1

A REPORT ON THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT AD HOC 

GROUP (SIAHG) ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

SURVEY INSTRUMENT AD HOC GROUP

JUNE 22, 2011
2

A REPORT ON THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT AD HOC GROUP (SIAHG) 

ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

SIAHG CHARGE

At the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) meeting May 18, 2011, the 

Adaptive Management Program (AMP) Secretary Designee appointed Lawrence D. Garrett 

Executive Coordinator, Science Advisors, and McClain Peterson Colorado River Commission, 

Nevada AMWG Member, as Co-Chairs of a Survey Instrument Ad Hoc Group (SIAHG) to 

accomplish the following charge. 

• “The Secretary’s Designee appoints an ad hoc group chaired by Dave Garrett and

McClain Peterson with participation by NPS and TWG and interested members, to give 

feedback to NPS on its economic survey and how it could be enhanced for the purpose of 

providing information to the AMP that will assist in evaluating alternatives for the 

LTEMP”. 

SIAHG MEMBERS

Name Affiliation Status E-Mail Address

Dr. Dave Garrett (co-chair) M3Research / Science Advisors Science Advisors M3research@starband.net

McClain Peterson

(co-chair)

Colorado River Comm./ Nevada AMWG Member mpeterson@crc.nv.gov

Jan Balsom NPS-GRCA Jan_balsom@nps.gov

Brian Carey NPS-GRCA Deputy Supt. brian_carey@nps.gov

Martha Hahn NPS-GRCA Alternate martha_hahn@nps.gov

Beverley Heffernan /

Ann Gold

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Member

Alternate

bheffernan@usbr.gov

agold@usbr.gov

Chris Hughes NPS-GRCA TWG member Chris_hughes@nps.gov

Leslie James / 

Cliff Barrett

CREDA Member 

Alternate

creda@qwest.net

cibarre@q.com

Sam Jansen

Jerry Lee Cox

Grand Canyon River Guides Member

Alternate

smdjansen@gmail.com

jerryleecox@durango.net

John Jordan Federation of Fly Fishers Member jcjordan@cox.net

Ted Kowalski Colo. Water Conserv. Board Alternate ted.kowalski@state.co.us

Nikolai Lash Grand Canyon Trust Member nlash@grandcanyontrust.org

Clayton Palmer WAPA Alternate cspalmer@wapa.gov

Ted Rampton UAMPS Member ted@uamps.com

John Shields 

Don Ostler

WY Interstate Stream Comm. Member

Alternate

jshiel@seo.wyo.gov

dostler@usbr.gov

Sam Spiller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Member sam_spiller@fws.gov

Bill Stewart AZ Game and Fish Alternate bstewart@azgfd.gov

David Nimkin National Parks Conserv. Assoc. Member of public dnimkin@npca.org

ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED BY SIAHG
3

This activity and report stems from an offer by the NPS to receive review input from the 

AMP on an ongoing study of National Park System users. Specifically, the AMP was afforded 

the opportunity to provide input on an economic survey that will derive resource value 

information for several National Parks and National Recreation Areas, including areas of the 

Colorado River Ecosystem addressed by the AMP. The SIAHG expresses their appreciation to 

the NPS for providing this opportunity. 

Several activities were performed by cooperators to accomplish this task. Thanks are due

to Leslie James of CREDA, who scheduled rooms for this activity and the Salt River Project for 

providing room accommodations. A special thanks goes to Linda Whetton of USBOR for

complete logistics support. Without her leadership we could not have accomplished this task on 

time. 

The Co-Chairs want to applaud the efforts of the group members. A lot of information 

had to be evaluated in a short time to complete this project. All credit for the accomplishment is 

a result of their commitment. Following are the activities performed by the SIAHG. 

