneous. Moreover, density

and crowding are related to the concept of social carrying capacity, an idea borrowed

from the biological sciences and expanded to include (in addition to physical constraints)

the psychological dimension of perceived crowding. As Manning et al. (1995) note,

despite some theoretical difficulties with the concept, social carrying capacity and its
47

application in the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework are now entrenched

within land management agencies, making abandonment of it problematic from a

practical standpoint.

With good reason, much research on recreation in the Colorado River ecosystem has

focused on the relationship between social carrying capacity and camping beaches in the

River Corridor. Nearly 25 years ago, Borden (1976) identified camping beaches in

critical reaches of the river (i.e. Supai Gorge, Upper Granite Gorge, Muav Gorge) as the

factor that limited social carrying capacity for river trips. A substantial number of studies

since that time have focused on beaches in the context of recreation (Brian and Thomas

1984, Philips et al. 1986, Kearsley and Warren 1993, Kearsley 1994, Kearsley 1995,

Kearsley et al. 1999, O’Brien et al. 1999) and more general efforts to assess and monitor

the sediment budget in the River Corridor (e.g. Hazel et al. 1993, Kaplinski et al. 1995).

Prior studies of Colorado River recreation:

The first scientific assessment of attitudes and perceptions of Colorado River

recreationists was Dr. Bo Shelby’s work, completed in 1976 (Shelby 1976a,b,c,d). Data

were gathered through observations, as well as written and oral surveys of river runners

on commercial and private trips during the 1974 and 1975 seasons. Visitors were

surveyed at the end of their trips by ride-along observers who accompanied them the

entire way. The theoretical basis of Shelby’s work was the crowding model of user

satisfaction, which holds that perceived crowding is the major variable affecting visitor

satisfaction in wilderness and wilderness-type settings.

Among Shelby’s findings were:

-Around 90% of river travelers define their trip as a wilderness experience.

-Perceptions of crowding were unrelated to contacts with other groups, and did

not correlate well with visitors’ overall satisfaction with their trip. (This

unexpected finding was explained by the fact that 90% of river travelers were first

time visitors, and 49% had been on no other river trips of any kind. Thus, most

people had no pre-existing norm about encounters, and didn’t have a frame of

reference to decide what was appropriate.)

-Variables positively related to visitor satisfaction: learning (about geology, rivers,

ecology, and nature in general); quality group experiences; friendly, interesting

and accessible guides; clear understanding of passenger roles; “being in
48

wilderness” as a primary motivation for taking the trip; and perception of the trip

as “leisurely”.

-Variables negatively related to visitor satisfaction: perception of the trip as

“noisy”; perception of use impact as “high”; perception of the weather as “bad”;

and preference for more conveniences and facilities. (Shelby 1976c.)

Bordon (1976) conducted a study resulting in a definition of human carrying capacity

for the Colorado River. As Shelby (1976c) points out, the concept of carrying capacity is

problematic when defined as the point at which aggregate satisfaction declines. With

increasing use, under this definition, visitors who desire a wilderness-type experience are

simply displaced by greater numbers of visitors who are less discriminating. Aggregate

satisfaction continues to rise (because of growing numbers of visitors) and carrying

capacity, defined this way, is never reached.

Bordon addressed this problem by proceeding from a specific policy statement about

what kind of experience was to be provided for, and by considering constraints within

which carrying capacity would be defined. The degree of “uniqueness” of each of five

river trip dimensions (visual, aural, adventure, sociological, and wilderness) was

considered, and a consolidated evaluation of them given: “it is not any one dimension

alone that accounts for the uniqueness of the over-all river running activity. [Rather] it is

the combination of such high, simultaneously attainable levels of the visual, aural,

adventure and wilderness dimensions that make Grand Canyon river running truly

unique” (Bordon 1976). (The most recent guidelines available for what type of river

running experience will be managed for are listed under the heading for NPS General

Management Plan and Colorado River Management Plan in Chapter 1.)

Campsite size and availability in critical sections of the River Corridor were found to

be the limiting parameters of carrying capacity, within the constraints of the type of

experience the NPS sought to provide. Bordon recommended limiting departures from

Lees Ferry to a total of 148 people (three groups of 40, one group of 20 and one group of

eight) and prescheduling camps in critical reaches. Currently, 166 people are allowed to

launch daily during the primary seasons, and two trips per day during the secondary

season (USDOI National Park Service 1989). Campsite prescheduling in critical reaches

has not been implemented.
49

As noted previously, water release schedules and other factors related to GCD

operations have considerable influences on the ecology and morphology of the river

corridor, which in turn substantially affect the river visitor experience. In a study

conducted as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Environmental Studies,

Bishop et al. (1987) assessed the impact of Glen Canyon Dam water releases on river

runners in Grand Canyon National Park using attribute and mail-back contingent

valuation surveys. (No onriver surveys of visitor attitudes and perceptions were

employed.) Initially, attributes of recreational “quality” were identified through a survey

of whitewater guides and private river trip leaders. Among the attributes mentioned by at

least 15% of all (288) respondents were:

-time for layovers and stops at attraction sites

-good/exciting rapids

-a wilderness experience

-not feeling crowded

In the second phase of their study, Bishop et al. (1987) administered a contingent

valuation survey to 532 commercial and private river trip passengers, who were asked

what they would be willing to pay for each of a range of different water release patterns.

(A good overview of the contingent valuation method, CV or CVM for short, is Mitchell

and Carson 1991.) Responses indicated that trip quality was the highest at 25-30,000

cubic feet per second, and fell off steeply above and below that level.

Current studies of river recreation

Interest in obtaining more current information on aspects of river recreation has risen

lately, and three studies are now in progress. Of the three social science/recreation

projects now underway on the river, only one is making systematic contact with visitors

during their experience in the Canyon. This project, supported by the Grand Canyon

Association and conducted by Dr. Troy Hall of the University of Vermont, is duplicating

and updating Shelby’s work during the 1970’s. As with Shelby’s work, data is gathered

by observers who ride along on river trips and administer questionnaires to passengers on

the last night of the trip concerning crowding levels, and factors that added to, or

detracted from their experience and perceptions of wilderness. Of 48 trips sampled, 9
50

were private, 39 were commercial, 22 were motorized and 17 were oar-powered. Elevenpage written surveys were completed on the last night of the trip by 465 commercial

motor passengers, 449 commercial oar passengers, 112 private boaters, and 99

commercial guides.

Preliminary data from this study (Hall 1999) indicate several trends. Mean annual

income for commercial passengers was over 3 times the U.S. national average,

suggesting that high trip cost (a function of strong demand and limited supply) restricts

commercial passengers to a fairly affluent subset of the general public. Private boaters’

mean annual income was only slightly higher than the national average.

