White Paper 

Economic Values of National Park System Resources 

Within the Colorado River Watershed 

Final 

April 17, 2006 

Dr. John W. Duffield 

University of Montana 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared for the National Park Service Environmental 

Quality Division (cooperative agreement H1200040002, task J2380050112) 

with substantial assistance from Dr. Bruce Peacock and Heather Goeddeke. I 

would like to acknowledge numerous helpful comments on earlier drafts 

from the Colorado River Steering Committee. Chris Neher helped develop 

the tabular material. 

2
Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 3 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 4 

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 

II. The Law of the River ................................................................................................... 14 

III. National Park Service Resource Values ..................................................................... 15 

IV. Recommended Approach............................................................................................ 24 

Organization and Scope of Work. ......................................................................................... 25

Methods.................................................................................................................................... 26

Schedule, Tasks, and Budget.................................................................................................. 30

References......................................................................................................................... 37 

Appendix A: Detailed Budget Tables.............................................................................. 43 

3
Executive Summary

For purposes of planning and participation in water resource allocation decisions, the 

National Park Service (NPS) needs to know the economic values of the resources it 

manages within park units along the Colorado River system (including major tributaries). 

At present, the NPS does not have recent or comprehensive values to represent their 

current water-related activities within these Colorado River park units. 

This white paper summarizes how Colorado River water allocations are made, describes 

the types of economic values provided by Colorado River resources (natural, cultural, 

recreational) managed by the NPS, and discusses how alternative allocations of Colorado 

River water may affect those economic values. The economic values described here 

include welfare measures (market, non-market, use, and non-use values) and regional 

economic impacts. The last section of the paper presents a recommended approach to 

estimating the economic values of certain NPS resources along the Colorado River, as 

well as incorporating other available economic values associated with the river (i.e., 

values for hydropower, agricultural, and municipal and industrial uses). 

This approach would estimate the following types of economic values associated with

water allocations on the Colorado River: 

• direct recreational use values for water-related activities in Colorado River park 

units 

• nonuse values associated with the public’s preferences for conservation of 

Colorado River resources managed by the NPS 

• regional economic impacts resulting from water-related visitor use of Colorado 

River park units including output, jobs and income

This approach would also identify the most significant marginal use and nonuse values 

for a set of alternative management schemes and water allocations and flows in the basin. 

These marginal values would be integrated into existing hydrological models of the 

Colorado River system, including development of a user-friendly model for policy 

analysis. Users would be able to evaluate the impact of alternative water allocations on

the use of National Park System resources and other significant uses along the Colorado 

River. 

In evaluating these economic values, it’s important to understand the linkage between the 

National Park System resources and the economy (Figure 1). 

Use values demonstrate the linkage between resource quality and local economic 

activity. The economic demand for the direct recreational use of these resources is 

amenity-driven. People visit the Colorado River system and the NPS units found there 

because of quality amenities including scenic vistas, geologic features, and water, 

wildlife, archeological, cultural, and biological resources. This demand also generates 

4
visitor spending in local communities, which yields jobs, sales revenue, and tax revenues. 

Those regional impacts, in turn, influence resource management decisions due to their 

salience with local communities. Accordingly, through the link to amenity-driven direct 

recreational use, the NPS mandate to preserve natural resources can significantly benefit 

regional economies. Therefore, estimates of use values and regional impacts are both 

indicators of the effectiveness of resource management. 

Non-use values demonstrate the national significance of park resources. The 

conservation of river related resources in park units and their values relates to nonuse 

values, which are not associated with direct on-site resource use. Rather, those values 

obtain from the knowledge that resources exist in a viable state, or will be preserved in a 

given state for future generations (i.e., the motives of existence and bequest). For 

example, many individuals may want future generations to also be able to enjoy the rich

heritage of our national parks. Non-use values also relate to the public enjoyment of park 

resources and values since the public includes both people who directly experience parks 

on-site and those who enjoy them from afar. These two basic linkages between quality 

amenities and the economy (amenities-visitation-regional economy and amenities-use 

and nonuse) also correspond to the two primary economic accounting systems appealed 

to in policy and management decisions: regional economic impacts (jobs and income) 

and welfare impacts (comparison of social benefits and costs). 

Figure 1: Linkages between resource quality, economic values, and resource 

management. 

5
These fundamental linkages between amenities and the economy also directly relate to

the twin mandates that guide National Park System management from the NPS Organic 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1) and the Redwood Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-1). Those mandates establish the 

fundamental purpose of the National Park System as conserving park resources and 

values, and providing for their enjoyment by the public. The conservation of park 

resources and values directly relates to nonuse values through the motives of existence 

and bequest. Protecting amenity and resource values similarly drives visitor demand and 

enjoyment and beneficially impacts regional economies. 

The Colorado River and its tributaries are the most significant sources of freshwater in 

the arid Southwestern United States, supplying approximately 15 million acre feet of 

highly valued western water and supporting the following beneficial uses: 

• irrigated agriculture in some of the most productive growing areas in the U.S. 

• municipal and industrial water to several of the West’s largest cities 

• hydroelectric developments at numerous dams, including Glen Canyon and 

Hoover Dams, and millions of dollars worth of electric energy annually 

• river and reservoir related recreation for millions of visitors 

• viability of important water-related ecosystems, biota, and cultural and 

archeological resources 

The Colorado River corridors and reservoirs, particularly through Glen Canyon and the 

Grand Canyon, as well as upstream on the Green and Gunnison, are among the most 

highly valued natural resources of the United States for their recreational, cultural, 

aesthetic and ecological services (National Research Council, 1996). 

While economic analysis of NPS-related values has been undertaken in the last twenty

years for the Colorado River below Glen Canyon, these previous studies primarily focus 

on just the river corridor in Grand Canyon National Park. River regulation at Glen 

Canyon Dam also impacts water levels at Lake Powell (Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument) and at Lake Mead (Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area), which also contain major recreational and natural resources. 

Additionally, other NPS units are also influenced by the operations of upstream and 

proximate dams and reservoirs. Recognizing this, the main National Park System units 

that would be included in the proposed research are the following: 

• Grand Canyon National Park (river corridor focus) 

• Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

• Rainbow Bridge National Monument 

• Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

• Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

• Canyonlands National Park 

• Curecanti National Recreation Area 

• Dinosaur National Monument. 

Economic analysis of NPS values and the relationship to water allocation has, in general, 

been even more limited at the other units relative to the Grand Canyon river corridor. 

6
The allocation of Colorado River water, as embodied in the “Law of the River,” is an 

ongoing, dynamic process. That process responds to changing inflows in the short term, 

and, in the longer term, evolving societal values relating to natural resources, including 

endangered species and ecosystems, as well as accumulating knowledge on the actual 

physical and hydrological entity being managed. For example, understanding the 

influence of river flow levels and water quality (including temperature) on both sediment 

management and endangered fish in the Grand Canyon is still evolving. It appears that 

ongoing and future allocative issues related to hourly, monthly, seasonal, and annual time

scales will affect NPS values in the Colorado River watershed. An understanding of those 

values and how they are impacted by river allocation decisions will improve the decisions 

that are made. 

In the past, the primary issue on which NPS values were explicitly recognized and 

quantified was on flow management decisions (as embodied in the 1996 Record of 

Decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam). The focus of these decisions has been 

on the river corridor through the Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area. Some current policy and allocative issues require a larger spatial scale, 

at least including the two-reservoir and river corridor system (Lake Powell, the Glen 

Canyon and Grand Canyon river corridor, and Lake Mead). Additionally, there are some 

parallels to the system centered around Glen Canyon Dam elsewhere in the basin. For 

example, river flow regulation, recreation, and endangered fish, are ongoing issues of 

concern for the river corridors below Flaming Gorge and the Aspinall unit on the Green 

and Gunnison rivers, respectively. 

There are very significant use and non-use values associated with NPS resources along 

the Colorado River including the following: 

• Colorado River park units support about 20 million recreational visits per year 

• values have been estimated for some specific visitor uses, such as whitewater 

boating in the Grand Canyon, at over $200 per trip 

• from a regional economic impact perspective, park visitors in 2005 spent 

approximately $1.0 billion in the local area of these Colorado River park units 

• this spending supports thousands of jobs. 

These values are not only large in aggregate, but also in marginal terms across the range 

of policy-relevant changes in environmental parameters that have been closely examined 

in the past, including river flows (such as beach/habitat building flows), and visibility.

For example, based on the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement that evaluated changes 

to operation of Glen Canyon Dam (Reclamation 1995), the nonuse values associated with 

river flows along the Colorado River corridor through the Grand Canyon and Glen 

Canyon were estimated to be on the order of $2.2 billion annually. The relative marginal 

values also appear to be potentially large for other resources including, for example, 

reservoir levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and influences on endangered species. 

The basic conclusion of the paper is that there is a need to estimate economic values 

associated National Park System resources along the Colorado River to help facilitate 

water allocation decisions. A recommended approach is described in the last section of 

7
the paper. While this white paper (Phase I of the overall project) provides a cursory 

overview of the relevant economics literature, the logical approach to achieving the study 

goals is to proceed in three additional phases as follows: 

• Phase II. Review existing literature and data 

• Phase III. Conduct original research. 

• Phase IV. Integrate and communicate. 

Phase II- Review existing literature and data. This phase of the project involves collecting 

all existing and available data and studies that are relevant to the estimation of economic 

values for resources managed by the NPS (and other entities) along the Colorado River 

system. Much of the relevant economics literature has already been collected and 

summarized for the Phase I white paper. However, additional data on park visitation and 

dam and reservoir operations would be collected from the NPS, Bureau of Reclamation 

(and other entities as appropriate). That data would include management documents and 

technical reports. Additionally, relevant data and studies for resources and settings that 

are similar to those found along the Colorado River would be surveyed to identify 

possible value estimates for use in benefits transfer analyses.1

 This information would 

then be synthesized to present as complete a set of economic values as possible for 

relevant resources along the river. This analysis would also identify data gaps that must 

be filled using original research techniques. A written report will identify study findings 

in this phase.

Phase III- Conduct original research: This phase of the project involves filling the data 

gaps identified in Phase II. Initial research efforts for this phase will be focused on the

major two-reservoir and river corridor system that includes Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, and Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area. This study area is where much of the hydropower is produced along the Colorado 

River system, and where most of the water-related visitor use occurs. This study area is 

also significant in that it encompasses the location where the allocation of water between 

the upper and lower basin states occurs. Finally, this area contains resources of national 

and international significance which is relevant to non-use values.2

Phase III includes three survey efforts: 

• a survey of recreational visitors to estimate use values and expenditures in the 

study area 

• a survey of residential populations in the multi-state area surrounding the 

Colorado River to estimate nonuse values 

• a survey of national households to estimate nonuse values 

Direct recreational use values will be estimated using a random utility model. This 

approach would require surveying recreational visitors to Lake Powell, the river corridor 

in Glen and Grand Canyons, and Lake Mead as well as in other areas that are major 

 

1

 Benefits transfer involves using economic values that have been previously estimated and reported in existing studies 

to address similar issues in other contexts. 2

 For example, Grand Canyon National Park was designated a World Heritage Site by the United Nations in 1979. 

