1 

FINAL REPORT 

OF THE 

PROTOCOL EVALUATION PANEL (PEP) 

ON THE 

RECREATION MONITORING PROGRAM 

OF 

THE GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER 

(GCMRC) 

Submitted by 

John Loomis 

David Cole 

Pam Foti 

Robert Manning 

R. Neil Moisey 

Robert Ratcliffe 

September 28, 2005 
2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 Page #

Executive Summary 3 

 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Justification for a Recreation Monitoring Program 6

 1.1 Legal Mandates and Goals for Recreation Monitoring in Glen and Grand Canyons 6 

 1.2 How the PEP was Conducted 7 

 

Chapter 2 Status of the Existing GCMRC Recreation Monitoring Program 8 

 2.1 Limitations of Current Administrative Framework and Cooperative Arrangements 8 

 2.2 Parity in Monitoring Program Investment 9 

 2.3 Evaluation of Current AMWG Recreation Information Needs and Progress to Date 9 

 2.3.1 MO 9.1 Quality of Recreation Opportunities 9 

 2.3.2 MO 9.2. Visitor Safety 10 

 2.3.3 MO 9.3 Beaches and Campsites 11 

 2.3.4 MO 9.4 Wilderness Experience 12 

 2.3.5. MO 9.5 Maintain Visitor Experience with GCMRC Activities 12 

Chapter 3 Proposed Comprehensive Recreation Monitoring Program 13 

 3.1. Conceptual Model to Guide Development of a Comprehensive Monitoring Program 13 

3.2 Details of a Proposed Recreation Monitoring Program by Management Objective 15 

3.2.1 MO 9.1 Recreation Quality 15 

3.2.2 MO 9.2 Visitor Safety 18 

3.2.3 MO 9.3 Beaches and Campsites 20 

3.2.4 MO 9.4 Wilderness Experience 21 

3.2.5 MO 9.5 Maintain Visitor Experience effected by GCDAMP Activities 21 

Chapter 4 Integration with Other Agencies and Programs 22 

Chapter 5 Conclusions 23 

References 24 

Appendix A Biographies of PEP Members 26

Appendix B Conduct of the PEP 28 
3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

FINDINGS OF THE PEP REGARDING EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAM

1. There is a clear legal requirement to monitor recreation in the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act of 1992. 

2. The quality of river recreation is influenced by flows from Glen Canyon Dam. 

3. Recreation use of the Colorado River ecosystem is a major industry. About 

180,000 passenger days of river rafting occur in Grand Canyon, along with 

visitation by 40,000 day use rafters in Glen Canyon and about 20,000 anglers. 

Visitors receive about $40 million in annual economic benefits and support nearly 

600 jobs in northern Arizona. 

4. The AMWG Goal for Recreation to maintain or improve the quality of recreational 

experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of 

GCDAMP is an appropriate and worthwhile goal. 

5. The five AMWG Management Objectives (9.1-9.5) are generally appropriate. 

However, many of the types of information proposed by AMWG to assess 

progress to these management objectives are problematic. The PEP recommends 

some alternative information needs. 

6. Currently, the GCMRC devotes a very small percent of its $7 million budget to 

recreation monitoring despite recreation being the most publicly visible and sought 

after use of Glen and Grand Canyons. Consequently, recreation monitoring is not 

performed at regular intervals, does not always occur concurrently with flow 

experiments and does not provide comprehensive coverage of key recreation 

resources (e.g., little is done for Glen Canyon or for attraction sites in the Grand 

Canyon). 

7. GCMRC programs could be both more efficient and effective if there was more 

collaboration and cooperation with the National Park Service, as well as between 

resource areas within GCMRC (particularly recreation, terrestrial biology and 

cultural resources). 

8. GCMRC has made more consistent progress on MO 9.3 (monitoring of camping 

beaches) and MO 9.5 (maintaining visitor experience in the face of GCDAMP 

monitoring activities) than it has on MO 9.1 (Visitor Experience), 9.2 (Visitor 

Safety), and 9.4 (Wilderness Experience). The PEP provides recommendations for 

improving upon these. 

9. The highest priority information needs identified by the PEP are: 

• To understand how flows (dam operations) influence the trip attributes and 

resource conditions that most strongly determine the quality of river 

experiences. 

• To determine visitor economic benefits as a function of trip attributes, and 

conduct a regional economic analysis of tourism related to Glen and Grand 

Canyons. 

• To compile a complete inventory of all current campsites and past campsites 

• To continue monitoring trends in beaches but expand the program to include 

multiple slope criteria, reflect systematic sampling of representative beaches, 

and include evaluative judgments regarding the level of and change in social 

carrying capacity of beaches in the critical reaches. 
4 

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEP 

1. Provide expertise, representation and funding to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center (GCMRC), Technical Work Group (TWG) and Science Advisory Board for monitoring 

recreation resources that is commensurate with the importance of recreation and more inline with 

what is provided for other resources. 

2. Use an overall conceptual model, such as that in Figure 3.1 to guide monitoring. 

RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO EACH MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE (MO) 

A. MO 9.1 (Visitor Experience) and MO 9.4 (Wilderness) 

1. The information needs with the highest priority are: (1) to understand how flows 

influence trip attributes and the quality of river experiences and (2) to determine 

visitor economic benefits as a function of trip attributes, and conduct a regional 

economic analysis of tourism related to Glen and Grand Canyons. 

2. River experience quality can best be protected by using the conceptual model (Fig. 

3-1) to understand the relationships between dam operations/NPS management and 

important recreation conditions and trip attributes experienced by visitors (e.g., 

size/number of rapids, encounters, discretionary time).

3. GCMRC/NPS/BR/AZGF can use the model relationships to understand how 

visitors trade-off different recreation conditions and trip attributes, and the 

economic values of trip attributes.

4. Other management relevant types of information include: 

- The role of agency information transfer on mitigating suboptimal flows/flow 

experiments on recreation experience and safety, 

- How flow affects rate of travel and user discretionary time, and the resulting 

personal benefits of additional user discretionary time and associated 

impacts on natural resources of this discretionary time 

- Understanding what visitors are experiencing particularly as it relates to trip 

attributes influenced by dam operations 

- The effects of visitor use levels and visitor encounters on solitude and the 

recreation experience. 

- Monitor recreation impacts on campsites, at Grand Canyon attraction sites and at 

day use sites in Glen Canyon.

B. MO 9.2 (Visitor Safety) 

1. NPS accident incident monitoring in relation to flow should be continued. 

2. NPS shore observers of trips in Grand Canyon should be continued in conjunction 

with both regular flow patterns to establish a baseline, and with experimental flows 

that may impact visitor safety (e.g., very low flows, high flows, or high 

fluctuations). 

3. Information on changes in flow patterns should be made available to visitors and 

trip leaders to minimize the effect of such changes in flow patterns on visitor 

safety. 

4. Survey of private and commercial trip leaders should be instituted that records trip 

incidents and trip accidents. 
5 

5. Visitor safety and health monitoring (e.g., sanitary waste issues) should be 

expanded to routine monitoring of the Glen Canyon reach above Lee’s Ferry. 

6. Research is needed to determine if high flow conditions improve sanitary 

conditions at camping beaches. 

C. MO 9.3 (Beaches and Campsites) 

 There are two high priority information needs related to this objective. 

1. A complete inventory of all current campsites and past campsites should be 

compiled in the form of a campsite atlas. The inventory should include location, 

boundaries, size, sleeping capacity, shade, boat mooring, etc. 

2. Monitoring of trends in beaches and their carrying capacity should be continued 

but improved by including multiple slope criteria, reflect systematic sampling of 

representative beaches, and include evaluative judgments regarding the level of 

and change in social carrying capacity of beaches in the critical reaches. 

D. MO 9.4 (Wilderness Experience) 

Recommendations regarding maintaining and improving visitor wilderness 

experience are included in recommendations for MO 9.1 and 9.4 above. 

E. MO 9.5 (Maintain Visitor Experience effected by GCMRC monitoring activities) 

1. Through NPS Research Permitting Process NPS should modify its Research 

Permit to include procedures to minimize GCMRC and other scientists impacts to 

visitor experience (e.g., attempt to minimize non-recreation related monitoring 

trips during prime recreation season, not stopping at non-essential attraction sites, 

avoid competing with visitors for prime camping spots in critical reaches). 

2. Improve communication with private and commercial trip leaders of scientific 

research activities in Glen and Grand Canyon via press releases, posting at launch 

areas, rangers at launch areas, posting on NPS websites, etc. 

3. It is important to add questions to any future social research on river users 

regarding their interaction and perceptions of research or education trips. 

Details of each finding and recommendation are provided in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively. 
6 

Chapter 1. 

Introduction and Justification for a Recreation Monitoring Program 

Recreation on the Colorado River in Grand and Glen Canyons is internationally recognized and 

highly valued. Recreation quality and value is affected by operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. 

Monitoring of recreation resources is mandated by law. 