• Committee charge, Secretary Designee request for action. 5/18/2011

• Whetton (USBOR) request for membership

• Garrett/Peterson request for meeting dates and issues

• Ad Hoc Group members established

• Garrett/Peterson request for review input for a draft report

• Meeting of SIAHG to develop final draft report. Members were provided a working 

report draft for the meeting which contained their input. 6/14/11

• Review of draft by all members. Revisions developed and filing of final report to 

Secretary Designee by SIAHG. 6/22/2011

DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL REPORT DRAFT

After input by members a meeting of the SIAHG was called for 6/14/2011 at Salt River 

Project offices in Phoenix to develop a draft of the final report. The following members attended 

the meeting by phone and in person: Jan Balsom, Cliff Barrett, Beverley Heffernan, Leslie 

James, Ted Kowalski, Jerry Myers, Ted Rampton, Larry Riley on behalf of Mike Senn, John 

Shields, Sam Spiller, Bill Stewart, McClain Peterson, and Dave Garrett.
4

Following the meeting Garrett was assigned to develop a second draft from member input 

and provide it to members by 6/15/2011. Members then provided input for a final report for the 

Secretary Designee to be developed and forwarded by Garrett by 6/22/2011.

MEMBER ISSUES ADDRESSED

Two issues surfaced on this project that the members felt should be addressed in the 

report. They are as follows. 

• Are information needs for the socioeconomic program fully developed, and can new 

information needs be added in this process?

• Explicit definition was requested in the report to clarify how input from the SIAHG and 

related future findings of the NPS should be interpreted.

CLARIFYING INPUT ON INFORMATION NEEDS

The group felt the following statements on this issue should be filed with this report. 

• The Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) had developed information needs from 

2005/2006 work on the Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) and a Protocol Evaluation Panel

(PEP) and included it in the SEAHG Report to the SIAHG.

• The group feels greater clarification and specification is required from the SEAHG

process on information needs.

• The SIAHG did propose that the SEAHG developed information needs be used to guide 

review of existing survey questions, but members could add information needs and 

related survey questions if critical needs are identified.

• The AMP will conduct additional market and non-market assessments related to existing 

and expanded information needs. They will also be provided as proposed input to the 

LTEMP.

CLARIFYING COMMITTEE INPUT AND RELATIONSHIP TO OUTCOMES OF NPS 

RESEARCH

The SIAHG members wanted persons reading their report and recommendations to 

understand the context of their recommendations. The following statements were drafted to 

provide this clarification. 

• This is a NPS project which is permitting input by the AMP group directed toward 

recommending additional survey questions for the Angler and Boating Surveys.
5

• This AMP input is akin to input NPS receives from many other parties in the public 

involvement process.

• The NPS study and input from varied parties, including AMP, may all provide 

information that will assist the LTEMP process, and other related planning processes. 

• The findings and outcomes of this NPS research can only be attributed to the NPS 

because they are the creators of objectives, research designs, analysis procedures and 

interpretation of findings.

INFORMATION NEEDS FROM SEAHG

As noted, the SIAHG decided to utilize the SEAHG list of information needs to evaluate 

the questions in the Angler and Boating Survey instruments. Members were permitted to add to 

this list. Several areas of information needs developed by SEAHG are not represented in the 

Angler and Boating Surveys by design. As such the SIAHG has made minimal or no reference 

to these needs in the recommendations. Following is a summary of the SEAHG information 

needs. 

• What is the economic value of the recreational use of the CRE?

• What are the use and non-use values of the CRE?

• Segregate and evaluate impacts of differing proposed dam operation policy experiments 

on power users, i.e. ramping, daily and monthly fluctuations, high and low flows, steady 

flows, base cases, etc.

• Develop real time capability to evaluate impacts of alternative scenarios on all values.

• Develop total economic impact on upper basin water users from alternative dam 

operations.

• How do use and non-use values change in response to policy experiments, unanticipated 

events or other management actions?

• What is economic benefit of river recreation to tribes?

• What is the socio-cultural impact of recreational use in the CRE?

• What are the non-use values for different resources?

• What are the socioeconomic benefits and costs of hydropower generation from HFE to 

tribal communities? 

• What is the base case for optimal power generation?

• What is the baseline measure for resource integrity?
6

• What are traditionally important resources and locations for each tribe and other groups? 

PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION NEEDS FOR THE NPS SURVEY

FROM THE SIAHG

Based on member review of the surveys and discussions, the SIAHG offer the following 

proposed information needs and questions for consideration of the NPS. We understand that 

limitations of sampling designs and other study methods might obviate consideration of many of 

our recommendations, but do appreciate their consideration by the NPS.

• What is the current total annual market value of the Lees Ferry trout fishery (market and 

nonmarket) to the regional community and what are its components, i.e. hotel and 

restaurant, guides, retail purchases, etc? What are its non-use values?

• What is the current total annual market value of the Glen Canyon Smooth Water Half 

Day Trips, private rafters, canoeists, kayakers, etc? What are their non-use values?

• How have total annual use and market values for the Lees Ferry trout fishery and 

recreational boating changed for Pre-Rod and Post-Rod periods?

• Do Lees Ferry recreational boaters and sports fishers express a significant difference in 

willingness to pay under differing flow conditions? 

• How has demand for Lees Ferry and Grand Canyon recreational boating (including 

rafting to Lake Mead) and Lees Ferry sport fishing changed over the period Pre and Post 

Rod? 

• How has crowding, camp size, multiple campsites in an area, etc affected the Grand 

Canyon experience and expressed values?

• How has Native American use of the Lees Ferry trout fishery changed from the period 

Pre and Post Rod?

• Regarding the Grand Canyon rafting experience, can questions be added to capture more 

clearly why people take this specific trip, isolating specifically trip attributes like unique 

wilderness experience, solitude, scenic beauty, etc?

• How does the social benefit of the Lees Ferry trout fishery differ for walk-in only and 

boating anglers?

• Should case scenarios for contingent valuation more closely approximate expected real 

variance in operations?
7

• Collect data on alternatives for the users. Questions should be included as to what are the 

responder’s three favorite fishing locations in the southwest starting with the most 

favored. For those ranked above the Colorado River, have them list the major attractions 

to them. 

• Have you considered survey information that should be collected from those not 

necessarily fishing the Colorado River? Surveys could include regional groups. There 

are at least 7 active fly fishing groups in Arizona. There are also other fishing and 

outdoor groups. This provides input on economic lost value. 

• The sampling strategy for the Angler Survey appears to be exclusively focused on fishing 

users encountered on the water at Lees Ferry. Have you considered the value of adding a 

broader sampling frame component to include “licensed anglers” to help assess perceived 

opportunity value foregone?

• Should case scenarios for contingent valuation more closely approximate current on-thewater experiences associated with operations?

• The sampling strategy for on the water users should ensure that interviewers reach and 

qualify the walk-in angler, i.e. three types of anglers exist as follows. 

• Those that visit the walk-in areas only.

• Those that boat up-river for angling only. 

• Those that both visit the walk-in areas and boat up-river for angling purposes.
PRESENTATION TO TECHNICAL 

WORK GROUP, PHOENIX AZ, JUNE 

29, 2011

L. D. GARRETT AND M. PETERSON,

SIAHG CO-CHAIRS 
COMMITTEE CHARGE BY SECRETARY 

DESIGNEE, 5-18-11

• THE SECRETARY DESIGNEE APPOINTS AD HOC 

GROUP CHAIRED BY DAVE GARRETT AND 

McCLAIN PETERSON with participation by NPS 

and TWG and interested members, to give 

feedback to NPS on its economic survey and 

how it could be enhanced for the purpose of 

providing information to the AMP that will 

assist in evaluating alternatives for the LTEMP. 
ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED BY SIAHG

