the Interior

 ey

Socioeconomics Research and Moni

Update: Project 13.1 ‐ Recreatio

Lucas Bair, U.S. Geological Survey

October 2016 Technical Workgroup Meeting

U.S. Department of U.S. Geological Surv 

U. S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey 
Socioeconomic Monitoring and Re

• Economic Values of Recreational Resources 

Colorado River – Grand Canyon Whitewater and Glen Canyon Angler Values

• Tribal Perspectives for Resources

Downstream of Glen Canyon Dam

• Applied Scenario Analysis for the

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive

Management Program
2005 Protocol Evaluation Pan

the Recreation Monitoring Pro

• Understand how flows influence trip

attributes and associated preferences a

economic benefits

• Develop a conceptual model to underst

the relationship between dam operatio

recreational conditions and trip attribut
Estimating Economic Valu

• Angling and whitewater floating on the

Colorado are nonmarket goods

• Revealed or stated preference methods 

gather and analyze information

• Recreational demand is a function of tr

recreational quality, socioeconomic

characteristics (e.g., income, education
the Interior

 ey

Economic value of angling on the Co

River at Lees Ferry: Using secondary 

estimate the influence of seasona

Lucas Bair, U.S. Geological Survey

David Rogowski, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Chris Neher, University of Montana

U.S. Department of U.S. Geological Surv 

U. S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey 
Study Overview

• Objective was to estimate the seasonal

variation in economic value of angling a

Ferry and identify angler preferences th

influence their demand for angling

• Data from AGFD creel in 2012 ‐ 2014

• Used an individual travel

cost model to estimate

demand for angling
Study Area
Average Annual Trips 

1 

1 – 3 3 – 50 

Angler Visitation in Spring

(n=524) (n=110) 

(n=119) (n=110) 

Lucas S. Bair, David L. Rogowski & Chris Neher (2016) Economic Value of Angling on the Colorado River at Le

Estimate the Influence of Seasonality, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 36:6, 1229-1239, DO
Seasonal Economic Benefi

Bootstrapped aggregate model seasonal benefit estimates at Lees Ferry with confidence intervals at the 95% level (2014 dollars) 

Lucas S. Bair, David L. Rogowski & Chris Neher (2016) Economic Value of Angling on the Colorado River at Le

Estimate the Influence of Seasonality, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 36:6, 1229-1239, DO
Scenario Analysis: Recreational A

Season Anglers ValueSpring 3,491 $237

Summer 2,952 $210Winter 952 $408Fall 3,059 $264
the Interior

 ey

Economic Analysis of Glen Canyon An

Grand Canyon Whitewater Visitor S

Lucas Bair, U.S. Geological Survey

John Duffield, University of Montana

David Patterson, University f Montana

Chris Neher, University of Montana

U.S. Department of U.S. Geological Surv 

U. S. Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey 
Study Objective

• Estimate angler and whitewater visitor

preferences and economic value for trip

attributes by replicating and expanding 

Bishop et al. (1987) study

1) Are the economic benefit estimates from t

current study consistent with those estimateBishop et al. (1987)?

2) Do different methodological question formto consistent economic benefit estimates?
Survey*

• Office of Management and Budget• Data

Creel data + address in fall 2014 and spring 2

Private whitewater Sept. 1, 2014 – Aug 31, 2

• Mail survey (Dillman method)

Sample Mailed Responded Respo

Angler Fall 313 182 5Angler Spring 199 109 5

Whitewater 1,293 832 6

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Study Area
Private Whitewater Floater

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Private Whitewater Floater

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Whitewater Perceptions of Fl

• Average flow of 12,065 cfs current stud

Scenario

Better About the Same Worse

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Cu

S

5,000 cfs 4% 1% 3% 4% 93% 

13,000 cfs 25% 17% 36% 75% 39% 22,000 cfs 30% 50% 66% 40% 1% 

40,000 cfs 8% 24% 36% 13% 56% 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Whitewater Perceptions of Fl

• Average flow of 12,065 cfs current stud

• Average flow of 29,200 cfs Bishop et al. 

