ANNUAL VISITATION REGION/AREA
^TRO REGION
BARR LAKE CASTLEWOOD CHATFIELD CHERRY CREEK ELDORADO GOLDEN GATE KIGHLINE CANAL ROX 30 ROUGH STAUNTON SUB TOTAL 4-23-86 VISPCT2 FY 80-81 FY 81-82 FY 82-83 FY 83-84 FY 84-85 115,057 50,747 1,112,063 1,286,164 112,025 594,493 16,972 759 0 101,850 68,434 1,130,789 1,302,053 110,901 519,937 15,280 1, 388 0 100,144 69,710 953,455 1,264,996 115,893 555,751 16,210 2, 901 0 102,871 69,481 1,046,483 1,522,745 127,021 623,941 28,218 3, 999 0 114,790 67,946 1,036,762 1,279,922 141,434 529,760 0 11,246 03,288,280 3,250,632 3,079,060 3,524,759 3,181,860
NORTH REGION BARBOUR PONDS BOYD LAKE JACKSON LORY STATS FORSSTtTEAMBOAT
Pb TOTAL
FY 80-81 FY 81-82 FY 82-83 FY 83-84 FY 84-85 118,275 372,454 231,413 63,090 80,774 249,875 120,780 136,100 225,474 66,730 80,961 242,886 107,175 194,544 273,875 61,219 79,950 245,654 88,950 265,525 289,536 65,139 85,064 275,805 102,592 287,690 281,400 70,056 85,299 237,1811,115,881
872,931
962,417 1,070,019 1,114,218
SOUTH REGION BONNY ELEVEN MILE LATHRDP PUEB LO TRINIDAD MUELLER SUB TOTAL FY 80-81 FY 81-82 FY 82-83 FY 83-84 FY 84-85200,792
192,800
194,946
191,039
193,892
178,261
194,776
190,922
275,365
351,328
192,752
201,717
227,146
177,434
167,526
701,599
604.903
675,539
906,821 1,287,685
174,450
200,225
176,873
197,741
191,524
0 182 0 0 01,447,854 1,394,603 1,465,426 1,748,400 2,191,955
WEST REGION CRAWFORD HIGHLINE ISLAND ACHES NAVAJO PAONIA^^LE GAP/FALLS
^PllTZER
Wga SUB TOTAL ' total FY 80-81 FY 81-82 FY 82-83 FY 83-84 FY 84-85 68,225 240,405 82,725 132,336 16,040 143,820 77,493 90,051 77,126 247,225 79,725 135,513 24,073 163,193 87,156 94,493 851,095 908,504 85,163 69,000 68,823 204,200 213 , 055 210,312 73,996 50,143 62,406 132,596 133,352 129,825 17,567 20,937 16,759 138,520 151,714 120,735 89,581 92,079 96,345 85 ,529 84,647 86,022 827, 152 814,927 791,227 334,055 7,158,105 7,279,260DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
PARKS MAiNAGER VISITATION REPORT WITH REGIONAL SUBTOTALS FY 85-86
VISITS VISITS
SAME MONTH THIS «/•--0 VISITS VISITS "Q
REGION AREA NAME MONTH LAST TEAR MONTH INC/DEC LAST YTD THIS YTD'iNC/DEC
metro"" barr'lakI JUNE 19423 19500 0.4% 114790 ""120384 479%
METRO CASTLEWOOD JUNE 11016 9566 -13.2% 67946 75264 10.3%
METRO CHATFIELD JUNE 221303 219323 -0.9% 1036762 1131473 9.1%
METRO CHERRY CREEK JUNE 271326 277253 2.2% 1279922 1303911 2.3% METRO ELDORADO JUNE 22373 36989 65.3% 141434 180456 27.6%
METRO GOLDEN GATE JUNE 67585 77720 15.0% 529760 499648 -5.7%
METRO ROXBOROUGH JUNE 779 1403 30.1% 11246 4773 -57.6%
METRO STAUNTON JUNE 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%
SUBTOTAL
>
~6l3310 ""641759 4.6%'sislseo 3320909 4.4%
NORTH BARBOUR PONDS JUNE 16300 25652 52.7% 102592 124614 21.5%
NORTH BOYD LAKE JLTvE 36000 110500 23.5% 237690 455336 53.4%
NORTH JACKSON JIRJE 53500 68000 16.2% 231400 316200 12.4%
NORTH LORY JUNE 15360 16774 9.2% 70056 76244 3.a%
NORTH STATE FOREST JUNE 10000 30000 200.0% 85299 109045 27.8%
NORTH STEAMBOAT JUNE 53936 62104 5.4% 287131 293570 2.2%