The Grand Canyon is a World Heritage Site, and premier destination for river recreation. The 

Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park provides one of the longest stretches of 

navigable whitewater in the world. Even with user limits placed by the National Park Service to 

protect the recreation experience, each year there are 120,000 passenger days of commercial 

whitewater rafting and 60,000 passenger days of private rafting use. This recreational resource 

produces about $34 million in economic benefits to the participants, and supports over 400 jobs 

in northern Arizona (Loomis, et al. 2005). The demand for private river permits has resulted in 

waiting lists of at least 12 years. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area below Glen Canyon 

dam provides outstanding trout fishing, averaging 20,000 angler days, providing nearly $4 

million in annual economic benefits to anglers and supporting nearly fifty jobs in Northern 

Arizona (Loomis, et al. 2005). Glen Canyon NRA also provides day use rafting trips taken by 

40,000 visitors, and valued at $2 million and supporting 100 jobs (Loomis, et al., 2005). 

Recreation is one of the dual mandates of National Parks (Loomis, 2002). Glen Canyon is a 

National Recreation Area, and as the name implies, recreation is a dominant purpose. 

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam stated 

“Discharge from Glen Canyon Dam affects recreation through its influence on flow sensitive 

attributes or through changes in the recreation environment” (USDOI, 1995: 274). These flow 

sensitive attributes listed in the EIS include trip attributes such as fishing success and rafting trip 

quality. 

1.1 Legal Mandates and Goals for Recreation Monitoring in Glen and Grand Canyons 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 specifically mentions recreation as one of the three 

elements to be monitored in the section labeled Research (Sec. 1805(b): “Long-term monitoring 

...shall include any necessary research and studies to determine the effect of the Secretary’s 

actions... on the natural, recreational and cultural resources of Grand Canyon National Park and 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.” 

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 specifically mentions research and studies of 

recreational resources. Both the current Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan 

(USDI National Park Service) and the proposed Grand Canyon National Park River Management 

Plan (Grand Canyon National Park, 2004) require monitoring of visitor experiences and 

recreational resource conditions. The charter of the Adaptive Management Work Group also 

mentions monitoring visitor use (Behan, 2000). 

The National Research Council (a unit within the National Academy of Sciences) provided an 

external review of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center’s Long Term Monitoring 

and Research Strategic Plan. The National Research Council review of Socioeconomic resources 

(which includes recreation) concluded “This strategy fails to anticipate the types of social 
7 

scientific knowledge needed for adaptive management... The Center should begin to develop 

internal expertise in techniques for nonmarket valuation of ecosystems and their services”. 

(NRC, 1999: 13). Recreation is one of the more prominent ecosystem services provided by the 

Glen Canyon NRA and Grand Canyon National Park. 

1.2 How the PEP was Conducted 

The PEP was conducted over several months during the summer of 2005. PEP members 

participated in a two week Grand Canyon trip in June. Prior to the trip, Helen Fairly of GCMRC 

compiled a list of questions for the PEP team to address. These questions guided the PEP 

inquiry, recommendations and report writing. Our review of the existing monitoring program in 

Chapter 2 and our recommended monitoring program in Chapter 3 address these questions. The 

exact text of the questions is provided in Appendix B. Also prior to the trip, PEP team members 

were provided with and reviewed past recreation research on Grand and Glen Canyon. During 

the trip, representatives of GCMRC and the NPS, along with several scientists, gave briefings to 

the PEP members. Details on literature and briefings are provided in Appendix B. The river trip 

was followed by a work day in Flagstaff to finalize the initial outline of the PEP report. During 

the remainder of the summer the PEP team members researched and expanded their initial drafts, 

participated in conference calls, reviewed the emerging document, and reached consensus on the 

findings and recommendations. 
8 

Chapter 2 Status of the Existing GCMRC Recreation Monitoring Program 

2.1 Limitations of Current Administrative Framework and Cooperative Arrangement of 

GCMRC and NPS and Arizona Game and Fish 

GCMRC has recognized recreation as a component of the overall monitoring and adaptive 

management process since its beginnings. However, the PEP noted several factors that have 

worked against GCRMC’s ability to build an effective, efficient and comprehensive recreation 

monitoring program consistent with other program areas. While the GCMRC has developed 

extensive monitoring programs (most notably for sediment), it has not invested proportionately 

in staff, studies or monitoring of recreation and economic components. Specifically: 

• Lack of a Separate Recreation Team Leader. Unlike other program areas, GCMRC 

does not currently have a separate team leader trained in recreation planning/management 

to head recreation monitoring program. Within GCRMC there is neither a trained 

recreation specialist or recreation economist on staff. Without such expertise (a point 

noted in the 1999 National Research Council report), the organization has a gap in its 

capability to develop, implement and sustain a research and monitoring program for 

recreation of the type warranted for the world-class resources of Glen and Grand 

Canyons. 

• Lack of Science Advisory Board Representation for Recreation. Currently there are 

no members of the GCMRC Science Advisors who have recreation expertise or social 

science backgrounds. Without such expertise, the Science Advisory Board is limited in 

its ability to provide adequate attention and oversight to human dimension of the 

program. Having professional social science expertise available on the Science Advisory 

Board would allow for recreation monitoring program feedback and evaluation. 

• Out of Date Economic Assessments. There has been a paucity of economic research and 

assessment work conducted as part of the GCMRC science program. There has been no 

recreation valuation work conducted or funded by GCMRC since the EIS. Without up-todate economic analysis to fully understand and document the recreation economic 

benefits and regional tourism businesses there are times when changes in dam operations 

and flow experiments are made without understanding of the full effects on visitor 

benefits and local economies. 

• Need for Increased Inter-Agency Coordination in Monitoring and Research.

GCRMC and Grand and Glen Canyon National Parks share many recreation and social 

science research needs. There is a clear opportunity to improve efficiencies and leverage 

limited resources by sharing costs and coordinating monitoring efforts, particularly in 

understanding the relationships and monitoring physical resource impacts and quality of 

visitor experiences related to flows. The need for better integration and opportunities for 

coordination of resource monitoring programs and research efforts of NPS and GCMRC 

was repeatedly noted by the PEP. 

• Unrealized Opportunities for Promoting Partnership and Collaboration. There are 

significant unrealized opportunities for GCRMC to develop partnerships and cooperative 

research and monitoring efforts with outside organizations, universities and outfitters. 

Strengthening relations, and designing and conducting shared research with nongovernmental and educational organizations would help build a comprehensive, longterm and diversified research and monitoring program. Cooperative efforts would 

leverage resources and help further a broad base of knowledge about recreation, 
9 

economics and social science related to the Grand Canyon. In addition, the PEP identified 

opportunities for improved coordination and collaboration in recreation monitoring and 

research with AZ Game & Fish. 

• Need for Regular evaluation of recreation monitoring program. Consistent with a 

viable adaptive management approach, periodic review of the recreation monitoring 

program would provide adequate oversight, peer evaluation, and improve scientific 

credibility and consistency of the recreation monitoring program. 

2.2 Parity in monitoring program investment. While the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

clearly calls for the monitoring of “recreational resources”, the PEP noted the lack of funding 

made available for the recreation monitoring program. Contrary to its mandate, GCRMC has not 

invested proportionately in social science or economic assessments. Some reasonable or 

proportional level of investment would be appropriate to place monitoring and understanding of 

social elements on par with the biological and physical resources. Without adequate funding 

priority, the viability and scientific defensibility of GCRMC’s recreation resource monitoring 

program is at risk and does not fulfill the intent of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 

2.3 The PEP’s Evaluation of Current AMWG Recreation Information Needs and Progress 

to Date 

The most recent version of goals, management objectives and information consists of one 

goal for recreation: “maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP goals”. This is an appropriate 

goal. Five management objectives have been developed to provide further specificity to this goal. 

For each of these objectives, we assess progress to date and comment on the information needs 

contained in the GCDAMP, updated June 25, 2003. While some of the proposed information 

needs are clear and valid, we believe that some of the stated information needs are not specific 

enough, some ask for information that does not address objectives well and some types of 

information important to meeting objectives are not included. In Chapter 3 we propose a 

comprehensive program of monitoring and research that we believe would best meet the goals 

and management objectives of the GCDAMP. 

2.3.1. MO 9.1. Maintain or improve the quality and range of recreational 

opportunities in Glen and Grand Canyons within the capacity of the Colorado River 

ecosystem to absorb visitor impacts consistent with the NPS and tribal river corridor 

Management Plans. 

To date, GCMRC has funded several research projects related to this objective, including 

three that relate visitor experiences to flow levels (Stewart et al. 2000, Roberts and Bieri 2001, 

SWCA Inc., 2002). These three studies provide a start to understanding how to maintain or 

improve experience quality, particularly how Glen Canyon Dam can best be operated to maintain 

or improve experience quality. There has also been research supported by others, particularly the 

National Park Service (e.g. Hall and Shelby 2000) that contributes needed information. 