8
substitutes for these areas. These would likely include Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park, Curecanti National Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, 

Canyonlands National Park, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Navajo Reservoir 

and popular floating sections on the Green, Upper Colorado, and San Juan rivers. Survey 

respondents would be recruited by a combination of on-site visitor contacts and random 

digit dialing. Surveys would be implemented by a combination of mail and phone 

methods. 

The second and third survey efforts would be conducted to estimate non-use values along 

the Colorado River system corridor on a regional level, and on a national scale. The 

specific set of resources and attributes that would be valued in these surveys will be

identified in this phase. The nonuse values study will focus on resource attributes 

impacted by water allocation decisions, potentially including endangered fish, 

beach/habitat enhancement, archeological and cultural features, and other ecosystem

services and resources. Welsh et al. (1995) found significant differences between the nonuse values held by people within the Glen Canyon Dam hydropower marketing area and 

those held by people nationally. Therefore, a similar stratification is recommended for 

this project. For each sampling area, a survey would be conducted to estimate non-use 

values for the study area using conjoint analysis. This approach is considered state of the 

art and is endorsed by the National Research Council (2005). These surveys would be 

implemented by phone or Internet-based methods, or a combination of the two 

approaches. 

All three survey efforts would involve the use of focus groups in the development of 

survey instruments, and would rely on professional survey research firms. Peer review of 

survey instruments, sampling designs, and reports would be required. Additionally, the 

survey instruments and sampling plans would require information collection review and 

approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

The main research products from this phase will be: 

• estimated economic values associated with direct recreational use 

• estimated visitor expenditures and regional economic significance 

• nonuse values for key system resources and attributes. 

Phase IV. This phase provides integration of Phase II and III results with hydrological 

models of the Colorado River system. This will support estimates of marginal use and 

nonuse values and regional economic impacts associated with different river and 

reservoir management alternatives. The regional economic impact analysis will focus on 

the primary two-reservoir and river corridor study area including Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, Grand Canyon National Park, and Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area. This analysis will include changes in direct expenditures as well as the multiplier 

effects that ripple through the economy. The economic values provided by NPS resources 

along the Colorado River will be compared to other economic values associated with the 

Colorado River (e.g., hydropower, water storage, irrigation water uses, urban water uses). 

This work will produce a user-friendly analysis tool that will enable NPS staff and other 

agencies to calculate the changes in the economic values of resources that result from

9
alternative operating scenarios and water levels. Users will input water allocation changes 

(flows and reservoir levels) and output will describe economic effects, based on both 

benefit-cost and regional economic accounting frameworks. This model will distinguish 

short term and long term effects. In the short run, there are no adjustments to National 

Park System facilities. In the long term, there would be adjustments to National Park 

System investments in facilities such as number and location of marinas and boat ramps, 

to best accommodate the economic opportunities available in a given flow regime. The 

main research products from this phase of the study are: 

• a user friendly analysis tool that identifies marginal values and regional economic 

impacts of alternative management schemes 

• a technical document that fully describes the background, methods, data, and 

results of this project 

• a non-technical document that is understandable and relevant for the general 

public. 

The time frame for this recommended approach is three years. The key assumption in this 

schedule is that the required Office of Management and Budget approval of sampling 

plans and survey instruments will be achieved in seven months. On the assumption that 

the work will be contracted through the Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystems Unit 

(RM-CESU), a line-item budget has been developed based on current and projected 

salary, fringe, and other budget parameters at the University of Montana. The total 

budget for Phases II-IV of the recommended approach is $1,340,515. 

10
I. Introduction

For purposes of planning and participation in water resource allocation decisions, the 

NPS has a need for the evaluation of the economic values of resources it manages along 

the Colorado River (and major tributaries). This white paper summarizes how water 

allocations are made within the Colorado River system, describes the types of economic 

values provided by the NPS along the river, and discusses how alternative allocations of 

Colorado River water may affect those economic values. The economic values described 

here include welfare measures (market, non-market, use, and non-use values) and 

regional economic impacts. The last section of the paper presents a recommended 

approach to estimating the economic values of resources within Colorado River park 

units. This paper was produced as Phase I of potentially a four phase project. 

The study focus is on the major two-reservoir and river corridor system centered on Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area (Lake Powell), the river corridor through Glen Canyon 

and Grand Canyon, and on Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The study will also

include the other Colorado River or reservoir influenced units, including Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, and Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument. Additionally, the study will incorporate available economic values of other 

uses (e.g., hydropower, flood control, agriculture, etc.). 

In evaluating these economic values, it’s important to understand the linkage between the 

National Park System resources and the economy (Figure 1). The economic demand for 

the direct recreational use of these resources is amenity-driven. Visitors come to 

Colorado River park units because of quality amenities including scenic vistas, geologic 

features, and water, wildlife, archeological, cultural, and biological resources. This 

visitation demand leads to expenditures in the region and positive impacts on the regional 

economy. Accordingly, through the link to amenity-driven direct recreational use, the 

NPS mandate to preserve natural resources can significantly benefit regional economies. 

Similarly, the conservation of park resources and their values relates to nonuse values 

through the motives of existence and bequest. Nonuse values are the values associated 

with knowing that these resources are in a viable condition and with wanting future 

generations to also be able to enjoy this heritage. 

These basic linkages between quality amenities and the economy (amenities-visitationregional economy and amenities-use and nonuse) also correspond to the two primary 

economic accounting systems appealed to in policy and management decisions: regional 

economic impacts (jobs and income) and welfare impacts (comparison of social benefits 

and costs). As will be seen in examples described below of policy decisions concerning 

NPS resources both along the Colorado River and elsewhere in the nation, changes in 

amenity levels can lead to both significant regional economic impacts and have 

significant allocative implications in a benefit-cost setting. 

The Colorado River and its tributaries are the most significant source of freshwater in the 

arid Southwestern United States. The benefits of this resource include the provision of

approximately 15 million acre feet of highly valued western water, supplying, among 

other uses, a good share of the agricultural production of California’s Imperial and 

11
Cochella valleys and municipal and industrial water to several of the West’s largest cities 

including Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Through the hydroelectric 

developments at numerous dams, including Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams, hundreds of 

millions of dollars worth of electric energy are provided annually. No less important, the 

river corridors and reservoirs, particularly through Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon, 

as well as upstream on the Green and Gunnison, are among the most highly valued 

natural resources of the United States for their recreational, cultural, aesthetic and 

ecological services (NRC, 1996). The great value placed on these recreational 

experiences is, in part, indicated by the twelve-year wait, in recent years, for a private 

Grand Canyon float trip permit. The Colorado is also home to several endangered 

species, including the humpback chub. 

Reflecting the national significance of the recreational, cultural and natural resources 

found along the Colorado River is the relatively high density of national park units 

(parks, monuments, and recreation areas) relative to most other areas of the United States. 

Ten NPS units encompass approximately 1,000 of 3,000 miles of the Colorado River 

system (Table 1). 

These ten river or reservoir influenced units include Grand Canyon National Park, which 

has not only national, but international significance, as reflected in its designation (in 

1979) as a World Heritage Site by the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization. These NPS units are important recreational resources, supporting a 

total of nearly 20 million recreational visits in 2005 (Table 1). This visitation has a 

significant impact on the regional economy. 

Table 1. Estimated 2005 Visitation: River or Reservoir Influenced 

National Park System Units Along the Colorado River 

NPS Unit 2005 Total Recreational Visits 

Arches NP 781,279 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP 180,812 

Canyonlands NP 393,381 

Curecanti NRA 882,767 

Dinosaur NM 391,559 

Glen Canyon NRA 1,908,725 

Grand Canyon NP 4,401,521 

Lake Mead NRA 7,765,772 

Rainbow Bridge NM 81,206 

Rocky Mountain NP 2,798,368 

Total 19,585,390 

Not surprisingly, given the many demands on this river, an elaborate set of laws, 

institutions, and rules has developed over time. This “Law of the River” includes the 

Colorado River compact of 1922, but also all previous and subsequent statutes, judicial 

decisions, and treaties that affect water use (Ingram et al., 1991; Reclamation 2005a). 

Overall, the Law of the River allocates water between the upper and lower basin states 

and Mexico, but also provides general direction (through the Criteria for Coordinated 

Long Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs) for releasing water from the major 

dams on the system including Glen Canyon and Hoover on the Colorado, Fontenelle and 

Flaming Gorge on the Green, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal (Aspinall Unit) on 

12
the Gunnison, Navajo on the San Juan, and lakes Mead, Mohave and Havasu on the 

lower river).

The Secretary of the Interior is the water master for the lower Colorado River. Water 

allocation decisions are implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation primarily through its 

operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams. 

Balancing of various beneficial uses of the river (including agriculture, municipal and 

industrial uses, and hydroelectric generation), against potential impacts to recreational, 

cultural and natural resources is an ongoing process. In particular, in the early 1980’s 

there was increased concern over the environmental and recreational impacts of the daily 

and seasonal operation of Glen Canyon (which was essentially operated as a peaking or 

load-following facility). Among the environmental costs of the dam as historically 

operated were the suppression of native fishes, in part through significant changes in 

water temperature, erosion of beaches valued as campsites by rafters, and large daily 

changes in discharge volume and water level that impacted ecosystems and recreationists. 

These concerns led, in 1982, to the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) which 

were intended to document the effects of dam operations on resources other than 

hydroelectric power. This series of studies, and a related environmental impact statement 

process (Reclamation 1995), culminated in the Secretary of the Interior’s Record of 

Decision (ROD) on October 8, 1996. One primary outcome of this process, which 

included evaluating nine different flow regimes, were significant changes to operating 

limits at the dam (constraining minimum and maximum releases and “ramp rates”). 

Another primary outcome was establishment of an Adaptive Management Program to 

monitor the environmental and recreational impacts of the new flow regime as well as 

experimental flows to investigate impacts on specific resources, such as beach/habitat 

building flows, and effects on endangered fisheries. 

The Adaptive Management Program is ongoing, and is primarily implemented through an 

Adaptive Management Work Group and Technical Work Group. The Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), created in November 1995, conducts 

monitoring and research to support Adaptive Management Program recommendations to 

the DOI Secretary. 

From an economic viewpoint, several of the competing uses of Colorado River water 

have relatively ready measures in market transactions – the prices wholesalers and 

consumers pay for electricity, transactions in water rights for agriculture, municipal and 

industrial uses, and in the prices paid for residential water service. This is not the case, 

however, for many of the services for which the NPS is steward – including those 

included under the agency’s dual mandate (from the NPS Organic Act of 1916) of 

recreation and preservation. Moreover, through the Redwood Act of March 27, 1978, 

Congress declared that when a conflict arises between conserving national park resources 

and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be the primary 

concern. 