Motivations for taking Colorado River trips rated as “very important” by a majority of

respondents were seeing the canyon from the river, the excitement of river running, being

in the wilderness, and being with family and friends. Around 90% of respondents rated

the trip as either “excellent” or “perfect”. It is important to note here that while high

percentages of satisfied river runners may suggest that conditions of biophysical aspects

of recreation resources are not of immediate concern, this isn’t necessarily true. The

question did not directly address biophysical conditions, and in any case about 80% of

commercial passengers had never been on the river before, and thus had no frame of

reference with which to make a judgement (see Shelby 1976c). People may modify their

expectations and preferences as a means of reducing the negative effects of perceived

crowding (Shelby et al. 1983, Schneider and Hammitt 1995). In other words, high levels

of apparently satisfied first time visitors tell us nothing about how the river experience

has changed through time as camps and campable beach area have decreased. As Peine

et al. (1999) point out, people interviewed onsite tend to be clearly tolerant of the

conditions at hand, while displaced visitors and their perceptions are not easily identified.

Furthermore, recreation satisfaction is an extremely complicated issue, only a portion

of which is related to biophysical settings, making uniformly high levels of overall

satisfaction limited in usefulness to researchers exploring relationships between

recreation opportunities and experiences (Manning 1999). Finally, if biophysical

conditions deteriorate beyond limits of acceptable change, managers may be forced to

limit or reduce visitation (Cole and Stankey 1997). In these cases, individual satisfaction

may remain very high but fewer people are able to engage in satisfying experiences. This
51

important issue is related to recreational, or social carrying capacity, discussed

previously.

Another study currently in progress is being funded by the National Science

Foundation and undertaken by a team from the University of Arizona and Northern

Arizona University. This project is utilizing data concerning a number of different

variables to develop “intelligent agents” that will simulate the behavior of various types

of river trips in a computer model. Information gathered from river runners such as

launch schedules, time spent at camps, attraction sites and in transit on the river is being

used in conjunction with data on river flow speed and other biophysical factors. The

purpose of the model is to optimize launch schedules for trips of different lengths and

behavior patterns, so that contacts between river parties and conflicts over camps are

minimized.

A third study, funded by the GCMRC, has three objectives: (1) determine attitudes and

preferences of current users toward recreation opportunities and setting attributes as they

relate to river flows; (2) evaluate changing attitudes and preferences of users; and (3)

compare and contrast user attitudes and preferences to stakeholder objectives.

Investigation of the effects of river flow level on recreation experiences is being

conducted through the use of mailback surveys with computer manipulated,

photorealistic images portraying a range of variation in selected recreation setting

attributes (e.g. beach quality) that are potentially affected by dam operations.

Finally, the GCMRC is also supporting an extension of current sandbar monitoring

efforts to include surveys and monitoring of a sample of camps in critical and non-critical

reaches of the river corridor. This effort is part of a greater emphasis on integrating

existing knowledge (e.g. O’Brien et al. 1999, Kearsley 1994, 1995, Kearsley et al. 1999)

with more rigorous campsite monitoring.
52

CHAPTER 3

RECREATION AND THE COLORADO RIVER ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

The current GCMRC Strategic Plan does not address the facts that many parameters of

river recreational experiences (and by extension how they are affected by dam

operations) remain poorly understood, and that as a consequence the GCMRC lacks a

clear definition of what constitutes the recreation resources it is charged with monitoring.

Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of ways the recreation

component of the AMP can be strengthened. The problem of accurately characterizing

recreation resources within an ecosystem management paradigm is addressed. It is

argued that social science has been underutilized within the AMP and should be accorded

a more prominent role. A more explicit, scientifically grounded definition of recreation

resources is offered. Suggestions for a more unified and focused treatment of recreation

in the GCMRC Strategic Plan are made, along with recommendations for additional

Management Objectives, Information Needs, and future research. Finally it is suggested

that more explicit characterization of normative assumptions, and valuation of social

benefits associated with various resources is important to the AMP.

The role of social science in the Adaptive Management Program

The GCMRC is guided by an adaptive ecosystem management approach, which

stresses broad-scale and hierarchical integration of ecological, social and cultural factors,

and is characterized by an iterative process of research, incremental policy change, and

monitoring. Ecosystem management emphasizes the need to conceptualize and define

resource associations holistically, but without good working definitions and

understanding of what each “resource” area encompasses, and utilization of best available

social science knowledge and research techniques, determining the effects of GCD

operations on “...the values for which GCNP was established” will be problematic.

Presumptions that ecosystem management science will be handled by ecologists while

social considerations are relegated to the managerial or political domains are pervasive in

the ecosystem management field. In most cases, “...the role of social science per se is

not to study humans as interacting elements of ecosystems (having both positive and
53

negative effects, with ecosystems providing essential commodities or experiences for

humans) but simply as deterrents to natural processes. Instead of systematically

analyzing the interaction of humans in ecosystems, the social component enters the

decision process only haphazardly (i.e. unscientifically) in the political arena after the

biophysical or ‘scientific’ data are collected” (Endter-Wada et al. 1998, p. 893).

Underappreciation of social science knowledge and methods appears to be a general

trend; this synopsis unfortunately parallels (with rare exceptions) the approach the AMP

has taken with regard to socioeconomic resources (National Research Council 1999, p.

82-85).

For example, the Assistant Secretary of Water and Science Guidelines state that the

mission of the GCMRC includes “...[evaluation of] ecosystem resource impacts and

changes resulting from alternative dam operating criteria to aquatic, terrestrial and

cultural resources...” and that “science is clearly a powerful mechanism to learn about

natur[al] processes...”. The guidelines unfortunately fail to note that science can also tell

us much about social processes, both those concerning variables that affect recreation

experiences, and economic valuation of socioeconomic resources. This oversight may be

due to an implicit assumption that recreation resources begin and end with biophysical

elements of ecosystems, and will thus automatically be encompassed by research and

monitoring of biological, physical and cultural resources. (This does not explain,

however, why the guidelines make no mention of economic analysis, often viewed as the

most developed of the social sciences. Economic considerations form part of the social

component of recreation, just as they form part of the social component of other

resources. Rigorous market and nonmarket economic research and valuations will be

indispensable to the AMP in order to meet directives for benefit/cost analyses called for

the in the GCPA.)

The guidelines also state that “all new [GCMRC] research programs will adopt

ecosystem science approaches, which will require integrated resource science

assessments across space and time.” Ecosystems include humans, and nonconsumptive

recreational use of the Colorado River ecosystem by humans is a significant component

of the resources the AMP and GCMRC are charged with evaluating. By established

definitions of the term, an “integrated resource assessment” must include the human
54

dimensions of Colorado River ecosystem resources (e.g., Boyden 1993, Christensen et al.

1996, Cordell and Bergstrom 1999, Kaufmann et al. 1994, Salwasser and Pfister 1993).

A concerted effort to integrate social science research into the AMP is critical in order

to include the world-class recreation and other socioeconomic resources of the Colorado

River ecosystem within a realistic vision for managing it. One important role of social

science within the AMP is to provide rigorous market and nonmarket economic analysis

to evaluate costs and benefits to resource users (stakeholders) under different dam

management scenarios. As the NRC (1999) notes, there is a large and growing body of

literature on environmental economics that the AMP has not yet availed itself of. Social

science in the form of onriver and post hoc investigations, using established recreation

research techniques, also has a key role to play in generating specific information for

recreation resources. A proposed definition for these resources, and ways that social

science can better delineate and support it, are discussed in the next section.