One of the core monitoring needs is to determine and track visitor satisfaction for riverrelated recreational opportunities. Conceptually visitor satisfaction is an important element of a 

recreation monitoring program. However, monitoring overall visitor satisfaction has several 

important weaknesses, including its currently undefined nature and problems of visitor 

displacement and other coping mechanisms whereby overall visitor satisfaction may be high 
10 

even though the type of recreation experience provided on the river may be quite different than 

what was intended or appropriate. Consequently, we do not emphasize monitoring overall visitor 

satisfaction by itself. Instead, we recommend conducting research to identify relationships 

between dam operations, recreation resource conditions, recreation trip attributes and visitor 

satisfaction with specific resource conditions and trip attributes. We believe that the AMWG 

management objectives can best be met by conducting initial research that relates dam 

operations directly to trip attributes that influence visitor satisfaction. Once these 

relationships are established, there should be less need for annual monitoring of visitor 

satisfaction with resource conditions and trip attributes, but rather just monitoring of the dam 

operations that have been shown to influence the resource conditions and trip attributes that are 

related to visitor satisfaction. Only periodic (e.g., every five years) monitoring of visitor 

experiences and satisfaction would be necessary to ensure that the relationships among dam 

related trip attributes and the visitor satisfaction remain unchanged. 

Another aspect of maintaining quality recreation within capacity to absorb visitor impacts 

is the need to track and mitigate the impacts of visitors on campsites, in side canyons and at 

archaeological and other attraction sites. While GCMRC has supported some monitoring of 

archaeological sites, there has been little support for other types of impact monitoring at other 

types of attraction sites (e.g., Elves Chasm). The NPS has supported some impact monitoring, 

particularly of a sample of river camps, but more is needed because of the contribution of the 

overall aesthetics of campsites, day use areas, and attractions to maintaining high quality 

recreation opportunities along the Colorado River corridor. While human impacts on recreation 

sites have the potential to change the nature of a site, the amount of change tolerated on any site 

becomes a managerial decision. Informed managerial decisions, which are driven by data 

collection and on-going recreational impact monitoring, allow for the creation of sustainable 

recreation environments. A formalized monitoring program, which satisfies the criteria of both 

valid and reliable data, needs to be established to protect the quality of recreation experiences 

and integrity of the resources of GCNP and GCNRA. 

There has not been any monitoring of visitors economic benefits since the passage of the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, despite the recommendation of the National Research 

Council in 1999. The evidence available from the 1980’s suggests that the recreation benefits are 

potentially quite large ($40 million annually) and sensitive to changes in flow (i.e., Grand 

Canyon rafting and Glen Canyon fishing—see Loomis, et al. 2005). There has been one 

monitoring of regional economic effects associated with the low summer steady flow. The PEP 

agrees with the previous National Research Council (1999) recommendation to GCMRC that 

economic benefits is an important indicator to track in a recreation monitoring program. 

Potentially, the indicator of user economic benefits (i.e., their consumer surplus) would reflect 

quantitative changes in the quality and satisfaction with the recreation experience. Thus, periodic 

recreation economic benefits monitoring and monitoring during experimental flows would 

provide one quantitative measure of how recreation quality has changed. We describe how this 

can be accomplished by GCMRC within the proposed conceptual model in Chapter 3. 

2.3.2. MO 9.2 Maintain or improve the quality and range of opportunities in consideration 

of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of river-related recreational activities. 

Overall, visitor safety and risk management on the Colorado River has been well 

protected through the efforts of NPS. A major concern related to river use safety is focused on 

the flow levels of the Colorado River, especially daily fluctuations in flow. The NPS maintains 
11 

two data collection processes to help determine the relation of flow to injuries and accidents. 

The first process is an on-going study which assesses impacts and potential risks of whitewater 

boating during variable flows. Baseline data was collected in 1985-86 during high flows, then in 

1990-91 during low and medium flows, during the experimental “flood” in 1996, and finally in 

2000 for flows of 8,000 cfs. The process included week long observations at a sample of rapids 

and the occurrence of accidents or incidents. The NPS also maintains an on-going data base of 

river related injuries and accidents. In this case, trip leaders are responsible for reporting 

incidents where over $500 damage is incurred to rafts/equipment. Additionally, all medical 

rescues on the river are reported in the database. An annual report on river incidents is produced 

each year with the goal of decreasing injuries, accidents, and fatalities. These existing 

monitoring efforts should be continued and supplemented by GCMRC, particularly during 

periods of experimental flow. 

2.3.3 MO 9.3. Increase the size, quality and distribution of camping beaches in critical and 

non-critical reaches in the mainstem within the capacity of the Colorado River ecosystem 

to absorb visitor impacts consistent with NPS and tribal river corridor management plans. 

Related to this objective, GCMRC has been funding monitoring of campable area on a 

non-random sample of beaches (Kaplinski et al. 2005). Along with earlier studies of Grand 

Canyon’s beaches, dating from the 1970s, this monitoring makes it clear that the size, quality and 

distribution of camping beaches are in decline. Monitoring after experimental flows has also 

provided some insight into how dam operations might minimize this decline, but there is no clear 

prescription for maintaining beaches. The beach monitoring program has developed relatively 

precise and efficient methods for monitoring changes on beaches. However, the effects of such 

changes on carrying capacity (the number, size and types of recreational groups that the 

Colorado River ecosystem can support), is not clear. Trends in carrying capacity, as limited 

by the size, quality and distribution of beaches, is a critically important information need 

that has not been adequately addressed. 

Currently, a recreation impact monitoring program has been established for GCNP river 

corridor campsites. Impact data is being collected on 47 sites on an annual basis. There are a 

variety of sites included in the monitoring sample including heavy use sites, emerging sites 

where use is on the rise, and bottleneck areas where campsites are in high demand. One area of 

critical importance to GCNP, which is included in the monitoring program, is impacts appearing 

and increasing in the “old high water zone”. Impacts in the “old high water zone” are especially 

important because they appear to be a good indicator of beach loss. As the available beach area 

decreases, visitors are forced to camp in the primarily undisturbed desert vegetation above the 

“old high water zone”. These impacts are especially significant due to the fragile nature of the 

vegetation, wildlife, and soil resources above the beach areas. 

The current campsite monitoring program contains a diversity of impact variables 

including camping capacity, evidence of sanitary waste, litter and food scraps, campfires, and 

rock impacts. Variables which are particularly critical to the integrity of the resource base 

include number of social trails, cryptobiotic soil impacts, vegetative impacts, and destruction or 

loss of vegetative islands on beaches. The results of the monitoring are reviewed by GCNP staff 

each year and appropriate managerial prescriptions related to user behaviors may be based on the 

data collected. 
12 

2.3.4 MO 9.4. Maintain or enhance the wilderness experience in the Colorado River 

ecosystem in consideration of existing management plans. To date, GCMRC has made no 

progress related to this management objective. However, we believe that this objective can be 

largely subsumed within MO 9.1. As such, attainment has been limited as described in MO 9.1. 

2.3.5 MO 9.5 Maintain or enhance visitor experiences as a result of GCDAMP research 

and monitoring activities. NPS has a detailed administrative process that attempts to minimize 

the effect of research trips on visitor experience and the natural environment. This process is a 

first step in meeting this objective, and in Chapter 3 we provide suggestions for what we believe 

are the logical next steps to fully meet this objective. 
13 

Chapter 3. Proposed Comprehensive Recreation Monitoring Program 

3.1 Conceptual Model to Guide Development of a Comprehensive Monitoring Program 

The overarching AMWG goal of the recreation program is to maintain or improve the quality of 

recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem. To approach this goal, 

monitoring information is needed about how management actions, particularly those related to 

operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, influence the quality of recreational experiences by three 

primary user groups: Grand Canyon white water rafters, Glen Canyon anglers and Glen Canyon 

day-trip rafters. 

For this purpose, we propose the following conceptual model linking management actions to 

recreational experiences (Fig. 3-1). This model draws from well-researched models of recreation 

management (Clark and Stankey 1979; Knopf, 1988; Jubenville and Twight, 1993; Manning, 

1999, Stewart, et al. 2000) and economics (Lancaster, 1966; Morey, 1981; Holmes and 

Adamowicz, 2003). 

As shown in Figure 3-1, the initial drivers or determinants of the quality of visitor experiences 

are: 

• Management Control by USBR (flows), NPS (launch schedule) and AZ Game and Fish 

• Natural Characteristics of GCNP and GCNRA (e.g., depth of the canyon) 

These drivers influence what we call recreation conditions and trip attributes. For example, the 

size, quality and distribution of camping beaches (MO#3) is influenced by river flows as well as 

the naturally occurring amount of sediment entering the Grand Canyon from the Paria River and 

below. NPS limits on number of visitors and the launch schedule influences the underlying social 

conditions that a visitor will experience. It is these conditions and trip attributes, and visitors’ 

evaluations of these individual attributes that determine experience quality (visitor evaluations of 

their experience). 