As will be described below, the Glen Canyon studies resulted in the completion of two 

important economic studies, one in 1987 and the other in 1995, of recreation and 

13
preservation uses, respectively. These studies, while having a narrower scope than the 

work proposed here, provide a good example of both use and nonuse studies of economic 

values along the Colorado River. However, these studies are now ten to twenty years old, 

and the Adaptive Management Program has not to date continued to monitor or measure 

the effects of alternative flow regimes and experiments on these important economic 

values (NAS 1999; Loomis, Douglas, and Harpman 2005). 

While economic analysis of NPS-related values has been undertaken in the last twenty

years for the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, these previous studies primarily 

focus on just the river corridor in Grand Canyon National Park. River regulation at Glen 

Canyon Dam also impacts water levels at Lake Powell (Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument) and at Lake Mead (Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area), which also incorporate major recreational and natural resources. 

Additionally, visitor use and natural resources at other NPS units, including Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Dinosaur National Monument, and Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument are also influenced by the Colorado River system dams. Economic analysis of 

NPS values and the relationship to water allocation has, in general, been even more 

limited at these other units relative to the Grand Canyon river corridor. 

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section briefly summarizes 

how water allocations are made within the Colorado River system. This summary focuses 

on the legal framework embodied in the Law of the River and other institutional 

constraints that govern how Colorado River water is allocated and used. The next section 

describes the types and significance of economic values provided by National Park 

System resources within this watershed, and discusses how alternative allocations of

Colorado River water may affect those economic values. The last section of the paper 

presents a recommended approach to estimate relevant economic values provided by 

Colorado River influenced National Park System resources. This approach will relate 

estimated economic values to existing hydrological models of the Colorado River system. 

This will provide an analysis tool for evaluating the impact of alternative water 

allocations on National Park System visitation and resources. 

II. The Law of the River 

Over time, a set of laws, institutions, and rules has developed to allocate Colorado River 

water. Unlike many Western rivers where the doctrine of prior appropriation primarily 

allocates water among users, on the Colorado River this is not fully the case. This may be 

in part because of the very high value of this scarce resource and because of the need to 

allocate water among states with competing interests. The Colorado River is managed 

and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, 

contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the “Law of the River.” 

(Reclamation 2005a). This collection of decisions and agreements apportion the water 

and regulates the use and management of the Colorado River among the seven basin 

states and Mexico. 

14
The allocation of Colorado River water, as embodied in the Law of the River, is an 

ongoing, dynamic process. Elements of that process include responding to changing 

inflows in the short term, and, in the longer term, evolving societal values relating to 

natural resources, including endangered species and ecosystems, as well as accumulating 

knowledge on the actual physical and hydrological entity being managed. For example, 

the science concerning the influence of river flow levels and water quality (including 

temperature) on both sediment management and endangered fish in the Grand Canyon is 

still evolving. It appears that ongoing and future allocative issues related to hourly, 

monthly, seasonal, and annual time scales will affect NPS values along the Colorado 

River. Understanding those values and how they are impacted by river 

operation/allocation decisions will improve the decisions that are made. 

In the past, the primary issue on which NPS values were explicitly recognized and 

quantified were on hourly-level flow management decisions (as embodied in the 1996 

Record of Decision on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam). The focus of these decisions 

has been on the river corridor through the Grand Canyon. It appears that some current 

policy and allocative issues require a larger spatial scale, at least including the tworeservoir and river corridor system (Lake Powell, the Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon 

river corridor, and Lake Mead). Additionally, there are some parallels to the system

centered around Glen Canyon Dam elsewhere in the basin. For example, river flow 

regulation, recreation, and endangered fish, are ongoing issues of concern for the river 

corridors below Flaming Gorge and the Aspinall unit on the Gunnison. 

III. National Park Service Resource Values 

This section describes the types of and general significance of economic values provided 

by the resources along the Colorado River (much of which is managed by the NPS). 

Additionally, this section describes how alternative Colorado River operations and 

allocations may affect those economic values. The economic values described in this 

task include welfare measures in a social benefit-cost framework (market, non-market, 

use, and non-use values) and regional economic impacts. 

Types of Economic Values Provided by NPS Resources within Colorado River park 

units

There are many dimensions to the services provided by the resources along the Colorado 

River, many of which are managed by the NPS. These resources include, but are not 

limited to cultural, aesthetic, recreational, natural history, wildlife and bird life, and 

ecosystem services. 

Market versus Non-Market Values. A primary dichotomy of economic values is the 

division of values into those that can be traded within existing economic markets, and 

those for which no developed market exists. Examples of resource services specific to 

the Colorado River system that are traded in markets are power generated from dams, 

water deliveries to farms or municipalities, or commercial river tours. While a number of 

services provided by the Colorado River System and the NPS units within the drainage 

can be classified as market services (with associated market-derived values), there are 

15
many services provided by this river system and the NPS units along it that are classified 

as non-market services. These non-market resource services include noncommercial 

boating, fishing, swimming, birdwatching, flood control, protection of cultural sites, and 

aesthetic services. 

Use v. Nonuse Values. A second dichotomy of resource services and associated values 

is that of use and nonuse services and values. The most obvious type, use services, 

relates to direct onsite uses. For public uses of natural resource services provided by 

national park units these include boating, fishing, or wildlife observation. The second 

type of resource services are so-called nonuse services. These services have values that 

derive from a given resource and are not dependent on direct on-site use. Several of the 

possible motives for nonuse values were first described by Weisbrod (1964) and Krutilla 

(1967), and include existence and bequest values. Existence values can derive from

merely knowing that a given natural environment or population exists in a viable 

condition. For example, if there was a proposal to dam the Grand Canyon, many 

individuals could experience a real loss, even though they may have no expectation of 

ever personally visiting the river corridor through the Grand Canyon. Other individuals 

might similarly suffer a loss if the grizzly bear were to be made extinct in the Northern 

Rockies, even though those individuals may have no desire to directly encounter a 

grizzly. Bequest motives derive from ones’ desire to provide for future benefit to 

children and others in future generations. There may be many possible motives for 

nonuse values, and these motives may or may not be mutually exclusive. 

The methods used to estimate nonuse values are so-called stated preference methods 

(including contingent valuation and conjoint analysis (National Research Council 2005)). 

Individuals are asked in a survey to indicate directly the value they place on nonuse 

services or resources. These methods are generally accepted and applied in policy 

analysis, as evidenced by their endorsement as a recommended method in regulatory 

guidelines. These include the Department of the Interior regulations for implementing the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (or 

CERCLA, at 43 CFR part 11) and in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis (2000). 

These methods have now been widely applied and reported in the published economics 

literature. When contingent valuation as a recommended approach was challenged in

court (Ohio v. United States Department of Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 474 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 

the court affirmed its usefulness for natural resource damage assessment. Additionally, in 

the context of the development of related regulations for implementation of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), the use of contingent valuation was reviewed by a panel which included several 

Nobel laureates in economics. The panel endorsed the use of contingent valuation in a 

litigation setting, subject to the caveat that studies meet certain recommended guidelines 

(Arrow et al 1993). 

As noted below, contingent valuation has been previously applied along the Colorado 

River both for use values (Bishop et al. 1987) and for passive use values (Randall and 

Stoll 1983; Welsh et al. 1995). Harpman, Welsh, and Bishop (1995) describe the 

16
importance of nonuse economic values as a policy analysis tool, with specific reference 

to water-influenced resources in the Grand Canyon. 

Nonuse values are particularly relevant to the management of National Park System

resources given the mandates of the NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1) and the Redwood 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-1). Those mandates establish the fundamental purpose of the National 

Park System as conserving park resources and values, and providing for their enjoyment 

by the public. The conservation of park resources and values directly relates to nonuse 

values through the motives of existence and bequest. Nonuse values also relate to the 

public enjoyment of park resources and values since the public includes both people who 

directly experience parks and those who enjoy them from afar. 

While use services may or may not have associated developed markets for them, nonuse

services are exclusively non-market services. 

Total Valuation and Ecosystem Services. When nonuse and use values are estimated 

together, the estimate is referred to as total economic valuation (TEV). This concept was 

first introduced by Randall and Stoll (1983) and has been further developed by Hoehn 

and Randall (1989). 

Figure 2 places the use and nonuse values described above within an overall structure 

relating ecosystem services to human values (National Research Council 2005). The 

figure illustrates the feedback loop wherein human actions and policy directly impact 

ecosystem functions and structure and resulting ecosystem goods and services. This 

figure details two types of use under the category “use values.” These are consumptive 

resource use (such as hunting, fishing, or final water use in agriculture) and 

nonconsumptive use. Nonconsumptive use of resources is further divided into direct and 

indirect use. Direct nonconsumptive use includes such activities as boating, swimming, 

and aesthetic viewing. Indirect nonconsumptive use includes resource services such as 

flood control or habitat support. 

The types of resources and values provided by NPS units along the Colorado River 

include examples from all categories of values shown in Figure 2. Most significantly, 

these values include both use and nonuse values. Any reliable estimate of total value 

associated with services provided by these resources must therefore be estimated within a 

total value framework (as described above), including both estimates of use values and 

non-use values. 

17
Figure 2: Connections between ecosystem structure and function, services, policies and 

values (source, NAS 2005)

The National Research Council (2005, at p. 6) offers the specific guidance that: 

“Economic valuation of changes in ecosystem services should be based on the 

comprehensive definition embodied in the TEV framework; both use and non-use values 

should be estimated.” 

Significance. The total valuation framework developed above, including both use and 

nonuse values, can be used (along with some readily available previous studies) to 

address the economic significance of the NPS-related resources in the Colorado River 

Watershed. As shown conceptually in Figure 2, one might want to investigate both use 

values (for example, including recreational uses of all kinds) for National Park System 

resources in the basin, as well as nonuse values for key resources of interest. In addition 

to the breakout of use and nonuse by unit, it is useful to distinguish total values of current 

use levels or states, as opposed to marginal values associated with a change in some

environmental parameter (such as river or reservoir levels, presence/absence of given 

species, etc.). 

These are two quite different kinds of problems, with the latter being the more 

formidable. Only some of these different categories of values for NPS resources along the 

Colorado River system have been previously estimated. The following discussion draws 

on some of this economic literature by way of discussing the significance of NPS 

resources in this basin. The existing literature indicates the general significance of these 

resources in economic terms. 

18
To date the number of published estimates of the value of recreational visits to National 

Park System units is somewhat limited. Kaval and Loomis (2003) identified eleven 

studies that provided 49 activity-specific net economic value per activity day estimates. 

The activities included sightseeing, boating, picnicking, hiking and wildlife viewing. 

Updating the Kaval and Loomis (2003) average estimates from 1996 dollars to 2005 

dollars indicates an average value per day across all 49 observations of $53.88. The 

updated average that Kaval and Loomis report for the Southwest Region national parks is 

$28.16. As noted earlier, studies of whitewater boating in Glen Canyon and Grand 

Canyon indicate net economic values on the order of several hundred dollars per trip and 

higher. A recent study, using a travel cost model, also provides estimates of values for a 

subset of seven National Parks along the Colorado River (Markowski et al. 2004). The 

results of this study, which are still preliminary, indicate that net economic benefits per 

trip may be higher than indicated by earlier work. 