The problem of defining recreation resources

As explained in Chapter 1, language in the GCPA, EIS and ROD leaves no doubt that

“visitor use”, “recreation” and “recreation resources” are included among affected

downstream resources under the purview of the AMP, and that these resources are

commensurate in importance with physical, biological and cultural resources. However,

the holistic nature of ecosystem processes and related human activities can make it

difficult to differentiate and define various ecosystem and resource components in the

Colorado River ecosystem into manageable science program areas.

This is especially true for socioeconomic resources, in which non-human biophysical

ecosystem considerations interface with human ecology and culture. The AMP lacks

clear definitions of the recreation resources it is charged with attending to, and a certain

degree of variability and vagueness is thus apparent as one tracks the way recreation is

addressed through pertinent AMP legal documents, directives and reviews. Dam-affected

recreation resources are frequently (though implicitly) construed as merely the

biophysical substrate on which recreation occurs, namely rapids, river flow speed, stage

changes, and especially camping beaches. This characterization, though partially correct,

is incomplete. Research literature is clear on the fact that recreation also includes a
55

variety of social and experiential factors, and has demonstrated the utility of a range of

methods for addressing them (see, for example, Manning 1999, Williams and Patterson

1999).

Treatment of recreation in the GCMRC Draft Strategic Plan is a good example of the

difficulty of categorizing these resources. The plan explains that the sociocultural

resources program “...incorporates the cultural resources program and the

socioeconomic program (recreation and economic issues) into one resource program

area”. The background, status of knowledge, management objectives and information

needs for the sociocultural program are then addressed in separate sections for cultural

resources, recreational resources, and economic market activities. Separate presentation

of them in the plan implies that recreation resources and economic market activities are

independent concerns. This is curious, because recreation in the Colorado River

ecosystem is unquestionably related to substantial market activities, as was clearly

demonstrated by research conducted for the EIS (Bishop et al. 1987). Moreover, this

distinction is inconsistent with language in the plan’s more detailed discussion of

recreational resources, which acknowledges that visitor use of the river corridor does

have economic importance through direct employment and multiplier effects in the

region.

Given that recreation on the river has substantial biophysical and social components,

placing it in separate category could potentially have merit, but such a multidisciplinary

approach is only hinted at. The Draft Strategic Plan should either (1) explain the way

recreation resources have been categorized separately by clearly outlining their

multidisciplinary nature, or (2) return to the format of previous documents, where

recreation and hydropower are treated as subcategories under the more general heading of

socioeconomic resources.

NRC reviewers allude to the problem of defining recreation resources by

acknowledging various uses of the term “socioeconomics”, including environmental

economics, geography, historical studies, institutional and policy analysis, and

recreational sociology. Their analysis of the Physical Resource Program notes that

recreation resources encompass more than biophysical features with this statement:

“research and monitoring are focused on understanding how to maintain adequate
56

volumes and appropriate morphology of [sand] deposits, in order to

preserve...ecological, recreational, and cultural resources.” (NRC 1999, p. 65, emphasis

added.)

The preceding discussion, of course, begs the question that if recreation resources

aren’t just a set of biophysical parameters (i.e. settings) then what exactly are they? As

previously outlined, recreation consists of experience opportunities, but more specificity

is needed to adequately describe recreation in the CRE. (The evolution of recreation

research, and gestation of this general definition are discussed in the section dealing with

recreation experiences and benefits.) Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth

Edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1994) defines a “resource” as:

1. (a) a source of supply or support; an available means

(b) a natural source of wealth or revenue

(c) computable wealth

(d) a source of information or expertise

2. something to which one has recourse in difficulty

3. a possibility of relief or recovery

4. a means of spending one’s leisure time

5. an ability to meet and handle a situation

Several of these alternative definitions are applicable to recreation resources. A

recreation resource can be an available means, and something to which one has recourse

in difficulty (the stress-reducing, restorative effects of natural environments are welldocumented). It is also, obviously, a means of spending one’s leisure time. Manning

(1999) suggests several principles for understanding, researching and managing

recreation:

1. Outdoor recreation should be considered within a threefold framework, the natural

environment, the social environment and the managerial environment; each of

which has important implications for defining outdoor recreation experiences and

opportunities

2. Outdoor recreation is most appropriately defined in terms of motivations and

benefits rather than participation in activities

3. Quality in outdoor recreation can be defined as the degree to which recreation

opportunities provide the experiences for which they are designed and managed;

type and quality of outdoor recreation opportunities are distinct concepts
57

4. There is a high degree of interrelationship among outdoor recreation issues and

variables

 Experience opportunities are comprised of biophysical settings, social factors such as

motivations and benefits of recreationists, and managerial components, a description

widely accepted by researchers. Recently it has been suggested that because humans

benefit from these experiences, recreation can also be characterized as range of benefit

opportunities (Lee and Driver 1999).

Based on established professional knowledge, the following definition is submitted:

Recreation resources in the Colorado River ecosystem consist of a spectrum of

actual and potential, non-substitutable, world-class experience opportunities

(comprised of an array of interactions between biophysical, socioeconomic, cultural

and managerial factors) that produce many market and nonmarket benefits for

individual visitors, social groups and society.

A critical point in defining recreation resources in terms of experience opportunities in

the Colorado River ecosystem is the fact that these opportunities are for the most part

unique and not substitutable. This is particularly true for downriver float trips, as

evidenced by the worldwide reputation of river trips through the Grand Canyon and its

designation as a World Heritage Site (USDOI National Park Service 1995). Other multiday river float trip experience opportunities are available in the United States and

internationally, but none are even roughly comparable in terms of rapids, variety and

quality of scenery, campsites, off-river hiking opportunities, attraction sites, or length.

Clearly, biophysical factors related to dam operations, such as river flow level, rapids

and especially camping beaches are crucial to the continued existence of these experience

opportunities, and the AMP is correct in focusing significant research efforts on how

these variables affect recreation experiences. Because human influences can easily

dominate and obscure understanding of other ecosystem processes, it may be appropriate

for natural scientists to take a lead role in attempting to define baseline conditions in the

Colorado River ecosystem independent of humans (Houck 1998). It is, however, equally

important to bring rigorous social science techniques to bear on defining the experiences

and benefits of human recreational uses of the ecosystem. Recognition of social factors
58

in an explicit definition for recreation will make the AMP more effective in addressing its

responsibilities to research, monitor, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve recreation

resources under an ecosystem management paradigm (Peine et al. 1999). Such a

definition should be incorporated into all planning documents that address recreation

within the AMP.

Differentiating between biophysical or social factors is useful for investigative

purposes, but in the real world of recreation humans and the ecosystems they experience

are inextricably connected. Although non-human ecological factors are integral, it may

be more germane to understand physical and psychological relationships between humans

and the Colorado River ecosystem that characterize visitor experiences and benefits.