This model helps organize information needs related to the five management objectives. 

Management Objectives 1 and 4, related to recreation and wilderness experiences, lie in Box 6, 

suggesting the need to either monitor experiences or describe relationships between management 

actions, including dam operations and experiences. Visitor safety (MO 9.2) and science trip 

encounters (MO 9.5) are trip attributes (Box 4), while beach size, quality and distribution are 

recreation conditions (Box 3). 

Knowing how each recreation resource condition and trip attribute contributes to trip satisfaction 

and how these conditions are related to dam operations and other management actions provides 

the information BR, NPS and AZ Game and Fish need to maintain recreation experience quality. 

Once these relationships are known, then GCMRC and others can focus monitoring on these 

relevant resource conditions and trip attributes and infer what is occurring to the visitor 

experience. It also provides information needed to modify management actions that may be 

leading to a decrease in visitor satisfaction or to mitigate the adverse effects of such actions. For 

example, the need for very high or very low flows (for sediment management reasons) may 

adversely affect visitors’ “once in a lifetime” trip. Knowing this, the change in flow might be 

scheduled for a time when there are fewer boats on the river or, alternatively, information be 
14 

made available ahead of time to visitors and guides so they too can adapt to the new flow regime 

during their trip. 

An additional advantage of the trip attribute model in Figure 3-1, is that it provides managers an 

understanding of how visitors trade-off different levels of trip attributes in terms of their 

experience satisfaction or quality. For example, higher flows often mean larger rapids, but 

smaller beaches. Using a quantitative trip attribute model described below, the relative effect of 

each of different levels of trips attributes can be compared in terms of relative contribution to 

overall trip satisfaction. As also described in more detail below, organizing monitoring around a 

trip attribute model can simultaneously allow for quantifying the economic benefits received by 

the visitors. This allows addressing Core Monitoring Information Need 9.1.4 with mostly 

additional statistical analysis rather than a separate data collection effort. 

Figure 3-1 A Conceptual Model of River Recreation to Guide Monitoring 

1. Management Actions 

BR (Dam Releases), 

NPS (Launch Schedules, etc.) 

AZGF (Fishing Regulation) 

2. Unique Characteristics of Glen & 

Grand Canyon (e.g. geology) 

3. Recreation Conditions: (Physical, Biological, Social and Management) 

(e.g. flows, beach size, camp shading, and number of launches) 

4. Trip Attributes 

(e.g. rate of travel, length of 

trip, size & number of 

rapids, encounters with other 

groups, discretionary time, 

safety)

5. Visitor Evaluations of 

Recreation Conditions 

and Trip Attributes 

7. Visitor Evaluations of 

Their Experience

6. Recreational Experiences

(what visitors experience on 

their trip, including aspects of 

wilderness experience) 
15 

3.2 Details of a Proposed Recreation Monitoring Program by Objective 

The PEP took a broad view of recreation monitoring, delineating what should be done by all 

agencies responsible for recreation management in GCNRA and GCNP, including AZ Game 

Fish. The details of which agency performs which types of monitoring and research is left to 

negotiation and the expertise of each agency. In the sections that follow, we briefly describe 

important information needs, organized under each management objective. The information 

needs that we believe are most important and related most directly to dam operations are noted as 

high priority. This does not imply that the other information needs are not important, however. 

3.2.1. Management Objective 9.1 Recreational Quality and 9.4 Wilderness Experience 

MO9.1 Maintain or improve the quality and range of recreational opportunities in Glen and 

Grand Canyons.... 

MO9.4 Maintain or enhance the wilderness experience in the Colorado River ecosystem... 

MO 9.1 and MO 9.4 are grouped together as it is PEP’s view that MO9.4 on Wilderness 

Experience is a subset of MO9.1. If the NPS maintains the current high quality experience it will 

achieve a high quality wilderness experience (with the exception of motors). 

3.2.1.1. Research Information Needs for MO 9.1 (Addresses CMIN 9.1.1 and 9.1.3) 

1. How Flow Influences the Quality of River Experiences. 

 Ideally, we would be able to monitor visitor experiences (Box 6) and/or understand the 

relationships between management actions, particularly dam operations, and visitor experiences. 

While there have been a multitude of studies of outdoor recreation experiences, many of them 

conducted on rivers, and several of them focused specifically on the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon (SWCA, 2002, Stewart et al. 2000), these studies have not specifically identified the 

cause and effect relationships between management actions, trip attributes and recreational 

experiences in the context of the Colorado River. Therefore, we recommend, at least in the 

near-term, focusing research/monitoring on recreation resource conditions such as 

physical, biological, social and management conditions (Box 3), trip attributes (Box 4) and 

visitor evaluation of resource conditions and attributes (Box 5) that are important to 

providing the types of visitor experiences that make the Colorado River ecosystem unique 

and world-class. This essentially involves estimating the linkages in the conceptual model in 

Figure 3-1 for Grand Canyon boaters, Glen Canyon day use rafters and Glen Canyon anglers. 

The first step in this recommendation is to synthesize the work done to date. Extending the work 

of Hall and Shelby (2000), Stewart et al. (2000) and Shelby and Whittaker (2005) on the 

importance of characteristics and trip attributes to high quality trips is needed. For example, Hall 

and Shelby (2000) had visitors identify attributes that make the Grand Canyon better than other 

rivers. Stewart et al. (2000) asked visitors to rate the importance of various attributes they 

experienced on their Grand Canyon trip. These attributes seems particularly important to 

maintaining experience quality and a number of them are strongly related to dam operations (e.g. 

whitewater, sense of challenge and ability to explore). The next phase would involve estimating 

how flows and NPS management influence these important characteristics and trip attributes. By 

understanding these relationships, it is possible to predict how flow and NPS management affects 

visitor experience, recreation quality and visitor satisfaction. Thus, instead of focusing 
16 

monitoring solely on overall visitor satisfaction (which can problematic, as noted earlier), core 

monitoring can focus on monitoring resource conditions such as flows and trip attributes. Only 

periodically, (e.g. every five years or so) would it be necessary to survey to reevaluate visitor 

evaluation of resource conditions and trip attribute relationships in the conceptual model. 

Priority: Highest priority projects and clearly related to GCMRC. 

2. Visitor Economic Benefits 

The economic benefits of recreation can be measured as part of the trip attribute model presented 

in Figure 3-1, especially box #5. For example, a typical trip attribute survey would have visitors 

rate satisfaction they would have on a 1-10 scale associated with different trip profiles or choose 

between two or more different trip profiles that have different levels of the trip attributes relevant 

for that activity/setting (e.g., fishing in Glen Canyon or whitewater rafting in Grand Canyon). 

Equation (1) presents a stylized example for the Grand Canyon: 

Visitor Satisfaction Rating= Bo+B1(#Rapids)+B2(#Site Attractions Visited) -B3(#River Encounters)-B4(Trip Cost) 

The multiple regression coefficients B1...B4 tells the agencies how the visitor rating of their trip 

satisfaction changes with each of the trip attributes and resource conditions. This allows 

calculation of how trip satisfaction changes with each trip attribute. The ratio of the regression 

coefficients (e.g., B1/B2) calculates the relative importance of one attribute compared to another. 

This is useful for evaluating trade-offs between trip attributes (Holmes and Adamowicz, 2003). 

In terms of economic value of the trip attributes to visitors, since the trip cost attribute is 

denominated in dollars, then the monetary value of the other attributes can be calculated by 

dividing the other trip attribute regression coefficients by the coefficient on trip cost (Holmes and 

Adamowicz, 2003). For example, the monetary benefits of visiting an additional site attraction 

site is calculated as B2/B4. Separate trip attribute surveys and models would need to be 

estimated for the three primary activities (Glen Canyon day use rafting, Glen Canyon angling 

and Grand Canyon rafting). 

Priority: Highest priority projects and clearly related to GCMRC. 

3. Regional Economic Analysis of Tourism Related to Glen and Grand Canyon 

Visitor spending related to commercial outfitters, guides, land and air shuttles, hotels, 

restaurants, etc. supports a substantial industry in northern Arizona, Utah, Las Vegas, etc. As part 

of a survey aimed at obtaining visitor satisfaction with trip attributes, the same survey can obtain 

information regarding visitor expenditures. This information would be by expenditure category 

and by geographic area of the spending. This information would be analyzed in a series of inputoutput models to calculate the multiplier effects in regions of varying size. Like past analyses, it 

can be done to reflect the multi-county income and employment in northern Arizona (Douglas 

and Harpman, 1995). However, the PEP felt that limiting the analysis to just this small 

geographic area did not fully reflect the extent of the outfitting and guiding industry and tourism 

related to Glen and Grand Canyons. As such PEP recommends that in addition to northern 

Arizona, that it was very appropriate to include an adjacent state regional model composed of 

Arizona, Utah, and southern Nevada. PEP suggests that a multi-state model reflecting the same 

geographic area as encompassed for the hydropower marketing (i.e., Western Area Power 

Authority area) also be used. 