Economic Studies of NPS Resources in the Colorado River. To date there have been 

two major economic studies related to NPS-related uses in the Colorado River corridor, 

both in the context of the Glen Canyon studies. These studies, while having a fairly 

narrow geographic scope (just the river corridor through Glen Canyon and Grand 

Canyon), are discussed here as a good example of the type of proposed economic 

analysis outlined in section IV below. Both of these earlier studies focused on identifying 

marginal values, in the sense of measuring the change in value associated with moving 

from the base case or no action alternative in the EIS planning process for Glen Canyon 

Dam to some specific alternative. By having these marginal values, it was possible in the 

EIS process to compare the tradeoffs of alternative uses, including recreation and power 

generation values. 

The economic context here is that generally the monthly allocation of flow releases at 

Glen Canyon is based on maximizing the value of power, subject to the constraints 

imposed by other purposes. In the early years of operation, the main constraints were 

providing sufficient available storage for flood control and river regulation. Typically this 

has meant that releases are higher in the months when power is most valuable, during the 

winter heating season and the summer cooling season. For example, given the markets 

for power in the Southwest in the mid-1990’s, releases were about 20 percent greater in a 

typical water year during the months of December, January and February and June, July 

and August, compared to the spring and fall months (Harpman 1999a). 

Historically, hourly releases at Glen Canyon Dam have also been driven largely by 

hydropower economics. Prior to 1991, Glen Canyon was operated as a more or less 

unconstrained load following (or peaking) plant, with higher releases during the day and 

early evening when power demands (and values) were highest and lower releases during 

the night. This could mean a change from releases as high as 31,500 cfs (plant capacity 

prior to the late 1980’s) during the day to as low as 1,000 to 3000 cfs (the historical 

minimum release in winter and summer, respectively). There were no constraints on how 

quickly these flow changes occurred (e.g., no constraint on ramp rates or allowable daily 

fluctuations). For the first several decades of Glen Canyon’s operations, this led to flow 

level fluctuations below the dam on many days on the order of 7 to 12 feet. 

19
The first Glen Canyon economic study focused on recreational use and was undertaken 

by Bishop et al. (1987). This study was conducted as part of the Glen Canyon 

Environmental Studies program during 1984 and 1985. The overall goal of the Bishop 

study was to evaluate the impacts of alternative flow release patterns from Glen Canyon 

Dam on white-water boating, day-use rafting, and fishing on the Colorado River below 

the dam. The 1987 study authors conducted a several phase investigation in order to 

address their goal. First, user surveys were conducted to identify the attributes of fishing 

and floating trips that provided value to users. A second, more comprehensive contingent 

valuation survey of river users addressed potential changes in resource values associated 

alternative flow release patterns. While Bishop et al. found no statistically significant 

relationship between flow levels and values associated with day-use floating below Glen 

Canyon Dam, they found a strong link between flows and both fishing and whitewater 

boating values. The study found that for whitewater rafters relatively constant flows 

between 20,000 and 25,000 cfs yielded the highest satisfaction and associated values. 

For anglers, a similarly constant flow regime in the 10,000 cfs range yielded improved 

recreational trip values over current flow regimes (Bishop et al. 1987, pp. 170-178). As 

an example of the range in values, the net economic value per trip (willingness to pay

over and above trip costs) for commercial whitewater boaters was estimated at $127 per 

trip ($236 in 2005 dollars) at a 5,000 cfs flow level and rose to a maximum value of $888 

per trip ($1,653 in 2005 dollars) at higher flows. 

The Bishop et al. (1987) economic study is one of a number of such studies reported in 

the economics literature that relate changes in streamflow levels to use or nonuse values. 

These usually include recreation, but also may include other environmental services such 

as endangered species. For example, Brown (1991) lists nine studies of the value of 

instream flow for recreational activities including fishing, boating, and general shoreline 

activities. Duffield et al. (1992) estimated marginal WTP per acre foot for a range of 

flows at two sites, the Bitterroot River in Western Montana, and the Big Hole River in the 

headwaters of the Missouri River system. A related study in cooperation with the 

U.S.D.A. Rocky Mountain Experiment Station in Fort Collins estimated nonuse values 

for these same resources based on a random sample of regional households (Brown and 

Duffield, 1995). 

As noted previously, the second Colorado River study examined nonuse values. 

Contingent valuation methods were applied to estimate willingness to pay to improve 

native vegetation, native fishes, game fish (such as trout), river recreation, and cultural 

sites in Glen Canyon NRA downstream of Glen Canyon Dam and in Grand Canyon NP 

(Welsh et al. 1995). This study utilized a population survey of two groups, Western U.S. 

households within the marketing area for Glen Canyon power, and households in the 

entire U.S. Respondents were asked questions of their willingness to pay either increased 

electric power rates (Western U.S. sample) or higher taxes (national sample) to reduce 

flow fluctuations from Glen Canyon Dam to protect wildlife, beaches, and cultural sites. 

The study results (Table 2) show that the “steady flow” scenario that was presented as 

being most beneficial to resource protection also had the highest associated values. 

20
Table 2. Welsh et al. (1995) Estimates of Nonuse Values for Three Glen Canyon 

Flow Scenarios. (2005 dollars) 

National Sample Western US Sample 

Flow Scenario Per Household 

Annual Value

(millions) Per Household

Annual Value

(millions) 

Moderate 

Fluctuations 

$17.74 2,791 $29.05 79

Low Fluctuations $26.19 4,386 $28.25 80 

Steady Flow $26.91 4,474 $38.02 107 

While the nonuse study for the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon NP (Welsh et 

al. 1995) was completed too late to be fully utilized in the 1995 EIS (Reclamation 1995), 

the study findings did have an influence on the EIS outcome. The National Research 

Council panel that reviewed the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies commented 

favorably on this study. Their report stated: “The GCES nonuse value studies are one of 

the most comprehensive efforts to date to measure nonuse values and apply the results to 

policy decisions. ... While not completed in time to be reported in the final EIS, the 

nonuse value results are an important contribution of GCES and deserve full attention as 

decisions are made regarding dam operations.” (National Research Council, 1996, at p. 

135) 

The National Research Council panel also compared annual values associated with three 

of the EIS alternatives for power, direct use values (recreation), and nonuse values (Table 

3). Their report showed that for the seasonally adjusted steady flows alternative, the 

foregone power revenues are somewhat larger than the combined recreational and nonuse 

values in the marketing area (western U.S.) As the panel noted (National Research 

Council 1996, pp. 133-134), the national nonuse values, however, are about 30 times 

larger than the foregone power revenues for seasonally adjusted steady flows. 

Table 3. Annual Values Associated with Alternative Dam Operations ($ millions) 

Nonuse Values

Flow Scenario Power Recreation National

Marketing 

Area 

Moderate Fluctuating Flows -36.7 to -54.0 +0.4 +2,286.4 +52.2 

Low Fluctuating Flows -15.1 to -44.2 +3.7 +3,375.2 +50.5 

Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow -88.3 to -123.5 +4.8 +3,442.2 +81.4 

Source: National Research Council, 1996, Table 7.3, p. 134. 

With respect to the significance of recreation use values in the Glen Canyon operations 

context, the influence of flows on recreational values is primarily through the effect on 

the quality of the trip. There is excess demand for river recreation below Glen Canyon 

Dam (use is basically always at the permitted capacity in the main season). This limits the 

potential magnitude of changes in use values in response to changing flow regimes. By 

contrast, the nonuse value effects are quite large relative to the foregone power revenues 

for the alternatives examined, and have allocative significance. 

In more recent work on the impacts of changed flow regimes on power generation values, 

Harpman (1999a) provides an estimate of $6.1 million for a representative water year, 

using an hourly simulation of Glen Canyon operations and actual spot market prices and 

21
loads for 1996. Harpman and Jalbert (1997) and Harpman (1999b) estimated the impact 

of the eight day beach/habitat building flow of 1996 on hydropower and recreation. Short 

term recreational impacts were found to be negligible, but power costs were estimated to 

be on the order of $2.5 million. Because the high flow of 45,000 cfs was in excess of

power plant capacity, about 15,000 cfs were spilled daily for eight days that would 

normally have been used to generate power. Additionally, to implement the spill, it was 

necessary to reallocate water releases primarily from the months of January, February, 

July, and August to March and April. Accordingly, water that was used to generate power 

was reallocated from a time when flows were more valuable to a time when it was less

valuable. 

In the context of the general linkages between resources/amenities and the economy 

shown in Figure 1, the Bishop (1987) and Welsh et al. (1995) studies focus on the social 

benefit-cost implications. Regional economic impacts were not as significant for this case 

given that visitor use was constrained at permitted-capacity levels and there was 

considerable excess demand. The bottom line is that varying resource attributes including 

flow levels, stability of flows, beach size, and the status of endangered fisheries and 

riparian ecosystems had allocative implications through the linkage to both direct use and 

nonuse. In this case the social benefit-cost was dominated by nonuse values, and the 

findings strongly supported the EIS preferred alternative’s changes to the daily flow 

regime. 

The estimates of the Welsh (1995) contingent valuation study are conservative in that 

Welsh chose in his methodology to count only those “yes” respondents that also indicated 

they would “definitely yes” pay the stated amount. The use of only “definitely yes” 

responses has been shown in other CV validity studies to provide a valid estimate of 

actual willingness to pay. Champ et al. (1997) also found this result in assessing the 

nonuser social value of a program at Grand Canyon NP to remove compacted dirt roads 

on the North Rim of the Canyon. A more recent study by Champ and her colleagues that 

is focused on riparian ecosystems (Duffield, Neher, Patterson, and Champ 2005) also 

found that CV responses with a self-rated high certainty of actual contribution 

corresponded well with actual levels of cash donations. The application in this case was 

to purchases of instream flow rights on dewatered Montana streams, primarily to benefit 

riparian ecosystems, fishery species of special concern, and other wild fish. 

Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that Grand Canyon National Park was also the 

setting for a much earlier nonuse valuation studies, focused on the national values 

associated with improved visibility. This included the Randall and Stoll (1983) study 

mentioned earlier that was the first to use a total valuation framework and Schultz et al. 

(1983). This and other studies eventually led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

on October 3, 1991, to issue a regulation requiring the Navajo Generating Station coalfired power plant to reduce sulfur emissions. In a 1990 study, the annual benefits of 

achieving 90% emission control was estimated to be between $130 and $150 million 

annually, compared to the estimated costs of this control of $89.6 million (1990 dollars). 

Deck (1997) describes both the benefit and cost studies that were the basis of this 

decision. 

22
Another good example of the importance of nonuse valuation estimates for National Park 

System management policy is the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National 

Park. In the early 1990’s wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho 

was the nation’s preeminent wildlife debate, and more than 160,000 people commented 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The economic evaluation of the wolf 

reintroduction alternative rested largely on the nonuse values associated with restoring 

wolves to this ecosystem (Duffield and Neher 1996). 