Scenario

Better About the Same Worse

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Cu

S

5,000 cfs 4% 1% 3% 4% 93% 

13,000 cfs 25% 17% 36% 75% 39% 22,000 cfs 30% 50% 66% 40% 1% 40,000 cfs 8% 24% 36% 13% 56% 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Whitewater Economic Valu

Scenario Current Study

Mean Value

Bishop

Mean Value

Ratio Current

Mean Value to

Bishop

B

Va

5,000 cfs $603 $233 2.59 13,000 cfs $1,169 $504 2.32 22,000 cfs $1,237 $525 2.36 40,000 cfs $962 $434 2.22 Reduced Beaches $822 $377 2.18 

Note: Scaling Bishop et al. (1987) by Consumer Price Index does not account for changes in rea

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Current Study

DCCV

Mean WTP

Bishop DCCV

WTP

Ratio Current

DCCV Mean to

Bishop Mean

B

In

cfs $603 $233 2.59 

cfs $1,169 $504 2.32

cfs $1,237 $525 2.36

cfs $962 $434 2.22 

Beaches $822 $377 2.18 

Bishop et al. (1987) by Consumer Price Index does not account for changes in rea

Whitewater Economic Valu

Scenario5,00013,000 22,000 40,000Reduced

Note: Scaling

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Whitewater Question Form

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Regional Expenditures*

Private Whitewater Expenditure Total Local Share $ Share 

Boat or river gear rented 27.6% $451 36.5% $

Food and beverages 14.5% $237 17.0% $Lodging 5.8% $95 9.0% 

Other 7.2% $118 7.1% Vehicle shuttle 4.4% $72 6.9% 

Restaurant 4.1% $67 6.3% Gas and oil for vehicle 8.6% $141 6.0% 

Take out at Diamond Creek 1.8% $29 3.0% Personal gear 7.7% $126 2.7% Boat gear purchases for trip 9.9% $162 2.0% 

Camping fees 0.8% $13 1.2% Airfare 6.5% $106 0.8% 

Car rental 0.8% $13 0.8% Native American art and craft 0.2% $3 0.4% Tow across Lake Mead 0.1% $2 0.3% 

$1,634 $

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Lees Ferry Anglers*

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Angler Perceptions of Flow

• Average flow of 10,800 cfs current stud

Scenario

Better About the Same Wors

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

3,000 cfs 23% 17% 13% 15% 64% 10,000 cfs 56% 57% 31% 35% 13% 25,000 cfs 23% 9% 44% 20% 33% 40,000 cfs 5% 2% 16% 6% 79% 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Angler Perceptions of Flow

• Average flow of 10,800 cfs current stud

• Average flow of 11,900 or 28,800 cfs

Bishop et al. (1987)

Scenario

Better About the Same Wors

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

Current

Study

Bishop

1987

3,000 cfs 23% 17% 13% 15% 64% 10,000 cfs 56% 57% 31% 35% 13% 25,000 cfs 23% 9% 44% 20% 33% 40,000 cfs 5% 2% 16% 6% 79% 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Angler Economic Value*

Scenario Current Study

Mean Value

Bishop Mean

Value

Ratio Current Mean

Value to Bishop

B

Va

3,000 cfs $348 $60 5.80 10,000 cfs $432 $126 3.43 

25,000 cfs $359 $94 3.82 

40,000 cfs $87 $52 1.67 

Note: Scaling Bishop et al. (1987) by Consumer Price Index does not account for changes in rea

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Current Study

Mean Value

Bishop Mean

Value

Ratio Current Mean

Value to Bishop

B

Va

cfs $348 $60 5.80 

cfs $432 $126 3.43 

cfs $359 $94 3.82 cfs $87 $52 1.67 

: Scaling Bishop et al. (1987) by Consumer Price Index does not account for changes in rea

Angler Economic Value*

Scenario 3,00010,00025,00040,000

Note

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Angler Question Format*

$262 Travel Cost Model 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Regional Expenditures*

Guided Non‐guided Angler Expenditure Share $ Share $

Guide Fees 31.1% $342 0.0% $0

Food and beverages 20.4% $225 13.8% $51

Lodging 11.2% $123 22.5% $83

Other 10.3% $113 13.6% $50Restaurant 6.9% $76 10.9% $40

Gas and oil 6.1% $67 24.2% $89

Personal gear 5.5% $61 4.2% $15

Boat gear 2.1% $23 5.5% $20Camping fees 2.0% $22 2.7% $10

Airfare 1.7% $19 1.5% $6

Car rental 1.6% $18 0.0% $0

Native American art and craft 1.0% $11 1.0% $4

$1,101 $36

Local $861 $26

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
Nonmarket Values: Recreat

• Non‐market values exist

– Consistent over time (ranking and absolut

– Consistent across methods

• How do we use them in improving

management

– Scenario analysis using

varying spatial and temporalaspects of resource use andmanagement
Scenario Analysis: Private Whitewa

$6.6 Million 

*Preliminary data, do not cite 
2018‐2020 Triennial Workp

• Understand how flows influence trip

attributes and associated preferences a

economic benefits

– Whitewater floating

– Lees Ferry angling– Other user groups?

• Conceptual model

– LTEMP EIS

• Revisit 2005 PEP
• Acknowledgements

– Navajo Nation, National Park Service, and 

Game and Fish Department staff for assist

– GIS analysis by Thomas Gushue with USGS

• Questions• lbair@usgs.gov

928‐556‐7362