Priority: Highest priority projects and clearly related to GCMRC. 
17 

4. Monitor the Role of Agency Information Transfer and Influence on mitigating 

suboptimal flows/flow experiments. 

This involves GCMRC and NPS developing information on the flow regimens and other 

experiments to be conducted and providing that information via alternative media to boaters and 

anglers prior to and during their trip planning. GCMRC would evaluate whether the information 

received improved visitors’ planning and enjoyment of their trip. Part of the monitoring design 

would be how different people react to different flow regimes with and without the pre-trip 

information. The effectiveness of different information treatments and information delivery 

would be evaluated to design the best information transfer mechanism. 

5. Understanding what visitors are experiencing particularly as it relates to trip attributes 

influenced by dam operations. 

As noted earlier, scientific understanding of the nature of visitor experiences is poor. 

Consequently, the PEP recommends monitoring trip attributes assumed to influence visitor 

experiences rather than experiences per se (high priority study 1 above). While this seems 

acceptable in the near term, a better understanding of the nature of the visitor experience in Glen 

and Grand Canyons is necessary to be assured that the initial trip attributes chosen in the 

conceptual model are the ultimate determinants of the quality of the visitor experience. The 

rationale for this type of research is to improve our long term ability to monitor visitor 

experiences directly rather than relying on monitoring trip attributes which are proxies for visitor 

experience. This would likely involve diverse research methods, including qualitative work. 

6. How does flow affect rate of travel and user discretionary time and the resulting 

personal benefits for visitor exploration and associated impacts on natural resources? 

It has been logically asserted that higher flows lead to increased rates of travel and more user 

discretionary time for Grand Canyon rafters. With more discretionary time, users will either 

spend more time in camp or more time on side hikes and at attraction sites. Again, it is assumed 

that more discretionary time will provide more personal benefits for rafters but that there may be 

environmental costs resulting from increased exploration. More people will visit and trample 

more places, resulting in more impact to vegetation, soil, animal populations and archaeological 

sites. While these assumptions seem logical, they have not been tested and the magnitude of 

effect (both positive and negative) has not been quantified. Consequently, some management 

specialists conclude that more discretionary time (resulting from higher flows) is harmful, while 

others conclude that it is beneficial. Since these relationships are so strongly influenced by dam 

operations, we believe this is worthy of careful study, using some combination of trip dairies, 

participant observation, impact assessment and/or surveys of visitors and experts. 

7. Use Levels, Encounters and Solitude. 

There has been long-standing concern over rising use levels in parks and outdoor recreation areas 

and their impacts on the quality of the recreation experience (Manning 1999). This issue is often 

addressed under the topic of carrying capacity (Shelby and Heberlein 1986; Stankey and 

Manning 1986; Manning 1999). This issue may be especially relevant in wilderness and 

backcountry areas which are often valued by visitors for their opportunities for solitude and low 

rates of encounters with other recreation groups (Hendee and Dawson 2002). Research on the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon has found that many visitors are sensitive to encounters with 

other groups in a number of contexts, including on the river, at campsites, and at attraction sites 
18 

(Hall and Shelby (2000) and Shelby and Whittaker (2005)). Other manifestations of high use 

levels include limited access to attraction sites, crowding at attraction sites, and competition 

among river runners for strategic campsites. All of these crowding-related attributes may impact 

the quality of the visitor experience. Moreover, at least some of these crowding-related attributes 

may be affected by Glen Canyon Dam releases and resulting river flows. Research is needed to 

determine the relationship between river flow and crowding-related attributes. Relationships 

between new or experimental flow regimes and new NPS launch schedule on river 

encounters, site attraction encounters, camp encounters, and camp competition are an 

essential component of recreation monitoring and for estimating the statistical models 

derived from the conceptual model in Figure 3-1. 

8. Recreation Impact Monitoring 

A critical component of maintaining high quality recreation opportunities along the 

Colorado River corridor is protecting the ecological integrity and the overall aesthetics of 

campsites, day use areas, and attractions. While human impacts on recreation sites have the 

potential to change the nature of a site, the amount of change tolerated on any site becomes a 

managerial decision. Informed managerial decisions, which are driven by data collection and 

on-going recreational impact monitoring, allow for the creation of sustainable recreation 

environments. A formalized monitoring program, which satisfies the criteria of both valid and 

reliable data, needs to be established to protect the quality of recreation experiences and integrity 

of the resources of GCNP and GCNRA. 

The current NPS campsite impact monitoring program should be continued and 

coordinated with the GCMRC beach monitoring program (e.g., using some of the same beaches) 

to allow evaluation of how changes in beach size (especially in critical reaches) is affecting 

visitor impacts to beaches and corresponding aesthetic effects and ecological effects. 

Recreation impact monitoring is not currently being implemented at GCNRA day use 

areas or GCNP attraction sites. It is highly recommended that a program similar to the GCNP 

campsite monitoring program, with site appropriate variables, be developed and implemented on 

a regular basis. While GCNP campsites are certainly receiving use and the monitoring program 

is a useful managerial tool, the GCNRA day use sites and GCNP attraction sites are impacted by 

recreational users at a much higher and consistent rate. Without the benefit of site data, the 

integrity of the resource base and the aesthetic quality of day use and attractions sites is in 

jeopardy. 

3.2.2. MO 9.2 Visitor Safety 

9.2 Maintain/improve the quality and range of opportunities in Glen and Grand Canyons in 

consideration of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of river-related recreational activities. 

 A major concern related to river use safety is focused on the flow levels of the Colorado 

River, especially daily fluctuations in flow. NPS maintains two data collection processes to help 

determine the relation of flow to injuries and accidents. The first process is an on-going study 

that assesses impacts and potential risks of whitewater boating during variable flows. Baseline 

data was collected in 1985-86 during high flows, then in 1990-91 during low and medium flows, 

during the experimental “flood” in 1996, and finally in 2000 for flows of 8,000 cfs. The process 

included week-long observations at a sample of rapids and the occurrence of accidents or 

incidents. During 2000, a total of 314 trips (1,025 boats) were observed over the course of 58 

days. The data showed that the majority of accident variables were recorded at Hance Rapids 
19 

with the most common incident being “hitting the rocks”. Overall, in 2000 there were 18 

incidents with 9 injuries, 7 boat groundings, 4 short haul evacuations, and 3 trips terminated. 

 It is highly recommended that these flow studies continue on a regular basis to maintain 

a strong data base and also be coordinated with GCMRC and implemented during times of 

experimental flow regimes. Additional data collection is recommended for the upper reaches of 

the Colorado River, from Lee’s Ferry to the Dam, especially related to daily fluctuations in flow 

and the occurrence of incidents/accidents. 

NPS also maintains an on-going database of river related injuries and accidents. In this 

case, trip leaders are responsible for reporting incidents where over $500 damage is incurred to 

rafts/equipment. Additionally, all medical rescues on the river are reported in the data base. An 

annual report on river incidents is produced each year with the goal of decreasing injuries, 

accidents, and fatalities. This should be continued. 

However, there are additional recommendations related to maintaining visitor safety and 

reducing risk factors on the Colorado River. First, there needs to be better public information 

related to flow regimes and how these flows may affect river users. A significant problem 

related to this communication, of course, is short term planning related to experimental flow 

opportunities. Nevertheless, communication with river users is essential in terms of flow level 

and the impacts to users and daily flow fluctuation and the impacts to users. 

There needs to be more consistent reporting of accidents and incidents on the river. 

While NPS maintains an on-going database, users are only required to report incidents and 

accidents if there is a loss of equipment greater than $500. In some cases, medical incidents may 

not be reported at all if the river trip takes care of their own injured party or evacuation. 

Everyone’s safety on the river is improved through reporting of incidents and accidents in a 

consistent manner. In addition, with comprehensive incident/accident reporting, NPS will be 

able to communicate more effectively with the river users regarding the impacts of flow level 

and flow fluctuation. 

Another data collection tool that is recommended by NPS and would be very useful in 

helping to control visitor safety and risk management would be a flow related trip leader survey 

(private and commercial). This survey would consider flow regimes on the river and the 

assessment by trip leaders of the following issues: (a) trip incidents, and (b) trip accidents. 

Again, sharing information among and between leaders is an efficient and effective manner for 

decreasing future incidents/accidents. 

Importantly, the issue of safety and risk management needs to include the upper reaches 

of the river corridor from Lees Ferry to the Dam. In this case, health and safety risks are focused 

on two primary issues: (1) sanitary waste and the flushing of beaches with large flows and (2) 

daily fluctuations and the impacts on boaters. In terms of sanitary waste, the large number of 

users concentrated in a narrow corridor with limited resource base to handle sanitary waste 

disposal in a proper manner is a problem. While toilets have been located at common day use 

sites and some camp areas, there are still many sites which are impacted by human waste. The 

recommended day use/campsite monitoring program for the river corridor from Lees Ferry to the 

Dam (see section 9.l #8) would assist in documenting serious incidents of sanitary waste 

disposal which could then be mitigated. One form of mitigation may be the flood level flows 

from large releases. Large daily fluctuations for the boaters above Lees Ferry can be particularly 

troublesome, especially if the users are uninformed about the flow regime. It is recommended 

that additional data collection be targeted for the upper reaches related to types of 

incidents/accidents and number of users impacted with high daily fluctuations in flow. In 
20 

addition, the trip leader survey (mentioned above) would be a valuable tool to use with 

commercial guides on the river section above Lees Ferry. 