Amenity Linkages to the Regional Economy. The economic impact of National Park 

System visitor spending on local economies has been previously investigated in a number 

of contexts. An example for the Colorado River is Douglas and Harpman (1995) who 

estimated the total expenditure by day use rafters, anglers, and commercial and private 

boaters in the Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon river corridor. In addition to expenditures 

on commercial guides and outfitters, recreational visitors spend money on lodging, food, 

gasoline and other consumer items. These expenditures support retail and wholesale 

businesses and create induced spending throughout the regional economy. Douglas and 

Harpman defined their economic region as Coconino and Mohave Counties, and used an 

IMPLAN (Minnesota Implan Group 2005) regional economic model to compute job 

creation. Loomis, Douglas, and Harpman (2005), updated the Douglas and Harpman 

1995 estimates to 2004 dollars, and identified a total of $22 million in nonresident visitor 

expenditure in these two counties tied to Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon recreation. The 

estimated total number of jobs supported by this expenditure (based on the original study) 

is 586. This is consistent with more recent estimates by Douglas (2005) of 438 total jobs

created by whitewater boating in the Grand Canyon.

Other studies of the regional economic impact of National Park System visitation include 

Neher and Duffield’s (2000) study of the economic impacts of flooding in Yosemite 

National Park, the economic impacts of the 1995-96 federal government shutdown on 

park visitation (Duffield et al. 1996), and the regional economic impacts of changing 

winter use management (for example, banning snowmobile use) in Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks (Duffield and Neher 2000). 

While the Glen Canyon studies focused on the river corridor below Glen Canyon, river 

regulation also affects reservoir levels on Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Unlike river 

running in the Grand Canyon, visitation at Lake Powell is not constrained at some level 

of permitted capacity. Accordingly, the changes in use levels at issue in consideration of

reservoir level impacts are potentially quite large. For example, the total 2005 

recreational visitation to Glen Canyon NRA was reported by the NPS as 1.9 million 

visits, and to Lake Mead NRA at 7.8 million (Table 2). This is a much larger visitor base 

that is in part water-level dependent, compared to the potential impact of Glen Canyon 

Dam operations on Grand Canyon permitted river runners (who totaled less than 22,000 

in 2003). 

Just as there is an economic literature on instream flow values, there is a related literature 

on the effect of reservoir levels on recreation. Huszar et al. (1999) developed and 

estimated a joint model of fish catch and recreation demand, both of which depend on 

water levels, to assess the losses and gains from water level changes tied to events in the 

23
Humboldt River Basin of Northern Nevada. Additionally, Eiswerth and Englin, et al.

(2000) estimated recreation values for preventing a decline in water levels at, and even 

the total loss of, a large western lake that is drying up. 

IV. Recommended Approach

This section describes a recommended approach to estimate Colorado River and reservoir 

influenced economic values for NPS resources within Colorado River park units, as well 

as incorporate other available economic values associated with the river (i.e., values for 

hydropower, agriculture, municipal and industrial uses, etc.). 

The motivation for this proposed research is that the NPS does not have recent or

comprehensive economic values to represent their current water-related activities 

along the Colorado River. Nor can NPS place the value of the services its resources 

provide within the context of the overall value of these resources. 

The geographical focus is on the two-reservoir and river corridor system including Lake 

Powell, the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, and the other river and reservoir influenced 

National Park System units in this watershed. The specific study area units include: 

• Grand Canyon National Park (river corridor focus) 

• Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

• Rainbow Bridge National Monument 

• Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

• Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

• Canyonlands National Park 

• Curecanti National Recreation Area 

• Dinosaur National Monument. 

This approach addresses how to relate estimated economic values to existing hydrologic 

models of the Colorado River system in order to evaluate the impact of alternative 

operating scenarios and water levels on National Park System resources. This section 

also provides a budget for the approach described. 

Three specific goals of this proposed research are: 

• estimate values for NPS river and reservoir related uses along the Colorado River 

system, and compile other available economic values associated with the river 

(i.e., values for hydropower, agriculture, municipal and industrial uses, etc.). 

• identify the most significant marginal use and nonuse values for alternative 

management schemes for water allocation and flows in the basin 

• integrate these marginal values into existing hydrological models of the basin, 

including the development of a user-friendly model for policy analysis 

This section is organized as follows. First, an overview is provided on the recommended 

approach for organizing the study into distinct, logically-related, phases with identifiable 

24
products or milestones at each phase. Secondly, taking account of the direction of the 

most recent economics literature in this field with regard to methods, and what is known

to date about NPS values in the region, several high priority focuses for measuring use 

and nonuse values are identified. Lastly, a specific research program to implement these 

studies is summarized, along with schedule, tasks, deliverables, personnel allocation, and 

budgets specific to each phase of the project and each fiscal year. 

Organization and Scope of Work. 

This is a proposal to estimate the following types of economic values associated with 

water allocations on the Colorado River: 

• direct recreational use values for water-related activities in river park units

• nonuse values associated with the public’s preferences for conservation of 

resources within NPS units along the Colorado River 

• regional economic impacts resulting from water-related visitor use along the 

Colorado River system including output, jobs and income

This approach would also identify the most significant marginal use and nonuse values 

for a set of alternative management schemes, water allocations, and dam operations in the 

Colorado River system. These marginal values would be integrated into existing 

hydrological models of the Colorado River system, including development of a userfriendly model for policy analysis. Users would be able to evaluate the impact of 

alternative river operations and water allocations on the use of NPS resources. As 

currently conceived, this approach would also compile other available economic values 

(i.e., hydropower, agriculture, municipal and industrial uses, etc.) in order to place the 

NPS values in the overall context of water management on the river. 

While this white paper (Phase I of the overall project) has provided a cursory overview of 

the relevant economics literature, the logical approach to achieving the study goals is to 

proceed in three additional phases:

• Phase II. Review existing literature and data 

• Phase III. Conduct original research. 

• Phase IV. Integrate and communicate. 

Phase II-Review existing literature and data. Conduct a careful and thorough review

of the literature surrounding uses and values associated with Colorado River parks, and 

other potentially comparable recreational venues and activities. This review of existing 

studies and methods will be used to answer as many questions as possible surrounding

use and values of Colorado River park visitation and other water uses along the river. 

This process will also provide information on where significant gaps exist in the available 

information on park-related values. 

Phase III-Conduct original research. Address the information gaps for park-related 

values identified in Phase II. The focus is on Lake Powell, the river corridor through Glen 

Canyon and Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, as well as major substitute water-based 

25
recreational sites for the primary study area. This research will include visitor and 

population surveys of use and nonuse values. While not included in this initial proposal, 

these original research efforts could be expanded to include non-park-related values in 

partnership with other managing agencies. 

Phase IV- Integrate and communicate. Integrate Phase II and III results, and use of 

benefits transfer of values from original research and the literature to estimate direct use 

values for the other Colorado River park units as appropriate. All relevant economic 

values will be estimated, including welfare measures (market, non-market, use, and nonuse values) and regional economic impacts. This integration will relate estimated 

economic values to existing hydrologic models of the Colorado River system in order to 

evaluate the impact of alternative water allocations on the use of NPS resources. The 

economic values provided by NPS resources within Colorado River parks will be 

compared to other economic values associated with the Colorado River (e.g., 

hydropower, water storage, irrigation water uses, urban water uses). The research 

products will include: 

• a user-friendly analysis tool to estimate marginal values from alternative 

management schemes 

• a technical document that fully describes the background, methods, data, and 

results of this project 

• a non-technical document that communicates study findings to the general public. 

Methods.

This section provides an overview of the methods to be applied in each phase of the 

recommended approach.

Phase II. Review of existing literature and data. NPS and Bureau of Reclamation 

records (plus the records of other managing entities as appropriate) provide a large body 

of data on visitation, and dam and reservoir operations. It is anticipated that a review of 

this data, as well as the economics literature, will provide estimates of economic values 

for most beneficial uses of the Colorado River, including agriculture, hydropower, and 

municipal and industrial water uses. Much of the relevant economics literature has been 

summarized above. Additionally, NPS management documents and associated technical 

reports provide park specific data on visitation, site characteristics, etc. Gathering this 

data and body of documents will form the first level of the literature search. 

Additionally, relevant resource studies from similar resources and settings to those found 

in Colorado River park units will be surveyed in order to identify possible value estimates 

for use in a benefits transfer analysis to preliminarily address the first objective of this 

study of developing comprehensive estimates of values. 

In addition to collection of existing studies and data, this project would entail some

additional analysis of existing data as appropriate. 

Research products from Phase II: 

• written report on findings 

26
• peer review 

Phase III. Conduct Original Research. It is anticipated that there will be a need to 

collect original data in three different surveys. The major work elements in this phase 

will be in the design, implementation (data collection), analysis, and report writing 

related to these three surveys: 

• a survey of recreational visitors to estimate use values and expenditures in 

the study area 

• a survey of residential populations in the multi-state area encompassing the 

Colorado River to estimate nonuse values 

• a survey of national households to estimate nonuse values 

While not included in this initial proposal, these original research efforts could be 

expanded to include non-park-related values in partnership with other managing 

agencies. Such efforts could include estimating the values for hydropower, agriculture, 

municipal and industrial uses, and other relevant water values. 

Based on the literature review summarized previously, there appear to be several 

significant data gaps. Preliminarily, there is a need to expand the direct use/regional 

economic analysis to a broader set of sites than the original (now 20 years old) work by 

Bishop et al. (1987). The latter focused on the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. 

It appears that a current need is to expand the core set of sites to include Lake Powell 

(Glen Canyon NRA) and Lake Mead, as well as to replicate and extend the original work 

by Bishop et al. The direct use study will utilize a random utility maximization (RUM) 

travel cost modeling framework, but will also include a replication and extension of the 

contingent valuation questions used by Bishop et al (1987) for boaters in the Grand 

Canyon. The RUM travel cost model is the most widely used multiple-site model for 

examining recreational demand. Kling and Herriges (1999) and Parsons (2003) provide 

recent overviews of the related economic literature. 

The focus of this direct recreational use model will likely be on the major two-reservoir 

and river corridor system centered on Glen Canyon Dam. This is where most of the 

hydropower is produced in the Colorado River system, and also where the most 

significant water-related visitor use occurs. Additionally, this is where the allocation of

water between the upper and lower basin states occurs. To correctly model use at these 

core sites, the model will need to include major substitute sites in the Colorado River 

area. This will likely include other NPS units including Black Canyon of the Gunnison, 

Dinosaur Monument, and Canyonlands, but possibly also Flaming Gorge, and popular 

floating sections on the Green, Upper Colorado, and the San Juan. Determining the 

appropriate set of sites for this model of water-based recreation along the Colorado River 

will be a study task. Preliminarily, a sample of 3000 potential respondents will be 

contacted. Recruitment will likely be a combination of on-site visitor contacts at key 

access points as well as random digit dialing to obtain a probability sample of Colorado 

River users. A panel data set will be created with up to four contacts per respondent 

(combination mail/phone methods) to create a record of recreational use that minimizes 

recall bias and sample attrition. 