That visitors do indeed derive benefits from experiences in the CRE can be imputed from

the fact that river trips are quite expensive by most standards, but demand still greatly

exceeds supply. What specific benefits are most valued, how much they are valued, and

linkages between benefits and reach-specific biophysical factors of the ecosystem are

critical areas for future research (Peine et al.1999, NRC 1999). Inventoried wildland

recreation benefits can serve as indicator variables for experience quality when

monitoring recreation resources (Driver 1996). This approach is especially amenable to

cooperative efforts between the GCMRC and NPS, which has expressed an intention to

manage for wilderness oriented experiences and benefits in the CRE. It also has potential

for empirically linking economic analysis of social benefits (NRC 1999) with specifically

described benefits of river recreation. We already know that people visit parks to enjoy

nature, Williams and Patterson (1999) note, but little about “...what is meant by ‘to enjoy

nature’, i.e. the content of what is enjoyed, the process through which people attend to

and perceive nature...” (p. 151).

Suggestions for updating information needs and future research

It has been suggested that priorities for social science programming at the GCMRC

include onriver research to clarify what is unique and highly valued about the experience,

and the types of benefits visitors accrue. In addition, a regional comparison of river

recreation alternatives, as well as an updated regional economic assessment of recreation

in the Colorado River ecosystem are necessary to adequately understand the scope of
59

these resources. Here, specific strengths and weaknesses of present GCMRC

recreation/socioeconomic research efforts are discussed, and suggestions for new

research recapitulated in more specific terms.

To its credit, the GCMRC is funding a project (Stewart et al. 1997) assessing attitudes

and preferences of users toward recreation opportunities and setting attributes related to

river flows, changing attitudes and preferences of users, and user attitudes and

preferences in relation to stakeholder visions. This study began to address IN 1.1,

“determine criteria and aspects that are important to or detract from recreational

experience[s]”, by investigating flow-related factors that affect recreation experiences.

Consistent with biophysical and cultural resources, recreation experiences must be

researched holistically, as suggested by the adaptive ecosystem management approach.

Since both biophysical variables and humans are involved, this research should

encompass aspects of Colorado River ecology, human ecology (including psychological

aspects of the recreation experience) and sociocultural concerns, and is a necessary

precursor before any meaningful assessment of dam operation effects can take place.

A new IN for recreation would address this broader range of relevant considerations

concerning recreation:

“Characterize and define the scope of recreation experience opportunities

presently and potentially available in the Colorado River ecosystem, and

individual and social benefits associated with them. Consistent with the adaptive

ecosystem management paradigm, include both biophysical and sociocultural

parameters, and describe relationships between them. Compare and contrast

these experience opportunities with other river recreation opportunities in the

region.”

Onriver data collection would be the most ecologically valid way to establish what

benefits visitors are accruing over the course of their experiences (based on an

established body of research linking recreation experiences and benefits) and linkages

between these experiences and benefits, and ecosystem parameters. A methodology

consisting of written questionnaires administered to river visitors at all points along the

river corridor is suggested as means for linking data gathered with biophysical features of

the CRE. This would meet objectives of establishing reach-specific facets of the CRE

that contribute to recreation experiences, how these parameters are experienced, and

benefits that accrue to visitors as a result. Such data would allow a much more specific
60

understanding of the social benefits related to recreation use, and could be coupled with a

follow-up mailback survey to document the persistence of recreation benefits over time.

Although they have the advantage of a proven track record with researchers and land

management agencies, management frameworks such as the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum and Benefits Based Management have been criticized as being too restrictive

by characterizing recreation is just another “production process” (Williams et al. 1992).

In any case, it is important to study recreation experiences in real time (Manfredo et al.

1996, Stewart and Hull 1992), although less restrictive alternative methodologies exist

such as phenomenological approaches (e.g. Fishwick and Vining 1992).

Second, validating the existence of the social benefits of recreation resources is

important to frame economic valuation of recreation in the Colorado River ecosystem, an

issue insufficiently addressed by the Strategic Plan. Explicit description and valuation of

recreation is needed to provide meaningful cost/benefit assessments as social carrying

capacity either increases or decreases under different operating criteria for GCD. This

economic component has been neglected by previous research efforts, with the result that

losses (or gains) in recreation values under 35 years of dam operations remain largely

unknown. The GCMRC may have difficulty weighing costs and benefits of effects on

recreation under various dam operation scenarios without a clear picture of what the

benefits associated with recreation are, and rigorous up-to-date economic analysis of

them. This suggests a second new IN:

“Generate an up to date valuation of market and nonmarket, individual and

social benefits generated by use of recreation resources in the Colorado River

ecosystem. Include multiplier effects and a thorough regional economic analysis.

Use conventional economic measures as well as contingent valuation, travel cost,

conjoint analysis and other state-of-the-art nonmarket economic techniques

where relevant and needed.”

To complement conventional market economic analysis, an environmental economics

approach should be adopted to properly account for nonmarket social benefits, as the

NRC suggests. A good starting point would be a rigorous update of work conducted by

Bishop et al. (1987), data for which is now 15 years old. Information concerning the

economic value of hydropower is readily available and current, but corresponding

information for recreation and other socioeconomic values is dated to the point that it
61

may no longer be relevant. Moreover, as the NRC (1999) notes, there have been

substantial advances in environmental economic techniques since the last time such

values were estimated for the Colorado River. The GCMRC also needs to include

important work completed as part of the EIS process that empirically describes benefits

that accrue to people who may or may not ever visit the ecosystem physically (Welsh et

al. 1995, 1999).

Third, having four separate INs for camping beaches, each prioritized differently, may

lead to poorly-coordinated efforts to address this critical issue. Campsite size and

number are decreasing (along with the range of options for use level/contact tradeoffs) as

a result of operations of GCD, while demand for river experiences increases. This has an

important implication for GCMRC recreation research: monitoring of social carrying

capacity should continue and be expanded. This should be a multi-faceted effort

including monitoring campsite size and number on regular intervals (as discussed in the

critique of the GCMRC Strategic Plan) coupled with a regular program of monitoring

contacts between river trips. Measurable indicators such as these (Manning 1999)

provide objective data necessary to track changes in river recreation quality through time.

To its credit, the GCMRC has instituted efforts to focus sediment research more

specifically on camping beaches in critical reaches. As part of this effort, INs 2.1, 2.2

and 2.3 should be condensed and addressed concurrently. The GCMRC should (1)

develop a comprehensive and up to date inventory of all regularly used campsites in the

River Corridor between Lees Ferry and the headwaters of Lake Mead, synthesizing work

by Kearsley and associates (Kearsley and Warren 1993, Kearsley 1994, Kearsley 1995,

Kearsley et al. 1999), (2) validate this list with current full-time guides and update as

needed; archive valuable anecdotal evidence, and (3) annually monitor all camps in

critical reaches, and a substantial sample of camps in other reaches. This work should be

coordinated with conceptual systems modeling efforts to ensure that data gathered is

relevant to the model.

The following INs pertaining to wilderness river experiences (identified by the

AMWG previously) have been omitted from the Draft Strategic Plan:

-determination of criteria and aspects that are important to or detract from 

 [a] wilderness experience
62

-characterization [of] procedures to mitigate those aspects of flows that 

 detract from [the] wilderness character of the river 

These INs were restated to say “recreation” instead of “wilderness” (Lambert 1999), but

given the importance of this issue to the general public (USDOI National Park Service

1998a) and its relevance to NPS management objectives, the GCMRC may want to

specifically address how GCD operations affect wilderness qualities. A study conducted

by Hall (1999) addressed wilderness qualities in the River Corridor, but considered only

questions relating to social carrying capacity and motorized use.