• AD HOC CHARGE; SEC. DESIGNEE 5/18/11

• WHETTON REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP

• GARRETT/PETERSON REQUEST FOR MEETING DATES AND 

ISSUES

• AD HOC MEMBERS ESTABLISHED

• GARRETT/PETERSON REQUEST FOR SURVEY 

INPUT/QUESTIONS AND DRAFT PPT

• MTG/CONFERENCE CALL 6/14/11 TO DEVELOP DRAFT 

REPORT FROM PPT

• DRAFT REPORT REVIEW BY AD HOC

• AD HOC FILES FINAL REPORT TO SEC. DESIGNEE 6/22/11
MEMBER ISSUES ADDRESSED

• ARE INFORMATION NEEDS FOR SE PROGRAM 

FULLY DEVELOPED, AND CAN INs BE ADDED

• DEFINITION IS NEEDED TO CLARIFY HOW 

INPUT FROM THE AD HOC AND RELATED 

FUTURE FINDINGS OF THE NPS SHOULD BE 

INTERPRETED
 SEAHG INFORMATION NEEDS DEVELOPED 

FROM 2005/2006 WORK ON CMP AND PEP

 IMPROVED CLARIFICATION AND 

SPECIFICATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC 

PROGRAM INFORMATION NEEDS ARE NEEDED 

FROM SEAHG PROCESS

 SIAHG USED SEAHG INs’ TO GUIDE REVIEW OF 

EXISTING NPS SURVEY QUESTIONS, BUT 

MEMBERS ALSO PROPOSED NEW 

INFORMATION NEEDS AS WELL AS NEW 

QUESTIONS FOR THE NPS SURVEY 
CLARIFYING AD HOC INPUT AND 

RELATIONSHIP TO OUTCOMES OF NPS 

RESEARCH

• THIS IS A NPS PROJECT WHICH IS PERMITTING INPUT BY THE AMP 

COMMITTEE ON ADDITIONAL NPS SURVEY QUESTIONS AND 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SURVEYS

• THE AMP INPUT IS AKIN TO INPUT NPS RECEIVES FROM MANY 

OTHER PARTIES IN THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

• THE NPS STUDY AND INPUT FROM THESE PARTIES, INCLUDING AMP, 

SHOULD ALL PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST THE LTEMP 

PROCESS

• THE FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES OF THIS RESEARCH CAN ONLY BE 

ATTRIBUTED TO THE NPS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CREATORS OF 

OBJECTIVES, RESERCH DESIGNS, ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND 

INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS

 DAVE GARRETT DAVID NIMKIN

 McCLAIN PETERSON BILL STEWART

 MARTHA HAHN SAM SPILLER

 LESLIE JAMES DON OSTLER

 CLIFF BARRETT JOHN SHIELDS

 SAM JANSEN TED RAMPTON

 HELEN FAIRLEY

 JERRY LEE COX

 JOHN JORDAN 

 TED KOWALSKI

 NIKOLAI LASH

 CLAYTON PALMER
 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE 

RECREATIONAL USE OF THE CRE 

 WHAT ARE THE USE AND NON-USE VALUES OF THE 

CRE

 SEGREGATE AND EVALUATE IMPACTS OF DIFFERING 

PROPOSED DAM OPERATION POLICY EXPERIMENTS 

ON POWER USERS, I.E. RAMPING, DAILY AND 

MONTHLY FLUCTUATIONS, HIGH AND LOW FLOWS, 

STEADY FLOWS, POWER CONTRACTS, BASE CASES 

,ETC.

 DEVELOPED REAL TIME CAPABILITY TO EVALUATE 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ON ALL 

VALUES

 DEVELOP TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT ON UPPER BASIN 

WATER USERS FROM ALTERNATIVE DAM OPERATIONS 
INFORMATION NEEDS FROM SEAHG

 HOW DO USE AND NON-USE VALUES CHANGE IN 

RESPONSE TO POLICY EXPERIMENTS, 

UNANTICIPATED EVENTS OR OTHER 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS?

 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF RIVER 

RECREATION TO TRIBES?

 WHAT IS THE SOCIOCULTURAL IMPACT OF 

RECREATIONAL USE IN THE CRE?

 WHAT ARE THE NON-USE VALUES FOR DIFFERENT 

RESOURCES?

 WHAT ARE THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS AND 

COSTS OF HYDROPOWER GENERATION FROM HFE 

TO TRIBAL COMMUNITIES?
 WHAT IS THE BASE CASE FOR OPTIMAL 

POWER GENERATION?