27
A second need is for nonuse studies that utilize state of the art methods and that address 

scenarios and attributes that are relevant to current policy and water allocation decisions. 

Identifying the most important study area resources and attributes from a nonuse 

standpoint will be a specific task in this phase. As early as 1999, the National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) concluded that while the nonuse study by Welsh (1995) was high 

quality, the methods were no longer state of the art, and, in particular, the scenarios 

examined, were no longer as policy relevant. A new NAS publication (2004) is explicitly 

focused on nonuse values for ecosystem services. The recommendation of this study, and 

the direction of the recent economics literature, is to use the more flexible methods of 

conjoint analysis, which emphasizes resource attributes as opposed to examining just one 

scenario (as in contingent valuation), which can later turn out to be an irrelevant one. 

Additionally, conjoint analysis does not run the risk of insignificant “scope effects” 

(response one expects from economic theory to quantitative changes in the environmental 

parameters of interest, such as the number of birds saved by a given restoration program, 

etc). Holmes and Adamowicz (2003) and NAS (2004) provide a survey of the relevant 

literature on conjoint analysis and related attribute-based choice models. In addition to 

its endorsement by the NAS (2004) panel for nonuse value estimation, conjoint analysis 

is also the method of choice in a current major nonuse study sponsored by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The focus of this latter work is on assessing 

alternative conservation strategies for coral reefs. 

The sampling frame for the nonuse study will include two strata: Colorado River 

residents and national residents. Preliminarily, the targeted number of completed surveys 

is 2000. The contact method will likely be either phone or web-based, or a combination 

of these two approaches. 

It is anticipated that this phase of research will include the following key components: 

• Individual interviews with policy makers to identify relevant policy issues and 

questions 

• Use of focus groups to aid in development of understandable, efficient, and 

reliable survey instruments 

• Use of professional survey research firms, either phone or web-based as 

appropriate. 

• Peer review of draft survey instruments, draft sampling plans and draft reports 

will be an integral part of this study component with a minimum of two 

independent peer reviewers at each stage. 

Research products from Phase III: 

• Focus group reports 

• Draft survey instruments, sample design, survey methods 

• peer review of instruments, design, and methods 

• package of survey related materials submitted for OMB approval 

• three final data bases corresponding to the three survey efforts 

• draft technical report describing methods and findings 

• peer review of draft technical report 

28
• final technical report 

Phase IV. Integration and Communication. This phase will include: 

• integration of existing studies and original research to develop a comprehensive 

set of economic values for Colorado River park units 

• benefits transfer to estimate NPS values to all Colorado River park units, as 

appropriate 

• integration of estimated values with existing hydrological models of the Colorado 

River system to evaluate water allocation alternatives 

• user friendly analysis tool to calculate changes in economic values 

• documents to communicate findings to technical and non-technical audiences 

The economic value estimates developed in Phases II and III can be stated in terms of 

dollars per unit of water resource (e.g. dollars per change in foot reservoir elevation or 

per cfs for flows). These economic parameters will be tied to hydrological models so that 

the economic effect of changes in water allocation can be measured. There are a number 

of existing hydrological models of the Colorado River Watershed; these include several 

maintained by Reclamation. One of these is an hourly model focused on power 

generation and values, another is the model used for planning at the monthly and annual 

level for purposes of the Annual Operating Plan. However, a number of different models 

exist that have been used. 

The identification of the appropriate hydrological model or models will be a project task. 

The primary constraint of this task is that marginal values need to be estimated in a way 

that is compatible with the time step/environmental parameter provided by the model. In 

fact, the given marginal values are likely to be compatible with any number of specific 

models of a given genre. 

Development of a user-friendly analysis tool will enable NPS staff to calculate the 

changes in the economic values of National Park System resources that are associated 

with alternative operating scenarios and water levels: 

• the user will be able to input a change in water allocation 

• the model will output the change in economic values associated with the given 

allocation 

• The model will distinguish short-term and long-term effects of a given water 

allocation 

In the short term, capital investment in NPS recreation-related facilities, such as the 

location and number of boat ramps or marinas, is taken as fixed. The short-term

economic effects are limited to water level fluctuations, given existing capital 

investments. In a long-term analysis, investments in facilities can change and be adjusted 

29
to best utilize the opportunities associated with a given flow regime or range of reservoir 

levels. 

The development of this analysis tool will be done using an Excel spreadsheet format. 

This program has been utilized in several similar NPS-sponsored modeling efforts 

including creation of a model of socioeconomic impacts of Yellowstone NP winter use 

level management options (Duffield and Neher, 2001). This model had a number of 

applications during rulemaking on the winter use plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks, for example NPS (2004). This software platform was also used in the 

development of the MGM2 “Money Generation Model” (Stynes and Propst 2001) for 

modeling impacts of visitation to NP units on local area economies. 

Research products from Phase IV: 

comprehensive set of values for study area sites 

• draft technical report 

• user friendly analysis tool 

• peer review report 

• final technical report 

• final nontechnical report 

Schedule, Tasks, and Budget 

This section provides a narrative description of the timeline, tasks, milestones, and 

budget for the recommended approach. Detailed budget tables are provided in Appendix 

A. 

Timeline. Table 5 provides a timeline for Phases II through IV of this recommended 

approach. The study is projected to be completed in three years. It is anticipated that: 

• Phase II will require five months to complete 

• Phase III will require 21 months (including 7 months survey review) 

• Phase IV will require 10 months. 

A wild card in development of a schedule is the need for review by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) of sample plans and survey instruments. This formal 

review includes publication of notices in the Federal Register. It is possible that OMB 

approval will be granted in as little as several months. A more likely estimate is seven 

months, which is the time period for OMB review included in the three year timeline.

However, it is possible that approval could take as long as 12 to 18 months, which could 

add another year to the project. 

The schedule shown in Table 4 assumes OMB approval will be completed in seven 

months. It is possible that the use study will be approved sooner, and the nonuse study 

later. These two original studies can progress independently. Because of the possible 

delay in OMB approval, a fourth year is shown on the schedule in Table 4 that would 

accommodate an additional seven month delay in OMB approval for at least one study (a 

30
total of 14 months review). In any case, the budgets described below are based on current 

cost rates, and will need to be updated if the project is delayed. 

Table 4. NPS Colorado River Drainage Project Timetable 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 Phase II (5 months) Phase III 

2 Phase III cont. (21 months) 

3 Phase III cont. Phase IV (10 months) 

4 Potential OMB delay of up to 7 months 

Tasks and Milestones. Table 6 provides a list of research tasks and milestones and 

research products for each study phase. The primary research products for Phase II are a 

draft and final report. As in all phases, there is peer review of the study at key design 

points as well as for major products. In Phase II there is peer review of the draft report. 

As in other phases, there is also a presentation scheduled of key findings in this phase for 

the study Steering Committee. 

In Phase III, tasks are somewhat different between the direct use and the nonuse studies, 

accordingly tasks for each of these studies are listed separately. The direct use study 

includes: 

• preliminary site assessment 

• identification of site characteristics 

• geographic extent of the market 

• survey agents contact a probability sample of visitors 

Development of the sample frame of visitors in Phase III will entail considerable travel. 

By contrast, the sample frame for the nonuse studies will be based on random samples of 

resident populations from listed samples such as phone listings or from web-based 

sample frames. 

The nonuse study will also include use of focus groups to identify the attributes of 

amenities and resources that are most significant to potential respondents.

 Peer review for both the use and nonuse studies is at the stage of sampling plan and 

survey design, as well as for the draft report. 

This phase will include development of a package (survey, sampling plan, justification) 

for submission to OMB. The Principle Investigator (PI) is familiar with this process, 

having successfully obtained OMB approval for surveys in the past. A total of four trips 

31
to Washington, DC for meetings with OMB during this process are scheduled in this 

phase for the PI. 

Separate presentations for the Steering Committee are scheduled for the direct use study 

and the nonuse study. 

In Phase IV, the major research products include: 

• a report on comprehensive values 

• summary of direct use regional economic impacts 

• user-friendly analysis model 

• draft and final technical and non-technical documents 

• Peer review on the draft technical report. 

Two presentations to the Steering Committee are scheduled: after completion of the userfriendly analysis model, and after completion of the technical and non-technical 

documents. 

32
Table 5. Tasks and Milestones, by Project Phase 

Phase Task Milestone

Phase II 

Task 1. Synthesize existing literature 

relevant to the Colorado River 

Task 2. Additional analysis of existing

datasets 

Task 3. Preliminary comprehensive estimate

of Colorado River NPS resource values from

existing literature and benefits transfer 

Task 4. Identify data gaps important for 

Phase III work plan 

Task 5. Phase II Draft Report 1) Draft Report

Task 6. Phase II peer review / revisions /

Final Report 2) Final Report 

Task 7. Presentation to Steering Committee 3) PowerPoint presentation 

Phase Task Milestone

Phase III (A) Direct Use 

Task 1. Preliminary Site Assessments 

Task 2. Establish Geographic scope of

market

Task 3. Study site characteristics 

Task 4. Sample plan and draft survey 

instrument

1) Sample plan and draft survey

instrument

Task 5. Peer review and revisions 

2) Final sampling plan and

survey instrument 

Task 6. Pretest and revisions

Task 7. OMB submission and approval 3) OMB package 

Task 8. Conduct survey(s)

4) Report on sample size and 

response rates 

Task 9. Estimate valuation models and 

analysis

Task 10. Write Draft Report 5) Draft report 

Task 11. Peer Review and Revisions 6) Final Report

Task 12. Presentation to Steering 

Committee 

7) Direct Use PowerPoint 

Presentation

Phase Task Milestone

Phase III (B) Nonuse 

Task 13. identify nonuse related attributes 

through focus groups and interviews 8) Qualitative research report 

Task 14. Draft Sample plan and survey 

instrument

9) Draft sample plan and survey 

instrument

Task 15. Peer review and revisions

10) Final sample plan and 

survey instrument 

Task 16. Pre-test and revisions 

Task 17. OMB submission 11) OMB Package 

33
Task 18. Conduct nonuse survey 

12) Report sample sizes and 

response rates 

Task 19. Estimate model and analysis 

Task 20. Draft Report 13) Draft Report 

Task 21. Peer review and revisions 14) Final report

Task 22. Presentation to steering committee

15) Nonuse PowerPoint

presentation 

Phase Task Milestone

Task 1. Integrate information from Phases II

& III to a comprehensive estimate of the 

value provided by NPS resources along the 

Colorado River. 