Finally, the recommendation that recreationists’ “...values and concerns...” be

monitored only every five years is not commensurate with the uniqueness and global

importance of Grand Canyon river trips. Large changes in beach morphology (to name

one parameter that affects recreation) can take place in weeks or months (Kearsley et al.

1999). Monitoring every five years may fail to detect how such changes affect recreation

values until well after the fact. Annual or biannual monitoring is recommended.

Social benefits and the Adaptive Management Program

The NRC (1999) states that “among the most important and least understood issues for

social research [in the AMP] are the following: what resource effects are valued by

different groups, how they are experienced and valued, and how much they are valued”,

and that “understanding the social benefits associated with improved ecological or

recreational conditions in the [Colorado River ecosystem] requires information about

society’s willingness to pay for enhancement of ecological conditions or for better

recreational opportunities” (NRC 1999, p. 76). The NRC reviewers point out that

decision makers often use implicit value judgements to decide how important various

resource gains and losses are, and that this informal process stands out in sharp contrast

to the rigor with which many physical effects are measured. Recurrent issues in the NRC

review are the “social benefits” of socioeconomic resources, and the importance of

addressing implicit value imputations with the same rigor as scientifically measured

physical effects.
63

Although hydroelectric power facilities are indisputably among the cleanest available

from a pollution standpoint, implicit value judgements and conclusions as to the social

benefits of western water development and power marketing have changed dramatically

over the past 50 years (Martin 1989, Wilkinson 1992, Worster 1985). The social benefits

of maximizing peaking power revenue to pay for otherwise uneconomic diversion,

salinity and irrigation projects have similarly been questioned (Carothers and Brown

1991, Parker and Rozzi 1997). These changes in public attitudes contributed in large part

to the GCPA, EIS and finally the current AMP. Economic analysis within the GCMRC

socioeconomic program is needed to address the dialectical and pluralistic situation

existing within the AMP with regard to hydropower, recreation and related ecological

resources (National Research Council 1999). In some situations, consensus on the

relative social benefits of each may not be achievable because of competing worldviews.

Progress toward the goals of the AMP in these cases may be stymied unless the best

possible research is brought to bear on definition and valuation of affected resources.

Hydropower resources are relatively easy to define and information for hydropower

revenue is readily available. However, for difficult to define and measure, but important

recreation resources, information lags behind that available for hydropower and other

resource areas. This is problematic, given that language in the EIS and elsewhere

acknowledges that Grand Canyon National Park, and the Colorado River ecosystem

contained therein are of international significance. Although they undergird political

processes that led to the AMP, the benefits to society of Colorado River recreation and

related ecological resources, are only hinted at in documentation pertaining directly to the

AMP.

These are the kind of implicit value judgements the NRC argues should be made

explicit (NRC 1999). No matter what definition is most applicable to the sense in which

resources are understood in the AMP, it will be difficult to keep values out of the process

whether the issue is hydropower or recreation. A critical role for social science in

addressing this situation is to empirically validate whether benefits assumed to accrue to

people from river trip experiences actually do, and use state of the science market and

nonmarket economic techniques to generate an estimate of value for them. Rather than

basing decisions on implicit normative comparisons, the benefits derived from recreation
64

resources in the Colorado River ecosystem could then be more explicitly compared to

benefits derived from maximization of hydropower revenue.

Tradeoffs may have to be made between maximizing the value of hydropower, and

ecological protection and recreation. The recommendations offered here offer a viable

approach to inclusion of world class recreation resources, and associated but hard to

define ecological values as the AMP works to form a vision for managing Glen Canyon

Dam and the Colorado River ecosystem for the good of all stakeholders.

 
65

REFERENCES

Arnould, E. J. and L. L. Price. 1993. River magic: Extraordinary experience and the

extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 24-45.

Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schulman. 1993. Report

of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58, 10, 4602-4614.

Bergstrom, J. C. and J. B. Loomis. 1999. Economic dimensions of ecosystem

management in Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom (eds.). 1999. Integrating social

sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy and

management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Bishop, R.C., K. J. Boyle, M. P. Welsh, R. M. Baumgartner, and P. R. Rathbun. 1987.

Glen Canyon Dam releases and downstream recreation: An analysis of user

preferences and economic values. Executive Summary.

Booth, A.L. and Kessler, W.B. 1996. Understanding linkages of people, natural

resources and ecosystem health in Natural Resource Management: The Human

Dimension, Ewert, A.W. (Ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

Boyden, S. 1993. The human component of ecosystems in M. J. McDonnell and S. T. A.

Pickett (Eds.) Humans as components of ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bordon, F.Y. 1976. User carrying capacity for river-running the Colorado River in the

Grand Canyon. Colorado River Research Program. Technical Report No. 9. USDOI

National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park.

Brian, N. J. and J. R. Thomas. 1984. 1983 Colorado River beach campsite inventory.

United States Department of Interior National Park Service, Division of Resource

Management. Grand Canyon National Park.

Brown, B. T. and M. G. Hahn. 1987. Effect of flows in the Colorado River on reported

and observed boating accidents in Grand Canyon. Glen Canyon Environmental

Studies Technical Report. USDOI Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Bruns, D., Driver, B.L., Lee, M., Anderson, D., & Brown, T. 1994. Pilot tests for

implementing benefits-based management. Paper presented at the Fifth International

Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Carothers, S. W. and B. T. Brown. 1991. The Colorado River through Grand Canyon:

Natural history and human change. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin and J. L. Wright. Contingent valuation and

revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods.

Land Economics 72,1, 80-95.
66

Cartwright, C.W., and Burns, D.P. 1994. The human dimension in sustainable ecosystem

management: A management philosophy. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

Clark, R. and G. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A framework of

planning, managing and research. USFS General Technical Report PNW-98.

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station.

Christensen, N.L. (Chair), A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R.

Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M.

G. Turner, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of

America on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications

6, 3, 665-691.

Cohen, D. 1999. Adaptive Management Work Group representative for Trout

Unlimited. E-mail communication, 8/07/99.

Cole, D. N. 1996. Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 Through 1994. (Research

Paper INT-RP-488.) Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station.

Cole, D. N. and S. F. McCool. 1997. Proceedings-limits of acceptable change and

related planning processes: Progress and future directions. USDA Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371.

Cole, D. and G. H. Stankey. 1997. Historical development of limits of acceptable

change: Conceptual clarifications and possible extensions in Cole, D. N. and S. F.

McCool. Proceedings-limits of acceptable change and related planning processes:

Progress and future directions. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371.

Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom (eds.). 1999. Integrating social sciences with

ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy and management.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Cordell, H. K., J. C. Bergstrom, G. A. Ashley and J. Karish. 1990. Economic effects of

river recreation on local economies. Water Resources Bulletin 26, 53-60.

Cordell, H. K., Lewis, B., and McDonald, B. L. 1995. Long-term outdoor recreation

participation trends in Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation

and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource

Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Dawson, C. P., and A. E. Watson. 1996. Wilderness trip satisfaction and use perceptions

of crowding: Opportunities for more in-depth analysis in Sixth International
67

Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Book of abstracts. University

Park, PN: Pennsylvania State University.