Finally, there needs to be research to determine if high flow conditions improve sanitary 

conditions at camping beaches. 

3.2.3 Management Objective 9.3 Beaches and Campsites 

1. Assemble Inventory of Current Campsites in the Form of a Campsite Atlas 

Past studies of campsites have used different techniques, creating the current situation where it is 

difficult to identify trends and impossible to link changes in beaches with insight into trends in 

carrying capacity. A first step in rectifying this situation would be development of an inventory 

of all current campsites, as well as all sites that have been identified in earlier studies. Some of 

the information that might be compiled in the inventory includes: location, capacity, campsite 

boundaries on orthophotos, information from historic studies, and site attributes such as shade, 

boat mooring, etc. Such an inventory might need to be updated about every 10 years. There 

would be multiple benefits of such a study. It would consolidate current information and provide 

an objective baseline for future monitoring. It would provide insight into the entire system of 

beaches in Grand Canyon, clarify which beaches in critical stretches most limit carrying capacity 

and also provide a basis for developing a representative sample of beaches for other monitoring 

purposes (CMIN 9.3.2). 

High Priority 

2. Trends in Beaches and Their Carrying Capacity. 

 The camp area beach monitoring work of Kaplinski et al. (2005) should be continued but 

improved. We recommend three changes. First, field time can be reduced by adopting the 

orthophoto mapping techniques that have been developed. We suggest that there be some 

consideration given to using multiple slope criteria or slope criteria more stringent than the 

current 8% slope screen (e.g. 1% slope). Second, the nature of the sample of beaches should be 

more carefully examined. The purpose of the sample should be to represent what is happening 

generally on Grand Canyon beaches. Therefore, the sample should ideally be random or 

systematic. Selecting such a sample would be facilitated by the campsite inventory (CMIN 

9.3.1). 

The most profound and important recommended change to existing monitoring is 

the incorporation of evaluative judgments of the capacity of each beach, particularly those 

in critical reaches. This social perspective provides the means for linking physical changes in 

beach area to carrying capacity. Various methods might be used for collecting such data. Much 

could be learned by tracking which beaches commercial groups of various sizes camped on. 

Guides could be surveyed and asked to make a judgment regarding the maximum number of 

people that could comfortably camp at each beach. Continuation of the Adopt-A-Beach program, 

with the inclusion of capacity judgment on the form, could also contribute. Whatever is done, it 

is important to develop methods that are precise. While this effort might be considered separate 

from the physical measurements of camp area, we have combined this work with the orthophoto 

work to emphasize the need for these related efforts to be integrated and complementary. 

Priority: Highest priority projects and clearly related to GCMRC. 
21 

3. Extrapolate Campsite Capacity Trends Back to the 1970s 

 By repeating and reanalyzing portions of the Weeden et al. (1975) campsite survey, 

conducted in 1973, it should be possible to extend campsite capacity monitoring data back to the 

1970s, giving a longer-term and more complete picture of trends. This would entail repeat 

photography on the sample of campsites that Weeden photographed. Changes apparent on the 

photographs could be analyzed. The magnitude of change in photographs could be compared 

with differences in capacity estimates, calibrating the beach capacity estimation procedures that 

Weeden used with those used in current inventory and monitoring efforts. Insights gained could 

be used to adjust Weeden’s capacity estimates such that they are more comparable to current 

estimates. 

3.2.4 Management Objective 9.4 Wilderness Experience 

 If management actions are taken to assure that the nature of whitewater rafting 

experiences in Grand Canyon is protected, then we believe that wilderness experiences will 

generally be protected as well. The most obvious exception to this statement is that travel on 

motorized rafts and helicopter exchanges are inconsistent with wilderness experiences (Hendee 

and Dawson 2002). However, decisions regarding the appropriateness of these means of travel 

are outside of the purview of GCMRC. Therefore, we conclude that there are no unique 

monitoring or research needs related to this objective that are not included in MO 9.1. 

3.2.5. Management Objective 9.5 - Maintain and enhance visitor experience affected by 

GCMRC activities. 

The PEP believes that the first priority is to minimize the impact of GCMRC activities on visitor 

experiences. To accomplish this, the NPS administrative process (updated in 2002) for approving 

all science related trips within GCNP needs to continue with a few suggested improvements such 

as having NPS modify Research Permit to include explicit procedures to minimize GCMRC 

impacts to visitor experience, i.e., being outside of main recreation season for non-recreation 

sampling whenever possible, not stopping non-essential attraction sites, avoid competing with 

visitors for prime camping areas, and use least intrusive scientifically valid tools. 

There are also several additional on-going issues which need to be addressed in terms of 

minimizing impacts related to GCMRC trips: 

First, it is important to add questions to any future social research on river users regarding 

their interaction and perceptions of research or education trips. At this point, little data has been 

collected about the visitor encounters, types of encounters, and overall impressions related to 

science trips. While GCNP acknowledges that complaints are received from visitors, the extent 

of visitor impacts is not currently documented. 

Second, there needs to be better communication between the agencies and the 

guides/visitors related to the need and purpose of research related river trips. Many visitors have 

no understanding of why research on the Colorado River might be beneficial to the ecological 

integrity or to their experience on the river. Third, GCNP and GCMRC need to work together to 

address visitor perception of research and education trips. In particular, GCMRC should provide 

quarterly research updates to GCNP for educational outreach to river users. This information 

could be published in a newsletter format and distributed to river trips prior to their launch. This 

simple communication could enable river users to be prepared for any research/recreation 

interactions and provide users with some insight to the importance of research. 
22 

Finally, GCMRC and GCNP should work to facilitate joint river trips as much as possible 

to minimize the total number of administrative trips per year. This could be accomplished 

through an annual coordinating meeting between agency staff to determine where such dual 

purpose trips might occur. 

Chapter 4. Integration with Other Agencies and Programs 

 The broad goals of the GCDAMP and GCMRC overlap with those of other agencies, 

most notably the National Park Service and Arizona Game and Fish. In identifying information 

needs, we have not attempted to delineate the responsibilities of these respective agencies 

beyond noting high priority information needs as those critically important needs that are most 

directly related to dam operations. We strongly suggest that GCMRC cooperate with these other 

agencies to develop monitoring and research programs that are as efficient as possible. For 

example, monitoring of beach size is strongly related to dam operations, while monitoring of 

human impacts of camping is more indirectly related to dam operations but of high interest to the 

National Park Service. It might be most efficient to conduct both types of monitoring 

simultaneously, following a negotiated agreement on responsibilities and funding. 

 There also is need for more integration between recreation and other resource areas 

within GCMRC. Cooperation between recreation and sediment work is evident in the work of 

Kaplinski et al. (2005) and we recommend that even more cooperation and integration occur. It 

is also important that there be more cooperation between recreation and programs working on 

terrestrial biology and on cultural resources. 

 The recreation and biology programs need to work together to understand the ecological 

significance of human impacts on vegetation and wildlife around campsites, on side hikes and at 

attraction sites. Impact inventories are needed to describe the distribution and magnitude of 

human impact. However, to assess the significance of these impacts there needs to be a 

simultaneous description of the “value” of the biological resources being impacted. Cooperation 

between these two programs is also needed to assess the prevalence of vegetation encroachment 

on campsites and the effects of encroachment on carrying capacity. Similar cooperation is 

needed with the cultural resources program. Impact inventories describe disturbance of 

archaeological sites but, to evaluate the significance of impact, these data need to be combined 

with descriptions of the “value” of the cultural resources being impacted. 

 Cooperation among resource areas is also needed to identify and evaluate trade-offs 

among the effects of dam operations on multiple resources. Ideal dam operations for one 

resource may be detrimental to other resources and vice versa. The search for optimal dam 

operations will require more coordination and cooperation among resource areas. 
23 

Chapter 5 Conclusions 

Recreation monitoring is critically important. It is a legal requirement of the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act of 1992. Recreation is one of the dual mandates of Grand Canyon National Park, 

and Glen Canyon is a National Recreation Area. The need for recreation and nonmarket 

economics monitoring has been previously pointed out in Behan (2000) and by the National 

Research Council (1999). 

