1 / 22

Catherine A. Roberts Joanna A. Bieri

Impacts of Low-Flow Rates on Recreational Rafting Traffic on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Catherine A. Roberts Joanna A. Bieri. Basic Information. Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (IA # 00-AA-40-4330)

pakuna
Télécharger la présentation

Catherine A. Roberts Joanna A. Bieri

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of Low-Flow Rates on Recreational Rafting Traffic on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park Catherine A. Roberts Joanna A. Bieri

  2. Basic Information • Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center(IA # 00-AA-40-4330) • Cooperative agreement between Grand Canyon National Park & Northern Arizona University (CA#8210-99-002)

  3. Contact Information • Catherine A. RobertsDept. Mathematics & Computer ScienceHoly Cross CollegeWorcester, MA 01610croberts@mathcs.holycross.edu • Joanna A. BieriDept. Mathematics & StatisticsNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, AZ 86011-5717jab34@dana.ucc.nau.edu

  4. Low Summer Steady Flow (LSSF) • 17,000 - 19,000 cfs in April and May • Four days of 31,000 cfs in early May • Steady 8,000 cfs June - September • Four days of 31,000 cfs in early September Glen Canyon dam releases during summer 2000

  5. Objective of Study To examine the impact of LSSF on recreational rafting traffic on the Colorado River within the Grand Canyon National Park.

  6. Outline of the Study • Collect Trip Reports during LSSF. • Place information into database. • Compare “low flow” data to “typical flow” data collected during 1998/1999.

  7. Trip Report

  8. Trip & Flow Classifications • Commercial = C • Private = P • Trip Length = days between Lees Ferry (river mile 0) and Diamond Creek (river mile 225.7). • Low Flow = LSSF (8,000 cfs) • Typical Flow = 1998/1999 (19,000 cfs)

  9. Four Trip Types • Motor • Short 8 or fewer days • Long 9 or more days • Oar • Short 14 or fewer days • Long 15 or more days

  10. Low Flow Trip Reports • Short Motor 61 C, 0 P • Long Motor 3 C, 3 P • Short Oar 23 C, 2 P • Long Oar 10 C, 18 PTOTAL = 120 Trip Reports599 launches 20% return rate

  11. Typical Flow Trip Reports • Short Motor 222 C, 7 P • Long Motor 18 C, 9 P • Short Oar 64 C, 24 P • Long Oar 18 C, 125 PTOTAL = 487 Trip Reports1,689 launches 29% return rate

  12. Boat Speed Low vs. Typical Flow

  13. Boat Speed: Short Motor

  14. Boat Speed: Long Motor

  15. Boat Speed: Short Oar

  16. Boat Speed: Long Oar

  17. Average Daily Miles

  18. Daily Number of Activities

  19. Daily Time Spent on Activities

  20. Daily Time Spent on Activities

  21. Conclusions • No change in number of activities/day • No change in number of miles/day • Boats spent more time on water • Boat speeds slower • 50% reduction in time spent on activities

  22. What’s Next? • Analysis of campsite and activity visitation frequencies for “low” and “typical” flows. • Final report to GCMRC • Several graphs posted on our website:http://odin.math.nau.edu/~msl

More Related