Douglas, A. J. and D. A. Harpman. 1995. Estimating recreation employment effects

with IMPLAN for the Glen Canyon Dam region. Journal of Environmental

Management 44, 233-247.

Driver, B. L. 1996. Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal

16: 94-99.

Driver, B. L. and S. R. Tocher. 1970. Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational

engagements, with implications for planning in Elements of Outdoor Recreation

Planning. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Driver, B. L. and P. J. Brown. 1983. Contributions of behavioral scientists to recreation

resourcce management in Behavior and the natural environment, I. Altman, and J. F.

Wohlwill. (Eds.) New York: Plenum Press.

Driver, B. L., Brown, P.J., Stankey, G.H., and Gregoire, T.G. 1987. The ROS planning

system: Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences 9, 201-212.

Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown and and G. L. Peterson (eds.). 1991. Benefits of Leisure. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B. L. and G. L Peterson. 1986. The values and benefits of outdoor recreation. An

integrative overview in A Literature Review. President's Commission on Americans

Outdoors. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office: 1-9 of Values Section.

Driver, B. L., H. E. A.Tinsley, and M. J. Manfredo. 1991. Leisure and recreation

experience preference scales. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds.)

Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Dwyer, J. F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Endter-Wada, J., D. Blahna, R. Krannich and M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for

understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological

Applications 8 (3) pp. 891-904.

English, D. B. K., C. J. Betz, J. M. Young, J. C. Bergstrom, and H. K. Cordell. 1993.

Regional Demand and Supply Projections for Outdoor Recreation. (Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-230.) Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.
68

Finger, M. 1994. From knowledge to action? Exploring relationships between

environmental experiences, learning and behavior. Journal of Social Issues 50, 3,

141-161.

Fishwick, L. and J. Vining. 1992. Toward a phenomenology of recreation place.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 57-63.

Graefe, A. R., J. J. Vaske and F. R Kuss. 1984. Social carrying capacity: An integration

and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences 6, 395-431.

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 1996. Doing research in the Grand

Canyon.

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 1998. The Grand Canyon Monitoring

and Research Center Fiscal Year 2000-2004 Monitoring and Research Strategic Plan.

Draft, 11/05/98.

Grand Canyon National Park. 1996. Grand Canyon National Park science information

needs. Revised draft, 9-22-96.

Grand Canyon Protection Act. 1992. Public Law 102-575.

Grisham, M. 1999. Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association. Figures for economic

activity of commercial river outfitters. Personal e-mail communication, 8/19/99.

Gunn, T. 1999. Lees Ferry Anglers. Estimates of revenue generated by Lees Ferry

commercial guiding services. Personal communication 8/06/99.

Hall, T. 1999. Data from 1998 Grand Canyon visitor surveys (draft results). Blacksburg

VA: Virginia Tech, Department of Forestry.

Hazel, J. E. Jr., M. A. Kaplinski, S. S. Beus, L. a. Tedrow. 1993. Sand bar stability and

response to interim flows after a bar-building event on the Colorado River, Grand

Canyon, Arizona: Implications for sediment storage and sand bar maintenance.

[Abstract], EOS 74, 43. Supplement, Fall Meeting abstracts, 320.

Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey and R. C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Management. Golden,

CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Houck, O. A. 1998. Are humans part of ecosystems? Environmental Law, v28 (Spring)

n1, p1-14.

Jalbert, L. M. 1992. The influence of discharge on recreational values including

crowding, congestion and safety in Grand Canyon National Park (draft report).

National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.
69

Johnson, D. R., and M. E. Vande Kamp. 1996. Extent and control of resource damage

due to noncompliant behavior: a case study from the U.S. national parks. Natural

Areas Journal 16: 94-99.

Jostad, P.M., McAvoy, L.H., and McDonald, D. 1996. Native American land ethics:

Implications for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 9: 565-

581.

Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological

Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using

organism in Barkow, J. H., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, (Eds.) The Adapted Mind:

Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169-182.

Kaplinski, M., J. E. Hazel, Jr., and S. S. Beus. 1995. Monitoring the effects of interim

flows from Glen Canyon Dam on sandbars in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona. Final Report to the National Park Service, Arizona.

Flagstaff AZ: Northern Arizona University.

Kaplinski et al. 1998 (Mentioned in new campsite proposal. Get cite from Ruth or Matt).

Kaplinski et al. 1999. Campsite monitoring. (get proper cite if study is approved.)

Kaufmann, M. R., R. T. Graham, D. A. Boyce, Jr., W. H. Moir, L. Perry, R. T. Reynolds,

R. L. Bassett, P. Mehlrop, C. B. Edminster, W. M. Block, and P. S. Corn. 1994. An

ecological basis for ecosystem management. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report RM-246. Ft. Collins CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Kearsley, L. H. 1994. Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River sand deposits

used as campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research

and Management, v9, 137-149.

_____. 1995. Monitoring the effects of interim flows on campsite size along the

Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park (final report). Grand Canyon National

Park Division of Resource Management, National Park Service. In cooperation with

USDOI Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Cooperative

Agreement CA8022-8-0002.

Kearsley, L. H., Quartaroli, R. D. and Kearsley, M. J. C. 1999. Changes in the number

and size of campsites as determined by inventory and measurement in The Controlled

Flood in Grand Canyon. Geophysical Monograph 110, American Geophysical Union.
70

Kearsley, L. H., and K. Warren 1993. River campsites in Grand Canyon National Park:

Inventory and effects of discharge on campsite size and availability (final report).

Grand Canyon National Park Division of Resource Management, National Park

Service.

Kellert, S. R. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books.

Knopf, R. 1983. Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings in Altman, I. and

Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum

Press.

Lambert, R. 1999. Personal communication, 10/04/99.

Lavender, D. 1985. River Runners of the Grand Canyon. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona

Press.

Laxson, J.D. 1991. How “we” see “them”: Tourism and native americans. Annals of

Tourism Research 18, 365-391.

Leap, L. M., J. L. Kunde, D. C. Hubbard, C. E. Downum, N. B. Andrews, J. R. Balsom

and A. Miller. 1999. Grand Canyon monitoring project 1992-1999: Synthesis and

annual report, FY1999. River Corridor Monitoring Project No. 66, Grand Canyon

National Park and Northern Arizona University. Cooperative Agreement No. CA

8210-97-002.

Lee, M. 1995. A benefits approach to leisure services in Proceedings of the Fourth

International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995

National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of

Minnesota.

Lee, M. E. and L. Grover. 1992. Lees Ferry Carrying Capacity, Final Report. U.S. Department

of Interior, National Park Service, Cooperative Agreement CA-1440-0-0004. Flagstaff AZ:

Northern Arizona University.

Lee, M., and B. L. Driver 1999. Benefits-based management: A new paradigm for

managing amenity resources in Aley, J.; W.R. Burch; B. Conover; and D.R. Field

(Eds.) Ecosystem Management: Adaptive strategies for natural resources organizations

in the 21st century. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis Publishers.