1) Report on comprehensive 

value 

Task 2. Select/construct hydrological

models to interface with economic value 

parameters 

Task 3. Conduct regional economic 

modeling at the multi-county and basin-wide

scale 

Task 4. Integrate change in water-related

amenity attitudes, changes in visitor use, and 

model of regional economic impacts 

2) summary of direct use 

impacts on the regional

economy

Task 5. Integrate change in water-related

amenity values to changes in welfare 

measures for both for Direct use and nonuse

values

Task 6. Compute economic values provided

by NPS resources along the Colorado River

with other economic values associated with 

the Colorado river (e.g. hydropower, water 

storage)

Task 7. Integrate amenity-direct useregional economies model with Hydrological

models in a user friendly analysis tool for 

NPS staff use 

3) User-friendly integrated

analysis model 

Task 8. Presentation of Analysis Model to

Steering Committee 4) PowerPoint presentation 

Task 9. Draft technical document summary 

of project background, models, datasets, and 

results 5) Draft Technical document

Task 10. Peer review and revisions 6) Final technical document

Task 11. Nontechnical document describing

project and results 7) Nontechnical document

Task 12. Presentation to Steering 

Committee 8) PowerPoint presentation 

Phase IV 

9) Submit 2 papers to a peerreviewed journal

34
Budget. The recommended approach is assumed to be contracted through the Rocky 

Mountains Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit, located at the University of Montana. 

This implies a relatively low (17.5%) overhead rate. All rates reported here are based on 

actual and projected University of Montana rates for the key personnel. The budget 

presented here presumes an efficient research structure with a single Principle 

Investigator and all key team members at the University of Montana. If a different 

structure is implemented that includes multiple collaborators, costs would be somewhat 

higher. 

Key personnel include: 

• Dr. John W. Duffield (Ph.D. Economics, Yale, 1974), 

• Dr. David A Patterson (Ph.D. Statistics, University of Iowa, 1983), 

• Mr. Chris J. Neher (MA Economics, University of Montana, 1989). 

Other study participants will include peer reviewers, and Research Assistants. The RA’s 

will conduct data entry, site contacts, and other supervised tasks. 

Allocation of personnel time across study phases is shown in Table 6, by project phase 

for each of the three remaining phases of the project. 

Table 6. Personnel Allocation by Phase and Budget Period 

(months) 

Personnel 

Duffield Patterson Neher

Research 

Assistant II 

A) Time Allocation by Phase 

 Phase II 4 0 4 0 

 Phase III 16 6 16 22 

 Phase IV 8 2 8 0 

Totals 28 8 28 22

It is anticipated that there will be a total of four peer reviewers. Two reviewers will 

participate in all phases of the review. It is anticipated that one of these reviewers will 

fund his/her own participation. Two other reviewers will focus on the direct use, and 

nonuse studies, respectively, as well as the final technical document. The review of the 

Phase II report will require two reviewers and three days each. The Phase III review of 

each study plan/survey instrument will require three reviewers five days each, for both

the nonuse and use study plans. The draft reports in this phase will require three 

reviewers each and three days each reviewer. The final technical report will require four 

reviewers three days each. 

Future academic salary rates at the University of Montana are projected to increase at 4% 

on October 1, 2006, and 3.75% in each of the following years. Fringe rates are assumed 

stable. Health insurance rates increase $50 each year on June 1. The total personnel 

35
budget (excluding peer review and subcontracted services) is $798,252 (allocation of

personnel effort by project phase is detailed in appendix Tables A4-A6). 

Travel budgets are shown in Appendix Tables A1 – A3. The on-site visitor survey agent 

travel budget totals $39,032. Trips by the PI to the Denver area for meetings with the 

Steering Committee are budgeted at $720 each. Trips to Washington DC by the PI are 

budgeted at $1,200 each. Per Diem rates are State of Montana, out-of-state travel rates. 

Lodging is federal lodging allowance. Airfare and car rentals are based on a recent web 

search. 

Subcontracts include peer review (a total of 44 days at $1500/day or $66,000), data 

collection for the nonuse study (2000 at $35 per complete or $70,000), and contracted 

data collection for the use study (recruit RDD visitor sample 1000 at $30 or $30,000, 

panel data collection by phone/mail at 1500 times three contacts at $25,000 per contact or 

$75,000, and web-administered survey at $5,000). 

Appendix Tables A4 to A6 show budgets for all items by project phase. These totals are 

$113,189 for Phase II, $950,647 for Phase III, and $276,679 for Phase IV. 

Table 7 shows a summary budget. Budget elements include: 

• salaries $798,252 (including 36 months at the Ph.D. level in economics and 

statistics, 28 months at the MA level (economics) and 22 months for research 

assistant support)

• travel $53,612 (including survey agent travel, and PI travel to meet with OMB 

and the study Steering Committee)

• subcontracts $246,000 (including peer review at key study design and draft report 

stages, and data collection)

• other operations ($43,000 (primarily mail survey costs)

• total direct cost of $1,140,864

• indirect costs are $199,651, based on the RM-CESU overhead rate of 17.5 

percent

The total budget for Phases II-IV of the recommended approach is $1,340,515. This 

proposed work and budget has been approved by the University of Montana 

administration, and is ready to be implemented.

36
Table 7. Summary Total Project Budget, by Phase 

 Phase II Phase III Phase IV Total Budget

Total Personnel Costs $ 91,111 $ 486,610 $ 220,532 $ 798,252 

Total Travel $ 720 $ 51,452 $ 1,440 $ 53,612 

Total Subcontracts $ 4,500 $ 228,000 $ 13,500 $ 246,000 

Total Operations $ - $ 43,000 $ - $ 43,000 

Total Direct $ 96,331 $ 809,062 $ 235,472 $ 1,140,864 

Total Indirect $ 16,858 $ 141,586 $ 41,208 $ 199,651 

Total Budget $ 113,189 $ 950,647 $ 276,679 $ 1,340,515 

To conclude this section, the recommended approach is to organize the study into three 

sequential phases: 

• Phase II-literature review and synthesis 

• Phase III-original research

• Phase IV-integration and communication. 

The major work elements are in phases III and IV. In Phase III it is recommended that 

both a direct recreational use and a nonuse values study be undertaken. The focus of the 

direct recreational use study will be on the river and reservoir system centered around

Glen Canyon Dam and including Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The nonuse values study 

will focus on resource attributes impacted by water allocation decisions, potentially 

including endangered fish, beach /habitat enhancement, archeological and cultural 

features, and other ecosystem services and resources. The recommended approach is 

projected to take three years at a cost of $1,340,515. 

References

Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1983. Report 

of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. 

Bishop, R., K. Boyle, and K. Welsh. 1987. “Glen Canyon Dam Releases and 

Downstream Recreation: an Analysis of User Preferences and Economic Values.” 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Report No. 27/87. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Washington, D.C. 

Bishop, R., K. Boyle, and M. Welsh. 1993. “The Role of Question Order and Respondent 

Experience in Contingent-valuation Studies.” .” Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management. 25(1):S80-S99. 

Brown, T. 2004. “The Marginal Economic Value of Streamflow from National Forests.” 

Discussion Paper DP-04-01, RMRS-4851. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Ft. Collins, CO. 

37
Brown, T. and J. Duffield. 1995. “Testing Part-Whole Valuation Effects in Contingent 

Valuation of Instream Flow Protection.” Water Resources Research 31(9): 2341-

2351 (September). 

Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum. 1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms

to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management. 33(2):151-162. 

Dawdy, David R. 1991. “Hydrology of Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon,” in Colorado 

River Ecology and Dam Management: Proceedings of a Symposium May 24-25, 

1990. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. 

Deck, Leland. 1997. “Visibility at the Grand Canyon and the Navajo Generating Station.” 

In Richard D. Morgenstern, ed. Economic Analysis at EPA: Assessing Regulatory 

Impact, pp. 267-301, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. 

Douglas, A.J., 2005. Colorado River environmental and recreational values below Glen 

Canyon Dam: Fort Collins, Colo., U.S. Geological Survey. 

Douglas, A.J., and Harpman, D.A., 1995. Estimating recreation employment effects with 

IMPLAN for the Glen Canyon Dam region: Journal of Environmental 

Management 44:233-247. 

Duffield, J. 1992. “An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park 

Visitor Attitudes and Values.” In John D. Varley and Wayne G. Brewster, Ed. 

Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the U.S. Congress Vol. IV. Research & 

Analysis, pp. 2-31 to 2-87. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, 

July 1992. 

Duffield, J. and C. Neher. 1996. “Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone 

National Park”. Transactions 61st. North American Wildlife and Wilderness 

Conference. Pp. 285-292. 

Duffield, J. and C. Neher. 2000. “Winter 1998-99 Visitor Survey Yellowstone N.P., 

Grand Teton N.P., and the Greater Yellowstone Area.” National Park Service, 

Yellowstone National Park, May 2000. 

Duffield, J. C. Neher, and T. Brown. 1992. “Recreation Benefits of Instream Flow: 

Application to Montana’s Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers” Water Resources 

Research 28(9): 2169-2181. 

Duffield J. and T. Brown. 1995. "Testing Part-Whole Valuation Effects in Contingent 

Valuation of Instream Flow Protection". Water Resources Research 31 (9):2341-

2351 

Duffield, J., J. Carrey, C. Neher, T. Power, and R. Walsh. 1996. “The Economic Impacts 

of the 1995-96 Shutdown of the National Park System: Macro Study.” Report for 

the National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

38
Duffield, J., C. Neher, D. Patterson, and P. Champ. 2005. “Replication of a Cash and 

Contingent Valuation Experiment.” Proceedings from 2005 Western Regional 

Research Project W-1133: Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

Eiswerth, M. E., J. Englin, et al. (2000). “The value of water levels in water-based 

recreation: A pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model.” Water 

Resources Research 36(4): 1079-1086 

Griffen, R. 1998. “The Fundamental Principles of Cost-benefit Analysis.” Water 

Resources Research. 34(8)2063-2071. 

Harpman, D. A. 1999a. “Assessing the Short-Run Economic Cost of Environmental 

Constraints on Hydropower Operations at Glen Canyon Dam.” Land Economics 

75(3):390-401 (August). 

Harpman, D. A. 1999b. “The Economic Cost of the 1996 Controlled Flood.” In The 

Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon. Geophysical Monograph 110. Edited by 

Robert H. Webb, John C. Schmidt, G. Richard Marzolf, and Richard Valdez. 

Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 

Harpman, D. A. and L. M. Jalbert. 1997. Impacts of the Glen Canyon Dam Beach/Habitat 

Building Flow on Recreation and Hydropower. July 14. Draft paper. 

Harpman, D.A., M.P. Welsh, R.C. Bishop. 1995 “Non-use Economic Value: Emerging 

Policy Analysis Tool.” Rivers 4(4):280-291. 

Herriges, J.A. and C. L. Kling. 1999. Valuing Recreation and the Environment.

Northhampton: Edward Elgar, 290 pp. 

Hoehn, J., and A. Randall. 1989. “Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test.” 

American Economic Review. Pp.544-551. 

Holmes, T.P. and W.L. Adamowicz. 2003. “Attribute-Based Methods”. Pp 171-220 in 

P.Champ, K.J. Boyle, and T.C. Brown, eds. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. 

Boston: Kluwer. 

Huszar, Eric, W. Douglass Shaw, Jeff Englin, and Noelwah R. Netusil. 1999. 

“Recreational Damages from Reservoir Storage Level Changes” Water Resources 

Research 35, 11: 3489-3494. 