SUBTOTAL 245596 313030 27.0% 1114213"l375^ 23.5%
SOUTH BO.NNY JUNE 43444 44412 2.2% 193392 194799 0.5%
SOUTH ELEVEN MILE JUNE 44362 43770 -2.4% 351328 239164 -17.7%
SOUTH LATHROP JUNE 26333 37425 42.1% 167526 183297 9.4%
SOUTH MLELLER JUNE 259 155 -40.2% 470 413 -12.1%
SOUTH PUEBLO JUNE 243123 264615 3.a% 1237685 1524098 13.4%
SOUTH TRINIDAD JUNE 27013 19016 -29.6% 191524 170234 -11.1%
SUBTOTAL ~~335049 409393 6.3%'2192425 "2362005 777%
WEST CRAWFORD JLOfE 12639 14085 11.0% 63323 77744 13.0%
WEST HIGHLINE JLTNE 34537 15213 -56.0% 210312 100471 -52.2%
WEST ISLAND ACRES JUNE 9733 5362 -45.2% 62406 51954 -16.7%
WEST NAVAJO JUNE 20522 16645 -9.1% 129325 119563 -7.9%
WEST PAONIA JUNE 619 171 -72.4% 16759 19057 13.7%
WEST RIFLE GAP/FALLSJUNE 21370 23962 9.6% 120735 119590 -0.9%
WEST SWEITZER JUT-E 21755 22031 1.3% 96345 104014 8.0%
WEST VEGA JLTVE 14078 15640 11.1% 36022 86650 0.7%
SUBTOTAL ""135908 115114 ""^573%"'"79I227 ""679043 "-1472%
FY 86-3/
DIVISION OF P.ARKS AND OLTDCOR RECRE.ATION
P.^J?KS MANAGER VISITATION REPORT VITH REGIONAL SLBTCTAI^
REGION AEEA NA>E
^eteo safe lake
^ETRO CASHErt'OCD
METRO CHATFIEIi) METRO CHERRY CREEK METRO ELDORADO
METRO GOLDEN GATE
METRO ROXBORCLGH METRO STALTVTON SL3TCTAT
VISITS VISITS
SA'E MONTH THIS % VISITS MONTH LAST YEAR MONTH INC/DEC LAST YID
JLNE 19500 19000 -2.6% 121386 JLNE 9566 6300 -34.1% 76254 JUNE 219328 224377 2.3% 1131473 JUNE 277253 246823 -11.0% 1308911 JUNE 36986 20790 -43.8% 179456 JLNE 77720 90629 16.6% 499648 JUNE 1403 7944 466.2% 4773 JLNE 0 0 0-0% 0 VISITS 116252 44212 -42.0% 1138454 1300019 159483 529523 20607 0 0.6% -0.7% -11.1% 6.0% 331.7% 0.0%
641756
615863
-4,0% 3321901 3308550
-0.4%
NORTH EARBCLR FONTS JLNE
NORTH BOTO LAKE JUNt
NCRTH JACKSON JUNE
NORTH LORY JUNE
NORTH PICNTC ROCK JUNE
NORTH STATE FOREST JLNE
^•CRTH
STEA>EOAT JLNE SLETOT.AL 25652 27575 7.5% 121593 163291 34.3% 110500 126900 14.8% 455336 475630 4.3% 58000 60000 3.4% 3062G0 318000 O QIV 16774 18966 13.1% 75974 77084 1 sa/ 1 • vA/O 0 4200 0.0% 0 7583 0.0% 30000 28000 -6.7% 109045 138813 27.3% 62104 54466 -12.3% 293770 289593 -1.4% 303030 320107 5.6% 1362418 1469994 7.9%SOLTH BONTTY JLTTE SCLTH ELEVEN MILE JUNE SOLTH LATHROP JL^T SOLTH MUELLER JUNE SOLTH FLEBLO JUNE SOLTH TRINIDAD JUHE
SUBTOTAL
WEST CRAWFORD JUNE WEST HIGHLINE JUNE WEST ISLAND ACRES JUNE
WEST NAVAJO JUNE WEST PAONI.A JUHE WEST RIFLE aVP/F.ALLSJUNE WEST SWEITZER JUNE
WEST VEGA JUNE
SUBTOTAL
'
TOTAL 44412 47410 S.8% 194799 182001 -6.6% 43770 50332 15.0% 289164 275997 -4.6% 37425 37457 0.1% 183297 200098 9.2% 155 328 305.2% 413 4284 937.3% 264615 279124 5.5% 1524098 1596648 4.8% 19016 24305 30.4% 170234 180247 5.9% 409393 439756 7.4% 2362005 2439275 0 • o/o 14085 19230 36.5% 77742 83463 7.4% 15218 24902 63.6% 100471 110422 9.9% 5362 10246 91.1% 51750 68160 31.7% 18645 20337 9.1% 119563 114990 -3.8% 171 664 288.3% 19057 16348 -11.6% 19170 25540 33.2% 112245 124087 10.6% 22031 17467 -20.7% 104014 102753 -1.2% 15640 16635 6.4% 86395 85535 -0.9% 110322 135021 22.4% 671237 706313 C 00/ 1464501 151C747 :.2% 7717561>ear lur iwo mspecuons. iosutuuons sucn as tbe Mesa County Jail and the Grand Junction Regional Center will be charged |100 annually. Septic tank owners will be charged