 WHAT IS THE BASELINE MEASURE FOR 

RESOURCE INTEGRITY?

 WHAT ARE TRADITIONALLY IMPORTANT 

RESOURCES AND LOCATIONS FOR EACH 

TRIBE AND OTHER GROUPS?
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS OR 

INFORMATION NEEDS FROM NPS 

SURVEYS

• WHAT IS THE CURRENT TOTAL ANNUAL MARKET 

VALUE OF THE LEES FERRY TROUT FISHERY TO 

THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY, WHAT ARE ITS 

COMPONENTS, HOTEL AND RESTURANT, GUIDES, 

RETAIL PURCHASES, ETC. AND WHAT ARE ITS 

NON-USE VALUES?

• WHAT IS THE CURRENT TOTAL ANNUAL MARKET 

VALUE OF LEES FERRY RECREATIONAL BOATING 

INDUSTRY, AND WHAT ARE ITS NON-USE VALUES?
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS FOR NPS 

SURVEYS

• HOW HAVE TOTAL ANNUAL USE AND MARKET 

VALUES FOR THE LEES FERRY TROUT FISHERY 

AND RECREATIONAL BOATING CHANGED IN 

THE PRE-AND POST-ROD PERIODS?

• DO LEES FERRY RECREATIONAL BOATERS AND 

SPORTS FISHERS EXPRESS A SIGNIFICANT 

DIFFERENCE IN WILLINGNESS TO PAY UNDER 

DIFFERING FLOW CONDITIONS?
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS FOR NPS 

SURVEY

• HOW HAS DEMAND FOR LEES FERRY AND 

GRAND CANYON RECREATIONAL BOATING 

(INCLUDING RAFTING TO LAKE MEAD) AND 

LEES FERRY SPORT FISHING CHANGED OVER 

THE PRE- AND POST-ROD PERIODS?

• HOW HAS CROWDING, CAMP SIZE, MULTIPLE 

CAMPSITES IN AN AREA, ETC. AFFECTED THE 

GRAND CANYON EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSED 

VALUES
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS FOR NPS 

SURVEY

• HOW HAS NATIVE AMERICAN USE OF THE 

LEES FERRY TROUT FISHERY CHANGED FROM 

THE PERIOD PRE AND POST-ROD?

• HOW DOES THE SOCIAL BENEFIT OF THE LEES 

FERRY TROUT FISHERY DIFFER FOR WALK-IN 

ONLY AND BOATING ANGLERS?

• SHOULD CASE SCENARIOS FOR CONTINGENT 

VALUATION MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATE 

EXPECTED REAL VARIANCE IN OPERATIONS?
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS FOR NPS 

SURVEY

• REGARDING THE GRAND CANYON RAFTING 

EXPERIENCE, CAN QUESTIONS BE ADDED TO 

CAPTURE MORE CLEARLY WHY PEOPLE TAKE 

THIS SPECIAL TRIP, ISOLATING SPECIFICALLY 

TRIP ATTRIBUTES LIKE UNIQUE WILDERNESS 

EXPERIENCE, SOLITUDE, SCENIC BEAUTY, ETC? 
PROPOSED NEW QUESTIONS FOR NPS 

SURVEY

• COLLECT DATA ON FISHING ALTERNATIVES FOR 

USERS, FOCUSING ON ANGLERS THREE FAVORITE 

FISHING LOCATIONS IN THE SOUTHWEST

• CONSIDER ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION 

FROM REGIONAL FISHING GROUPS SUCH AS FLY 

FISHING GROUPS, OR LICENSED ANGLERS TO 

ASSESS OPPORTUNITY VALUE FOREGONE

• THE SURVEY SHOULD REACH AND QUALIFY 

ANGLERS THAT VISIT WALK-IN AREAS ONLY, BOAT 

UPRIVER FOR ANGLING ONLY, AND THOSE THAT 

DO BOTH