While there have been limited efforts to engage in recreation monitoring within GCMRC, the 

recreation monitoring program is not funded nor conducted with the same thoroughness that 

characterizes physical and biological resources. There is no systematic or comprehensive 

monitoring of several key elements that affect the quality of a river recreation experience in the 

Grand Canyon. Very little monitoring of recreation use or visitor experience occurs in the Glen 

Canyon reach. Economic valuation studies of river recreation have not been updated since the 

EIS and do not reflect the current flow regimes or flow experiments. Thus GCMRC is not 

adequately meeting Goal 9.1 set out by AMWG to “Maintain or improve the quality and range of 

recreation opportunities in Glen and Grand Canyons...”. 

GCMRC’s existing recreation monitoring program only sporadically addresses some of the core 

monitoring information needs (CMIN’s) associated with each of the five goals for recreation: 

maintaining quality of the visitor experience (9.1), visitor safety (9.2), camping beaches (9.3), 

wilderness experience (9.4) and maintaining the visitor experience in the face of GCDAMP 

research and monitoring activities in the canyon (9.5). 

Although these five objectives are appropriate, the PEP believes that many identified information 

needs are problematic. The PEP believes that the most efficient way to achieve the goal of 

maintaining quality visitor experiences is to develop a model that: (a) identifies the recreation 

resources conditions and trip attributes (such as rapids and beaches) that are most important to a 

high quality experiences and (b) estimates how different flow levels affect these important 

recreation resource conditions and trip attributes. By monitoring flow and how recreation 

resources and trip attributes change with new flow regimes and flow experiments as well as 

changes in NPS and AZFG regulations, GCMRC can infer how the quality of the recreation 

experience and economic value of that recreation experience changes over time. 

The consistent theme of many of these recommendations is for GCMRC to move away 

from viewing recreation as primarily monitoring physical resources (e.g., beaches), and to 

include social and visitor evaluative aspects of recreation not only in Grand Canyon but 

also in Glen Canyon. With the increasing rafting use in Grand Canyon National Park being 

proposed by the National Park Service, the PEP believes it is incumbent on GCMRC and NPS to 

redouble their efforts to develop a coordinated recreation monitoring program along the lines 

suggested in this report. 
24 

REFERENCES 

Behan, Jeff. 2000. Recreation in the Colorado River Ecosystem and the Adaptive Management 

Program. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

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. Glen Canyon Environmental Study Report #27/87. U. S. Bureau of 

Reclamation: Washington, D. C. [Available from NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 

Virginia 22161 as NTIS Report #PB88-182546/AS]. 

Douglas, A. and D. Harpman. 1995. Estimating Recreation Employment Effects with IMPLAN 

for the Glen Canyon Dam Region. Journal of Environmental Management 44: 233-247. 

Grand Canyon National Park. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Colorado River 

Management Plan. Volume One. Grand Canyon, AZ. 

Hall, Troy and Bo Shelby. 2000. 1998 Colorado River Boater Study, Grand Canyon National 

Park. Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

Hendee, J. and C. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of 

Resources and Values. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 

Holmes, T. and W. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute Based Methods. Chapter 6 in Champ, Boyle and 

Brown, A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston MA 

Jubenville, A. and B. W. Twight (I 993). Chapter 2: The outdoor recreation management model. 

In: A. Jubenville & B.W. Twight Outdoor Recreation Management: Theory and Application. 

Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA 

Kaplinski, Matt, Joe Hazel and Rod Parnell. 2005. Campsite Area Monitoring in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: 1998-2003. Dept. of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Knopf, R.C. (1988). Human experience of wildlands: A review of needs and policy. Western 

Wildlands, Fall, 1988. 

Lancaster, K. 1966. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 

132-157. 

Loomis, John. 2002. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to 

National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges and BLM Lands. 2nd Edition. Columbia University 

Press, New York. 

Loomis, J., A. Douglas and D. Harpman. 2005. Recreation Use and Nonuse Values of Glen and 

Grand Canyons. Chapter 9 in State of the Natural and Cultural Resources of the Colorado River 

Ecosystem (SCORE). GCMRC, U.S. Geological Survey. Flagstaff, AZ. 
25 

Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation (Second Edition). Corvallis: Oregon State 

University. 

Manning, R. 2001. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection: A Framework for Managing the 

Carrying Capacity of National Parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(1): 93-

108. 

Morey, E. 1981. The Demand for Site-Specific Recreational Activities: A Characteristics 

Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8: 345-371. 

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) 

Framework – A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center. 

National Research Council. 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam 

and the Colorado River Ecosystem. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 

Roberts, Catherine and Joanna Bieri. 2001. Impacts of Low flow Rates on Recreation Rafting 

Traffic on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Study performed for Bureau of 

Reclamation and GCMRC. 

Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis: Oregon 

State University Press. 

Shelby, Bo and Doug Whittaker. 2005. Colorado River in Grand Canyon Visitor Use and 

Experience Issues. From Technical Memorandum on River Running the Grand Canyon. 

Confluence Research and Consulting, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Stankey, G., D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, S. Frissell, and R. Washburne. 1985. The Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-176. 

Stankey, G. and R. Manning. 1986. Carrying Capacity of Recreation Settings. A Literature 

Review. The President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, pp. 47-58. 

Stewart, W., K. Larkin, B. Orland, D. Anderson, R. Manning, D. Cole, J. Taylor and N. Tomar. 

2000. Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. Flagstaff, AZ. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2002. An Overview of Various Impacts to Grand Canyon 

River Experiences with a Focus on Intergroup Encounters, Flow Levels and the 2000 Low 

Summer Steady Flow Experiment. Submitted to GRCMRC. August 2002. 
26 

Appendix A Biographies of PEP Members 

David Cole 

David N. Cole is Research Biologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, located in Missoula, MT. His research has 

focused on the management of recreation in wilderness, with particular emphasis on the 

ecological impacts of recreation use. His numerous publications on monitoring visitor impacts to 

wilderness appear in a wide range of publication outlets. 

Pam Foti 

Pam Foti, professor in Parks and Recreation Management, Department of Geography, Planning, 

and Recreation, at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (January, 1988-Present), received 

her Ph.D. in Land Resource Management from the Institute for Environmental Studies at the 

University of Wisconsin, Madison (1987). Her research focuses on the physical impacts of 

recreational use. 

John Loomis 

John Loomis began his career as an economist in the BLM, and worked as an economist for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. John Loomis is currently a professor in the Department of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. He served on the Science 

Advisory Board for the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center for two years. He is the 

author of three books as well as over 100 journal articles dealing with economic valuation of 

non-marketed natural resources such as recreation, fishing, wilderness, and endangered species. 

Prior to coming to Colorado State University, Dr. Loomis was an Associate Professor at 

University of California-Davis in Division of Environmental Studies. 

Robert Manning 

Robert Manning is Professor and Chair of the Recreation Management Program at the University 

of Vermont. He is also Director of the University's Park Studies Laboratory. He teaches and 

conducts a program of research on the history, philosophy and management of parks, wilderness 

and related areas. Dr. Manning has published widely on topics related to park and outdoor 

recreation management, and is the author of Studies in Outdoor Recreation published by Oregon 

State University Press. He has spent three year-long sabbatical leaves with the National Park 

Service, including one year at Grand Canyon National Park. 

R. Neil Moisey 

R. Neil Moisey, is an Associate Professor in the Recreation Management and Tourism Program 

in the College of Forestry and Conservation, at The University of Montana. His research focuses 

on river management issues and the role of the private sector in natural resource management 

and planning. Dr. Moisey was previously on the faculty at the University of Wyoming and the 

University of Missouri. 

Robert Ratcliffe 

As Deputy Chief for Bureau of Land Management’s National Recreation and Visitor Services 

Division Mr. Ratcliffe oversees a broad range of national recreation and visitor services policies 

and programs. He is also responsible for oversight of a $75 million agency budget. He has 

served on oversight committees in the development of the Department of Interior’s strategic 
27 

plan. He served as a Congressional Fellow in the US Senate advising on environment and 

natural resource issues. Mr. Ratcliffe has been active in natural resources, public lands and 

recreation management for almost 30 years. He has an M.S. in Resource Recreation Planning 

and Management and has worked for a number of public agencies, universities and private 

organizations in outdoor adventure education, river and recreation management, and natural 

resource planning in the west. Besides BLM, his agency experience includes, U.S. Forest 

Service and National Park Service. His background incorporates a of public and private sector 

experience as a river guide and outfitter, adjunct professor, and backcountry ranger. 
28 

Appendix B Conduct of the PEP 

1) Questions Asked of the PEP Panel 

A. Program focus and scope 

Questions: Does the current recreation monitoring program address the stated management 

objectives and core monitoring information needs identified in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program? 

What are the strengths and deficiencies of the current program relative to the Management 

Objectives and Core Monitoring Information Needs for recreation? 

Are we monitoring the most critical recreational parameters relative to dam operations, and if 

not, what are the most critical parameters that the GCD-AMP should be monitoring on a routine 

basis? 

How can the current monitoring data and information resulting from past research be most 

usefully applied to evaluating effects of current and proposed experimental dam operations on 

visitor use values and experiences (e.g., backcountry hiking/camping, angling, whitewater rafting 

below Lees Ferry, day rafting in Glen Canyon, etc.) in the Colorado River Ecosystem? 