11.50 for a boddet of regulations that had been free.
The county will delay setting or charging fees for private restaurant inspections until July 1, said Eckert, because the
carrying out state-mandated programs, he said.'
Counties lose money because the legislature sets specific
fees for the multitude of programs, "and then they don't "
change those laws for years and years while inflation goes i
up, our manpower costs and all of our other costs at the * county level rise," said Eckert.
w
r
h V. 'm im. m ASSOCIATED PflESSiiyiga mountain out of a snow hill
the only place sprouting mini-mountains of plowed snow From
Wayne
"Wemhoff, Jennifer Jackson and Wayne's-ststei, Rliea, played
^®?^?cotys High School in Cofurr^i s^'.
tfi,esday.
~ Yislts up
4%
at park sites
in iColorado
By JOE GARNER
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
Visitors to the 10 National Park Service sites in Colorado increased b> 4% through November, but the
year-end total probably will be a
half-million short of the record 6.2
million tourists in 1978, an agency official said yesterday.
While attendance declined at four
sites, the upsurge at the others lift
ed the total to 5.7 million for the first 11 months of last year, said
Kenneth Hornback, chief of the
park service's statistics office in Lakewood. That compares with 5.4 million for the corresponding peri od in 1986.
Hornback said December visitor
figures, not yet reported, tradition ally are so small they have no ap-pri^iable impact on the total.
L
"The big question is whether Col
orado will continue to have growth in 1988," he said. "We haven't made tte forecast, but my personal view is that 1988 will remain un changed."
But that prediction could be
knocked askew next summer if the continued cheap dollar brings an in flux of big-spending Asian and Eu
ropean tourists on the trail of the Wild West, he said.
The Colorado Tourism Board ear lier reported a similar 3.6 7o in crease in visitors in June through Ai^Eust. "ifhe number of visitors statewide and to the national park sites cannot be directly correlated, but the figures tend to move in the
same direction, said Don Merrion,
research manager for agency. Nationwide, a record 286.1 mil lion visitors toured the 311 National Park Service sites through Decem ber, based on computer estimates,
Hornback said.
In Colorado, attendance in
creased at these sites: Mesa Verde
and Rocky Mountain national parks,
and Colorado, Florissant Fossil Beds, Great Sand Dunes and
Hoven-weep national monuments.
It decreased at Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site, Curecanti National Recreation Area, and Black Canyon of the Gunnison and
WILDLIFE CDNSULTING SERVICES
1 4361 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE • MONTROSE. CO • 31 401
Robert K* Rosette • Chief Conaultant and General Manager
I — 303»249«7S15
DATE: July 29, 198?