Ingram, H., A. Tarlock, and C. Oggins. 1991. “The law and politics of the operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam.” IN: Colorado River ecology and dam management.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 10-27. 

39
Kaval, Pam, and John Loomis. 2003. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values with 

Emphasis on National Park Recreation. Fort Collins: Department of Agricultural 

and Resource Economics, Colorado State University. 

Krutilla, J. 1967. “Conservation Reconsidered.” American Economic Review. 57(4):777-

786. 

Leggett, Christopher G., Naomi S. Kleckner, Kevin J. Boyle, John W. Duffield, and 

Robert Cameron Mitchell. 2003. “Social Desirability Bias in Contingent 

Valuation Surveys”. Land Economics 79(4):561-575 (November). 

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

Values of Glen and Grand Canyons.” IN Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward 

Better Environmental Decision Making. National Academy Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Minnesota Implan Group. 2005. www.implan.com. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1999. Downstream: Adaptive Management of Glen 

Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem. National Academy Press, 

Washington D.C. 230 pgs. 

National Park Service. 2004. “Economic Impact Analysis of the Temporary Winter Use 

Plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, 

Jr., Memorial Parkway.” Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service Environmental 

Quality Division, August. 

National Research Council. 1996. River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better 

Environmental Decision Making. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Neher, C.J. and J.W. Duffield. 2000. "Economic Analysis of National Park issues: An 

Assessment of the Impacts of the 1997 Floods in Yosemite Park". Park Science

20(1):21-23 (Spring 2000). 

Parsons, George. 2003. “The Travel Cost Model”. Pp. 269-330, in P. Champ, K.J. Boyle, 

and T.C. Brown, eds. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Boston: Kluwer 

Power Resources Committee. 1995. Power System Impacts of Potential Changes in Glen 

Canyon Power Plant Operations, Phase III Final Report. 305 pp. Stone Webster 

Manage. Consult., Inc., Denver, CO (NTIS No. PB96-114004). 

Randall, A. and J. Stoll. 1983. “Existence Value in a Total Valuation Framework.” IN 

Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness 

Areas. (Rowe and Chestnut, Eds. 1983). 

40
Schulze, W., D. Brookshire, et al. 1983. “The Economic Benefits of Preserving Visibility 

in the National Parklands of the Southwest.” Natural Resource Journal Vol. 23, 

149-165 

Stockton, C.W. and G.C. Jacoby. 1976. “Long Term Surface Water Supply and Stream 

Flow Trends in the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Lake Power Research Project 

Bulletin No. 18 (University of California at Los Angeles: Institute of Geophysics 

and Planetary Physics). 

Stynes, D., D. Propst, W. Chang, and Y. Sun. 2000. “Estimating regional economic 

impacts of park visitor spending: Money Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2).” 

East Lansing, MI: Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, 

Michigan State University 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Operation of Glen Canyon 

Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Glen Canyon Dam

Modifications to Control Downstream Temperatures—Plan and Draft 

Environmental Assessment. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Colorado River Interim 

Surplus Criteria Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Henderson, NV. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Glen Canyon Dam

Beach/Habitat Building Test Flow: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. 2005 Colorado River 

Annual Operating Plan. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2005a. Law of the River at 

http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/lawofrvr.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2005b. Draft 2006 Colorado 

River Annual Operating Plan. http://www.usbr.gov/lc/riverops.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. 

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. “Economic and Environmental Principles for 

Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies.” U.S. Govt. printing 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

Weisbrod, B. 1964. “Collective Consumption Services of Individual Consumption 

Goods.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 78 pp. 471-477. 

41
Welsh, M., R. Bishop, M. Phillips, and R. Baumgartner. 1995. “Glen Canyon Dam,

Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona—Nonuse Value Study Final Report.” 

Madison, WI. 

White, P.J., Douglas W. Smith, Michael Jimenez, Terry McEneaney, John W. Duffield, 

and Glenn Plumb. 2005. “Yellowstone After Wolves: Environmental Impact 

Statement Predictions and Ten-Year Appraisals”. Yellowstone Science 13(1):34-

41 (Winter 2005). 

42
Appendix A: Detailed Budget Tables

Table A1. Estimated Travel Budget - NPS Colorado River Unit Visitor Survey: 

On-site Visitor survey 

Unit cost Number Total cost Category subtotal 

Airfare Details

RT Flight - Missoula/Flagstaff $800 2 $ 1,600 

RT Flight - Missoula/Denver 350 2 $ 700 

 $ 2,300 

Per Diem

225 person days 28 225 $ 6,300 

 $ 6,300 

Lodging

Grand Canyon/Flagstaff 68 112 $ 7,616 

Colorado 93 112 $ 10,416 

 $ 18,032 

Car Rental

Denver monthly rental 1,100 4 $ 4,400 

Flagstaff monthly rental 1,000 4 $ 4,000 

 $ 8,400 

Gas, tolls, parking, misc. 1,000 4 $ 4,000 

 $ 4,000 

Total travel budget $ 39,032 

Above budget assumes 4 people surveying for 8 weeks apiece. 

A total of 32 weeks (224 days). Also assumes each person will rent 

a compact car. Per diem rates are State of Montana, out-of-state travel rates. 

Lodging is Federal lodging allowance. Airfare and Rental car rates are based on 

10/13/05 Search of Travelocity.com rates for a 2 month period in the summer of 2006.

Table A2. Estimated Travel Budget - NPS Colorado River Unit Visitor 

Survey: PI Denver Trip 

Unit cost Number Total cost Category subtotal 

Airfare Details

RT Flight - Missoula/Denver 350 1 $ 350 

 $ 350 

Per Diem

3 days per trip 28 3 $ 84 

 $ 84 

Lodging

Colorado 93 2 $ 186 

 $ 186 

Car Rental

Denver 3 day rental 100 1 $ 100 

 $ 100 

Total travel budget $ 720 

Assumes each person will rent a compact car. Per diem rates are State of Montana, out-of-state 

travel rates. Lodging is Federal lodging allowance. Airfare and Rental car rates are based on

10/13/05 Search of Travelocity.com rates 

43
Table A3. Estimated Travel Budget - NPS Colorado River Unit Visitor 

Survey: PI Washington DC Trip 

Airfare Details

RT Flight - Missoula/Dulles 700 1 $ 700 

 $ 700 

Per Diem

2 days per trip 28 2 $ 56 

 $ 56 

Lodging

DC 166 2 $ 332 

 $ 332 

Taxi etc parking $ 112 

Total travel budget $ 1,200 

Per diem rates are State of Montana, out-of-state travel rates. 

Lodging is Federal lodging allowance. Airfare and Rental car rates are based on 

10/13/05 Search of Travelocity.com rates 

44
Table A4. NPS Colorado River Basin Project: Phase II 

1) Personnel Budget Days Unit price Line Total Totals 

Salaries

 Duffield 86 620.45 $ 53,359 

 Patterson 0 338.6 $ - 

 Neher 86 192.15 $ 16,525 

 RA II 0 0 $ - $ 69,884 

Fringe 

 Duffield 22.75% 12,139 

 Patterson 18.00% - 

 Neher 30.50% 5,040 

 RA II 10.00% - 17,179 

Health

 Duffield 4 months 506 $ 2,024 

 Patterson 0 506 $ - 

 Neher 4 months 506 $ 2,024 

 RA II 0 506 $ - $ 4,048 

2) Travel

PI to Denver 1 time 720 $ 720 $ 720 

3) Subcontracts 

3 peer review days (phase II) 1500 $ 4,500 $ 4,500 

Total Direct $ 96,331 

4) Indirect 

17.5% of total direct $ 16,858 

Total Budget - Budget Phase II $113,189 

Note : Phase II health estimated at 506 

Patterson compensation: Treated as extra compensation in Phase II: 18% fringe rate and no Health 

45
Table A5. NPS Colorado River Basin Project Phase III 

1) Personnel Budget Days Unit price Line Total Totals 

Salaries

 Duffield 344 636.29 $ 218,882 

 Patterson 128 347.62 $ 44,495 

 Neher 344 196.96 $ 67,754 

 RA II 473 83.22 $ 39,363 $370,495

Fringe

 Duffield 22.75% $ 49,796 

 Patterson 22.22% $ 9,887 

 Neher 30.50% $ 20,665 

 RA II 10.00% $ 3,936 $ 84,284

Health

 Duffield 20 months 566.00 $ 11,320 

 Patterson 566.00 $ 1,169 

 Neher 20 months 566.00 $ 11,320 

 RA II 14 months 573.00 $ 8,022 $ 31,831

2) Travel

PI to Denver 2 times 720 $ 1,440 

PI to DC 4 times 1200 $ 4,800 

Travel to Flagstaff -site assessment (10 

days) 2160

Travel for focus groups -2 people, 3 2-

day trips (Denver cost basis) 1340 $ 4,020 

Direct use on-site survey (32 person

weeks) $ 39,032 $ 51,452

3) Subcontracts 

32 peer review days (phase III) 1500 $ 48,000 

Nonuse survey data collection 2,000 @ 35 $ 70,000 

Recruit RDD Visitor sample 1000 @ $30 $ 30,000

Survey 1500 3x @ 25,000 per wave $ 75,000

Implement Web-based survey $ 5,000 $228,000

4) Operations

Mail contact direct use sample (3000 @$10) $ 30,000 

nonresponse mail survey 1,200 @ $8 $ 9,600 

Miscel. Phone/FedEx/Printing $ 1,000 

Focus groups (4 groups of 8 at $50 plus 4*$200 for 

room rental $ 2,400 $ 43,000

Total Direct $809,062

4) Indirect 

17.5% of total direct $141,586

Total Budget - Budget Phase III $950,647

Patterson Compensation Year 2: 4 months treated as extra compensation (18% fringe) and 2 

months as Buyout of Classes (30.5% fringe, health @ FTE*12*monthly health rate)

46
Table A6. NPS Colorado River Basin Project Phase IV 

1) Personnel Budget Days Unit price Line Total Totals 

Salaries

 Duffield 172 672.61 $ 115,689 

 Patterson 43 365.35 $ 15,710 

 Neher 172 208.3 $ 35,828 

 RA II 0 0 $ - $167,227

Fringe

 Duffield 22.75% $ 26,319 

 Patterson 30.50% $ 4,792 

 Neher 30.50% $ 10,927 

 RA II 10.00% $ - $ 42,038

Health

 Duffield 8 months 625 $ 4,998 

 Patterson 625 $ 1,271 

 Neher 8 months 625 $ 4,998 

 RA II 625 $ - $ 11,267

2) Travel PI to Denver 2 times 720 $ 1,440 $ 1,440

3) Subcontracts 

9 peer review days (phase IV) 1500 $ 13,500 $ 13,500

Total Direct $235,472

4) Indirect 

17.5% of total direct $ 41,208

Total Budget - Budget Phase IV $276,679

Note : Phase IV health estimated at (5 months * 606 + 3 months *656) / 12 = 624.75

Patterson Compensation Phase IV: 2 months as Buyout of Classes (30.5% fringe, health @ 

FTE*12*monthly health rate)

47