Lee, M. and D. Stephens. 1995. Anasazi cultural parks study: Assessment of visitor experiences

at three cultural parks. Technical Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-95/07. USDOI National

Park Service, Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona University.
71

Lessard, G., M. Jensen, M. Crespi, and P. Bourgeron. 1999. A general framework for integrated

ecological assessments in Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom (eds.). 1999. Integrating social

sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy and

management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Loomis, J. B. 1987a. An economic valuation of public trust resources of Mono Lake. Institute

of Ecology Report no. 30. University of California, Davis, California.

_____. 1987b. Balancing public trust resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles’water rights.

Water Resources Research, v23, n4, 1449-1456.

_____. 1996. Measuring economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River:

results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resources Research, 32,2, 441-447.

(American Geophysical Union.)

Manfredo, M. J., B. L. Driver, and M. A.Tarrant. 1996. Measuring leisure motivation: a

meta analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure

Research 28, 3, 188-214.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction.

Corvallis, OR: University of Oregon Press, 2nd ed.

Manning, R. E., S. F. McCool and A. R. Graefe. 1995. Trends in carrying capacity in

Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium

and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of

Minnesota.

Martin, R. 1989. A Story That Stands Like a Dam: Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul

of the West. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

McKinney, T. and W. R. Persons. 1999. Rainbow trout and lower trophic levels in Lees Ferry

tailwater below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona: A review. Arizona Game and Fish Department

and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Cooperative Agreement No. 1425-98-

FC-40-22690.

Merriam Webster, Inc. 1994. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster Incorporated.

Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. 1991. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent

valuation method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Moore, B. 1998. Assistant Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Region.

Personal communication, August 1998.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven CT: Yale University, 3rd ed.
72

National Research Council 1996. River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon.

Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of the Glen Canyon Dam

and the Colorado River ecosystem. Committee on Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research,

Water Science and Technology Board. Commision on Geosciences, Environment and

Resources, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nazarea, V. D. (ed.). 1999. Ethnoecology : situated knowledge/located lives. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

O’Brien, G., J. Janssen, K. Thonpson, K. Burke and A. Potochnik. 1999. Effects of continuos

high flows and daily fluctuating flows from Glen Canyon Dam on Grand Canyon beaches,

1997 and 1998: A continuation of repeat photography study by Grand Canyon River Guides,

Inc. (Adopt-a-Beach Program). Administrative Report submitted by the Grand Canyon River

Guides Adopt-a-Beach Program.

Oelschlaeger, M. (Ed.) 1992. The Wilderness Condition: Essays on Environment and

Civilization. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Orthner, D.K. and Mancini, J.A. 1990. Leisure impact on family interaction and

cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research 22, 2, 125-137.

Parker, J. K. 1999. Integrating biophysical and social science knowledge in developing

countries: Social ecology and its potential contributions to ecosystems management in

the United States in Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom (eds.). 1999. Integrating

social sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment,

policy and management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Parker, R.E., and J. Rozzi. 1997. Life quality in the Colorado River basin: key indicators

for evaluating sustainable development. Journal of the Southwest, v39, n2.

Parsons, R. 1991. The potential influences of environmental perception on human health.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 1-23.

Parsons, R., T.C. Daniel, L. G. Tassinary. 1993. Landscape aesthetics, ecology and

human health: in defense of instrumental values in Covington, W.W. and DeBano,

L.F. (Tech. Coordinators) Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an

Ecological Approach to Land Management. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-247. Ft. Collins CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Peine, J. D., R. E. Jones, M. r. English, S. E. Wallace. 1999. Contributions of sociology

to ecosystem management in Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom (eds.). 1999.

Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in

assessment, policy and management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
73

Phillips, B. G., R. A. Johnson, A. M. Phillips and N. J. Brian. 1986. Monitoring the

effects of recreational use on Colorado River beaches in Grand Canyon National Park.

Bulletin Series 55. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff AZ.

Roggenbuck, J. W., R. J. Loomis and J. Dagostino. 1990. The learning benefits of

leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 22: 112-124.

Rolston, H. 1991. Creation and recreation: environmental benefits and human leisure in

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds.) Benefits of Leisure. State College,

PA: Venture Publishing.

Roszak, T. 1996. The nature of sanity: mental health and the outdoors. Psychology

Today. v29, n1, p22(3).

Runte, A. 1987. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln NE: University of

Nebraska Press.

Salwasser, H., and Pfister, R.D. 1993. Ecosystem management: From theory to practice

in Covington, W.W. and DeBano, L.F. (Tech. Coordinators) Sustainable Ecological

Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. USDA Forest

Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Ft. Collins CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Sax, J. L. 1980. Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Schneider, I. E., and W. E. Hammitt. 1995. Visitor response to outdoor recreation

conflict: A conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences 17, 3, 223-234.

Shelby, B. 1976a. Design and method of the sociological research in the Grand Canyon.

USDOI, National Park Service, Colorado River Research Program. River Contact

Study, Final Report, Part 1.

_____. 1976b. Motors and oars in the Grand Canyon. USDOI, National Park Service,

Colorado River Research Program. River Contact Study, Final Report, Part 2.

_____. 1976c. Use levels and crowding in the Grand Canyon. USDOI, National Park

Service, Colorado River Research Program. River Contact Study, Final Report, Part 3.

_____. 1976d. Private and Commercial Trips in the Grand Canyon. USDOI, National

Park Service, Colorado River Research Program. River Contact Study, Final Report,

Part 4.

Shelby, B., T. A. Heberlein, J. J. Vaske and G. Alfano. 1983. Expectations, preferences

and feeling crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences, 6, (1), 1-14.
74

Shelby, B., T. C. Brown and R. Baumgartner 1992. Effects of streamflows on river trips

on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Rivers: Studies in the science,

environmental policy and law of instream flow, v3, n3, 191.

Shelby, B., J. J. Vaske and T. A Heberlein. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in

multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11, 269-

291.

Stavely, L. 1999. Co-owner, Canyon Explorations/Expeditions. Flagstaff AZ. Personal

communication 7/15/99.

Stewart, W. P. and R. Hull. 1992. Satisfaction of what? Post-hoc versus real-time

construct validity. Leisure Sciences, 14, 195-209.

Stewart, W. P., R. E. Manning, J. T. Taylor, and D. N. Cole. 1997. A recreation

opportunity spectrum for the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon. Proposal

submitted to, and funded by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

Ulrich, R.S. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to the natural environment in

Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment. New

York: Plenum Press.

Ulrich, R.S., Dimberg, U. and Driver, B.L. 1990. Psychophysiological indicators of

leisure consequences. Journal of Leisure Research 22, 154-166.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., and Zelson, M. 1991.

Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 11, 201-230.

Ulrich, R.S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes in Kellert, S.R. and

Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Shearwater

Books/Island Press.

Underhill, A. H.and R. E. Borkan. 1986. Simulating the effects of dam releases on

 Grand Canyon river trips. NPS Cooperative Park Study Unit, Tucson, Arizona.

 Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1997a. Environmental Assessment for an

Amendment to the Forest Plan for the Sedona Area. Sedona, AZ: USDA Forest

Service, Coconino National Forest, Sedona District.

_____. 1997b. Proposed actions for national forest lands in the Sedona area. Sedona,

AZ: USDA Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Sedona District.