7
TO: Tyler Martlneau
HDR Infrastructure '\ • .-''V
N' .
FROM: Bot Rosette
Rosette Wildlife Consulting Service
Re: Trends in Cold Water Sport Fishing
I attended a special meeting of the Colorado Wildlife Commission in Glenwood Springs on July 9, at the Hot Springs Inn. The purpose of the meeting was to receive public input on proposed changes in fishing regulations. The Wildlife Commission will make actual changes in the regulations at a September meeting in Montrose. The purpose of this memo is to advise you of apparent trends in cold water sport fishing
in Colorado as perceived from the meeting and subsequent conversations
with Colorado Division of Wildlife Managers and Fisheries Specialists. Denver based Fisheries Program Specialists with the Colorado Division of Wildlife are currently assessing the result of a recent fisherman survey. Preliminary results of the survey indicate:
* Over the past 20 years fisherman numbers have increased
at a rate of approximately 3^ per year, this trend continues.
* Interest in warm water fishing is currently increasing more rapidly than cold water fishing.
* 52% of cold water anglers surveyed indicated at one
time or another they have fished in a lake or reservoir.
* 33% of cold water anglers surveyed indicated that at one
time or another they fished in a stream.
I ran my perceptions of the Glenwood Springs Wildlife Commission
meeting past Wildlife Division people present at the meeting and the following trends seemed agreed upon:
* The Trout Unlimited Organization is a strong advocate of increasing stream miles under special Catch and Release or Slot Limit regulations.
Tyler Martineau Page 2
July 29, 198?
* The Colorado Wildlife Federation is composed of members with more diverse interests and although supportive of
some additional Catch and Release waters with Terminal
Tackle restrictions,they also want some of Colorado's top trout streams managed without restrictive Catch ajid
Release and Terminal Tackle regulations.
* Introduction of mysis shrimp to many Colorado reservoirs
has been detrimental to the kokanee salmon fishery in
several major reservoirs. The Wildlife Division sees an opportunity to manage these reservoirs for trophy
mackinaw trout by increasing the size of mackinaw legal to keep. Commercial interests from the Granby Reservoir area presented a petition to the Wildlife Commission at Glenwood Springs opposing a change in the mackinaw regulation and supportive of improving the kokanee fishing in .the reservoir. The same problem seems to exist at Taylor Reservoir.
Discussions with Wildlife Division Personnel after the Glenwood Springs meeting revealed other trends perceived by them;
* Increased interest in re-establishing naturally reproducing rainbow trout strains into historic spawning streams.
* Increased interest in trout strains such as the
McConaughy rainbow trout that reach a large size
in lakes and reservoirs and are often successful spawners.
It should be added that the Colorado Division of Wildlife is on record as supporting diversity of fishing opportunity in the state i.e.,
RC/12Dec8S/ 1
MEMO
From;
RECREATION FORECASTS (second draft)
Comprehensive Recreational Planning CotniE:lttee
Members, Participants, and Interested Others
Ralph Clark
At the August meeting it was decided to bring together the projections
of future recreational activity within the Gunnison Country Area and
to present these in a common format. A first draft was circulated
earlier. Offered suggestions and revisions are reflected in this
attached second draft. This memo is to provide a brief explanation
of: (a.) why consolidate such projections; <b.) »4hat is this
collection of figures; (c.) what do the figures represent; (d.) some
tentative conclusions; and (e.> what happens next.
A.
WHY CONSOLIDATE PROJECTIONS?
A common oieasure of reported
and projected recreational activity is needed to give an indication of
what the Gunnison Country might expect -
in total. A "Recreational
Visitor Day" (RVDs) defined as 12 hours of recreational activity by
one or more persons is the measure selected. This measure can be
matched against requirements for supporting facilities and services
both private and public, within the area. Consolidated projections^
updated from time to time with experience and new assumptions, ser-ve
as the foundation for better communication among all those conc^ned
with the management of recreational activity and resources within this
area.
B.
WHAT IS THIS COLLECTION OF FIGURES?
It is a prirft'but froe a
computerized "electronic spreadsheet" used to organize and process the
information drawn from the agencies.