2) There are a number of important attributes of “visitor use values” potentially affected by dam 

operations that GCMRC monitors inconsistently, or not at all. These include: 1) angler and 

boating safety under different flow regimes; 2) changes in visitor perceptions of experiential 

values relative to various flow regimes; 3) effects on recreation-based economics; and 4) issues 

related visitor capacity/crowding (among others). 

Questions: What methods/approaches could be developed and implemented to address these 

issues within the framework of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program? 

Are there existing methods that have been developed elsewhere that would be appropriate for 

this setting and could be transferred to this program for implementation in the near future? If so, 

then what are they? 

B) Campable Area Monitoring and Sampling 

Questions: How would you evaluate (rate) the adequacy of this approach for characterizing 

changes in campable area? What other methods, if any, would you recommend to measure this 

parameter? 

Would there be more utility/value in obtaining camping site inventories for change throughout 

the entire system below the dam, even if the data were only available on a quadrennial basis? 

Is the existing campable area mapping program adequate with respect to the location, 

distribution, and number repeat mapping sites and the frequency of measurements? 
29 

C) Monitoring effects of experimental actions on recreational parameters 

Questions: Have past research and monitoring of experimental flows been adequate for 

evaluating effects on recreation? 

What additional science elements might be required as part of a future experimental design 

(BHBF tests for sand bar building, relaxed fluctuating flow operation test, and possibly, steady 

flows) that would integrate changes in available recreational resources and visitor experience? 

D) Program Management 

Questions: Is there adequate scientific direction, program management, and budget to ensure 

the most efficient and scientifically credible recreation monitoring and research program? 

If so, then what are the most critical elements? 

If not, then what critical elements are missing? 

E) Prioritization of Research and Monitoring Activities 

Question: In the face of potential (and likely) funding limitations, how would you prioritize 

elements of the Recreation program between and within the following broad categories: 1) 

important and essential to implement and/or maintain immediately; 2) highly desirable and 

important, but not critical to implement immediately (should implement within 2-5 yrs); 3) 

desirable but not essential for the program in the near term. 

F) Collaboration 

Questions: 

How can these various programs work most effectively in a collaborative (synergistic?) manner 

to enhance products and outcomes for all the agencies with responsibilities for monitoring visitor 

use and satisfaction? 

Which elements of the current (or proposed) NPS and AZGF recreation monitoring programs are 

essential (or important) to integrate and analyze within the GCMRC recreation program 

framework to meet established information needs of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program? 

Similarly, what elements of the current (or proposed) GCMRC monitoring program are critical 

(or important) to integrate within the Grand Canyon National Park recreation monitoring 

program to meet management goals/LACs for recreation management established under the 

CRMP? 

 

G) Effects of recreational activities on other aspects of the ecosystem 

Question: What are the best and most appropriate methods (within the context of Grand 

Canyon National Park proposed wilderness) for capturing, measuring, tracking, and evaluating 

effects of human activities on the Colorado River ecosystem? 
30 

H) Integration with other GCMRC program areas 

Questions: What recommendations can be offered with regards to data management 

guidelines and use of analytical tools that will further promote integrated analyses? 

I) Data Management and Analysis (general) 

Questions: What recommendations can be offered with regards to data management 

guidelines (including data storage and dissemination protocols), statistical analyses and/or use of 

other analytical tools to help ensure the credibility, validity, reliability, and long-term utility of 

the recreation monitoring and research data collected by the program? 

2) Pre-trip literature give to panel members 

Behan, Jeff. 2000. Recreation in the Colorado River Ecosystem and the Adaptive Management 

Program. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 

GCMRC. 2001. Strategic Plan: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. Final Draft, 

August 17, 2001. Flagstaff, AZ. 

Hall, Troy and Bo Shelby. 2000. 1998 Colorado River Boater Study, Grand Canyon National 

Park. Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

Hjerpe, Evan and Yeon-Su Kim. 2003. Economic Impacts of Summer Steady Flows on 

Recreation. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Kaplinski, Matt, Joe Hazel and Rod Parnell. 2005. Campsite Area Monitoring in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem: 1998-2003. Dept. of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Kaplinksi, Matt, Jeff Behan, Joseph Hazel, Mark Manone, Roderic Parnell. 2003. Evaluation of 

Campsite Studies in the Colorado River Ecosystem: Analysis and Recommendations for Long 

Term Monitoring. 

Mary Orton Company. 2003. Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on What’s In and What’s Out 

of the Strategic Plan. Memo dated July 11, 2003. Henderson, NV. 

Persons, Bill. 2002. Lees Ferry Creel Data Compilation Project. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Roberts, Catherine and Joanna Bieri. 2001. Impacts of Low flow Rates on Recreation Rafting 

Traffic on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Study performed for Bureau of 

Reclamation and GCMRC. 
31 

Roberts, Catherine, Doug Stallman and Joanna Bieri. 2002. Modeling Complex HumanEnvironment Interactions: the Grand Canyon River Trip Stimulator. Ecological Modelling 

153: 181-196. 

Thompson, Kathryn. 2003. Long Term Monitoring of Camping Beaches in Grand Canyon: 

Annual Report of Repeat Photography by Grand Canyon River Guides. Kate Thompson 

Consulting, Dolores, CO. 

Shelby, Bo and Doug Whittaker. 2005. Colorado River in Grand Canyon Visitor Use and 

Experience Issues. From Technical Memorandum on River Running the Grand Canyon. 

Confluence Research and Consulting, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Stewart, W., K. Larkin, B. Orland, D. Anderson, R. Manning, D. Cole, J. Taylor and N. 

Tomar. Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. Flagstaff, AZ. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2002. An Overview of Various Impacts to Grand Canyon 

River Experiences with a Focus on Intergroup Encounters, Flow Levels and the 2000 Low 

Summer Steady Flow Experiment. Submitted to GRCMRC. August 2002. 

US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

3. Presentations on the River 

The background reading materials were supplemented by briefings: 

• Flagstaff the night before by the trip by Helen Fairley, Ted Melis, and Barb Ralston of 

GCMRC. 

During the first several days of the river trip there were several daily briefings related to the 

location of the trip: 

• The first field briefing was given at Lee’s Ferry regarding the day use rafting and angling 

taking place in the Glen Canyon reach of the Colorado River. 

• The second briefing was by Matt Kaplinski (GCMRC) on the GCMRC beach area 

surveys, and comparison to the GIS maps. The campsite monitoring is done as an add on 

to the sandbar survey in October. Matt indicated there is no complete inventory of all the 

beaches in the Grand Canyon. 

• The second briefing was by Jeff Behan on defining the recreational resources of the 

Grand Canyon and the legal mandates to monitor them. Jeff indicated there has been little 

systematic recreation research on a par with sediment or biology. 

• A briefing on the new Grand Canyon National Park River Management Plan was 

presented by Linda Jalbert of the National Park Service. The discussion focused on 

managing visitor use in relation to river and camp encounters. The camp encounters are 

related to beach area available. 

• Bo Shelby and Doug Whittaker presented a summary of the research on important 

attributes of visitor experience such as river encounters, camp encounters, and camp 

competition. Doug Whittaker stressed the importance of understanding the relative 
32 

importance of the many attributes that contribute to high quality overall recreation 

experience. 

• Bo Shelby and Doug Whittaker gave a briefing on important management information 

needs that could be addressed by a recreation monitoring program. These included 

integration of data from past visitor experience studies and beach studies, as well as 

encounter data. 

• Helen Fairley provided several briefings including a discussion and tour of the effect of 

visitor use on protection of cultural resources. She also presented the structure and interrelationship of GCMRC, AMWG, and TWG. 

• A briefing on the adopt a beach program was provided. 

• Bill Stewart provided a briefing on the 1997 Grand Canyon boaters attitude and 

preference study. His research included an analysis of trade-offs of beach attributes of 

shade, beach size and beach vegetation using a paired comparison approach. 

• Matthew Brown of NPS provided a briefing on the NPS Human Impact Monitoring at 46 

beaches. He handed out the four page form used by student coders to inventory the site 

impacts (e.g., litter), campsite capacity and impacts on any cultural resources present at 

the site. 

• Linda Jalbert of NPS discussed the few available studies on visitor safety and boater 

safety that have been performed of past accident rates and in relation to experimental 

flows. 

The PEP had several independent work sessions during afternoons to sketch out an overall 

conceptual framework to guide a comprehensive recreation monitoring program, develop a 

tentative outline, and begin to develop initial priority monitoring recommendations. These were 

discussed with the entire group and further refined. The PEP also spent one day in Flagstaff to 

more fully develop the initial recommendations and overall structure of the PEP report. After 

returning each PEP member researched and expanded their respective sections and provided 

these to other PEP members to review. The entire document was reorganized and rewritten 

several times to improve the flow via PEP member rewrites, reviews and conference calls. Once 

a consensus was reached on the key elements, the executive summary and conclusions were 

written.