U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration. 1991. Power Rate Setting and

 Repayment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
75

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1995a. Operation of Glen

Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1995b. Power system impacts of

potential changes in Glen Canyon power plant operations. Glen Canyon

Environmental Studies, Power Resources Committee, Phase III Final Report.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1997. Colorado River

Soundings: The newsletter of the Colorado River management planning process

(September). USDOI National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998a. Colorado River

Soundings: The newsletter of the Colorado River management planning process

(December). USDOI National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998b. Draft Wilderness

Management Plan. USDOI National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1995. General Management

Plan. USDOI National Park Service, Denver Service Center.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.

Undated (1996?). Guidelines for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. Record of Decision, Operation of Glen Canyon

Dam. Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work

Group Charter.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. 1999. Glen Canyon Adaptive

Management Program AMWG FACA Committee Guidance.

Walsh, R.G. 1990. Economic benefits of wildland recreation and environmental

protection in Contributions of social sciences to multiple-use management: An

update. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-196. Ft. Collins, CO: Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Watson, A. E., D. R. Williams, J. W. Roggenbuck, J. J. Daigle. 1992. Vistor characteristics

and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the South. Research paper INT - U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Welsh, M. P., R. C. Bishop, M. L. Phillips and R. M. Baumgartner. 1995. Glen Canyon Dam,

Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona-nonuse value study final report. Madison WI:
76

Hagler-Bailly Consulting/Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, NTIS No.

PB98-105406.

Welsh, M. P., R. C. Bishop and M. L. Phillips. 1999. Valuing Grand Canyon riparian resources.

Unpublished manuscript.

Whisman, S. A. and S. J. Hollenhorst. 1996. A re-examination of the satisfactioncrowding model in Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource

Management. Book of abstracts. University Park, PN: Pennsylvania State

University.

Wilkinson, C. F. 1992. Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water and the Future of the

American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Williams, D. R., M. Patterson, J. Roggenbuck, A. Watson. 1992. Beyond the commodity

metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to recreation place. Leisure

Sciences, 14, 29-46.

Williams, D. R. and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Environmental meaning and ecosystem

management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society

and Natural Resources 9, 507-521.

Williams, D. R and M. E. Patterson. 1999. Environmental psychology: Mapping

landscape meanings for ecosystem management in Cordell, H. K. and J. C. Bergstrom

(eds.) Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: Human dimensions in

assessment, policy and management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Worster, D. 1985. Water, Aridity and the Growth of the American West. New York: Oxford

University Press.
77

APPENDIX A

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS FOR RECREATION

RESOURCES

MO1) Provide quality recreation experiences consistent with other resource

objectives.

IN 1.1 Determine criteria and aspects [of dam operations] that are important to or

detract from recreational experience[s]. (Priority 2.)

IN 1.2 Determine the impacts of scientific activity on recreational experience[s].

(Priority 10.)

IN 1.3 Characterize procedures to mitigate those aspects of flows that detract from

quality recreational experiences. (Priority 3.)

IN 1.4 Determine angler satisfaction, use and harvest. (Priority 7.)

IN 1.5 Determine potential impacts of increased heavy metals on sport fishing.

(Priority 16.)

Proposed research activities in support of this MO, and status of these activities are

listed as:

1.) Research user preferences and attitudes assessing recreational experience[s]

relative to differing flow regimes. This study is ongoing and results will be

available in FY2000. The study results may suggest other work in this area.

2.) Monitor trout angler use and satisfaction through creel census and cooperative

monitoring program with fishing guides and Trout Unlimited. This study is

proposed to begin in FY2000 with information available in FY2001.

3.) Monitor beach changes and user preferences through cooperative programs with

boating guides. This study is proposed to begin in FY2000 with information

available in FY2001.

MO2) Maintain flows (under approved operating criteria) and sediment processes that

create and adequate quantity, distribution and variety of beaches for camping,

as long as such flows are consistent with management of natural recreation and

cultural resource values (other natural resource values).

IN 2.1 Determine adequate beach quantity, quality, distribution, character and

structure for camping throughout the system. (Priority 11.)

IN 2.2 Evaluate impacts of operating criteria on establishing and maintaining

adequate beaches and distribution of other resources, quality, character and

structure. (Priority 1).

IN 2.3 Develop methodology to evaluate distribution, quantity and quality

changes in all campable beaches through time. (Priority 15.)

IN 2.4 Develop models to predict flow regimes (under approved operating

criteria) for building and maintaining beaches. (Priority 6.)

Proposed research activities in support of this MO, and status of these activities are:
78

1.) Use past monitoring, research and cooperative studies to develop synthesis of

campsite beach changes through time associated with differing flow regimes, i.e.

camping area, vegetation changes, etc. This study is proposed to begin in FY2000

with information available in FY2001.

2.) Evaluate effectiveness of new monitoring protocols for long-term assessments of

camping beach changes from differing flow regimes. This study is proposed to

begin in FY2000 with information available in FY2001. Beach area data will be

monitored using aerial videography or photography at the same discharge levels

every other year. Changes in beach camping area at high discharge levels can be

determined through digitized video or aerial photographs and validated on a

sample basis through ground truthing coordinated with beach surveys under the

sediment dynamics component of the long-term monitoring and research program.

Validation of campsite area change can be determined by digitizing the on-river

mapping.

MO3) Maintain flows (under approved operating criteria) that minimize impacts to

navigability by authorized watercraft and for boaters, waders, and campers in

the riverine corridor.

IN 3.1 Determine if operating criteria maintain safe and adequate powercraft

navigability in Glen Canyon and upper Lake Mead. (Priority 13.)

IN 3.2 Evaluate effects of operating criteria on recreation safety. (Priority 4.)

IN 3.3 Determine if operating criteria maintain whitewater raft navigation in

Grand Canyon. (Priority 5.)

IN 3.4 Define ecosystem and other resource impacts of flow regimes (under

approved operating criteria) required to maintain navigation. (Priority 12.)

IN 3.5 Develop methodology to evaluate potential conflicts of day rafting and

other resources (e.g. bank degradation, sport fishing, bird watching, etc.)

(Priority 8.)

Proposed research activities in support of this MO, and status of these activities:

The NPS is currently compiling information on whitewater rafting and safety. This

information should be available in FY2001 and will provide information to formulate

projects in this area, if warranted.

MO4) Maintain flows (under approved operating criteria) and habitat suitable for

quality cold water fishery opportunities in Glen Canyon.

IN 4.1 Determine flow regimes (under approved operating criteria) necessary to

maintain fish populations of 100,000 adult trout (age class II plus).

(Priority 9.)

Proposed research activities in support of this MO, and status of these activities:
79

Data on flow regimes and trout populations are currently being addressed in the

biological resources program. At this time, no projects are being proposed in this

recreational area.

MO5) Maintain flows (under approved operating criteria) and habitat suitable for

waterfowl sport hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities in Glen Canyon.

IN 5.1 Define patterns of waterfowl hunting use and satisfaction and other wildlife

use and conflicts to other uses. (Priority 14.)

Proposed research activities in support of this MO, and status of these activities:

Information from ongoing projects addressing recreational isues will be assembled to

evaluate future projects in this area. No specific projects are proposed at this time.