This tool makes it easy to
correct and update the assembled information without having to redo
the whole thing. It also makes possible a display of how conversions
are made to achieve the common format of RVDs and it facilitates
review and correction.
At the beginning of the sequence (rows 1 through 72 and coluawis A
through H) are listed the agencies and the many different recreational
activities on which they report. Also in these columns are factors
used for conversion of reported information into the common format.
To the right (columns 1 onward) are reported and projected activity
figures, converted when necessary to the common format of RVDs.
Reported figures from several past years are for comparison with the
year by year projections extending through the year 2000.
Rows 75 through 145 contain the initial draft of a comparison
between the amount of non-camping recreational activity on public land
within the Gunnison Country Area and publicly provided or developed
accommodation facilities.
Many gaps remain to be filled in as well as necessary refineoent
of information presented. Use of an electronic spreadsheet makes both
easy to accomplish — if reviewers will provide the information and
criticism.
RC/12Dec8S/ 2
C. WHAT DO THESE FIGURES REPRESENT? The data presented are
from the several agencies. References are given to specific sources
and documents and Mhere possible to page locations. Adjustments Mere
made to data for conversion into a common format — RVOs, and into the common context of either Gunnison County or the Gunnison Country
consisting of the Upper Gunnison River Basin. For comparison Mith projections, reported levels of activity (expressed as RVDs) in
selected years are also given. While the projections of some
agencies extend beyond the year 2000, this date provides a useful
interval of fifteen years and was selected for the presentation. Over this time span some agencies expect growth in recreation activities
while others expect there to be no change from the present. It must
be remembered that these figures are only estimates, some of which were made a few years ago, and as such they are subject to change and
to changes in their underlying assumptions.
D. WHAT ARE SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS? The total amount of RVDs
expected is large. The figures are presented in thousands of RVDs;
but each RVD represents one or more people on the. ground here within
this area doing something for 12 hours. The figures indicate an
expected visitor population on the ground on an average seasonal day
of about—one half the Gunnison Area's permanent population. There are and will be marked fluctuations in the number of visitors on the
ground within seasons and between seasons. But, while faces may change the expected visitors also represent a kind of permanent
population whose numbers are expected to increase and whose needs must be met. Over the span of years, expected growth in recreational
activity also implies growth of our "usual" permanent population — a
growth of some 50X to perhaps more than 100% from the pre^bnt.
Comparisons between reported and projected figures show the need to re—examine and update some assumptions underlying projections made several years ago. Periodic study of the differences between
experience and expectations provides a better understanding of events and better preparation for the future.
E. WHAT HAPPENS NOW? The gathered information will be used for
planning decisions. Reviewers should examine the material relevauit to their concerns and identify needed corrections, omissions,
additions, updates, and other improvements. The obvious gaps rec^ire filling so please identify sources and information.
The focus has been upon recreation using public resources and
facilities. The next step is to pull together information about
recreational use of private resources and facilities. A connection between the two sectors is through accommodations — where do the people stay who do what they do.
Soon information will be developed on where, within the Gunnison area, various activities are occurring and related problems — too much use, too little, conflicts, etc. The objective is to use our
combination of private and public resources wisely, to respond wisely to the requirements and implications of the tourist industry, and to be aware of its changing nature.
Please call Pam Park, at the Planning Department in the Gunnison County Courthouse (641-0360), with your comments.
t 1 11 I 11 C II I II E II F II t II N 11 I tl J II lISUNNISn MEA RECREATItti FORECASTS Irift IT/AOk/BS - I. nark ZHilt: |ar«- SECTION I — REFORTEI AND ESTIRATEI ACTIVITY
31 Fiiurn in thwsandi of RKroation Visitor kyi — NRVOs (1 RVD • 12 kours of activityl 41 Arts is Bunnisofl County.
5!
AlFoTKt Strvice: (Rof. FSRI84/1B-Ifl
7! (projoctions adj. to E.C.'s Z of lfB3 rcpt. total activity.
B! EC X of FS Tot.
VI Devoloped Recrcitioa 47.2 iOI Dowihill Skiinp SI.B III lisp. Rk. • Hunting A0.7
121 FisAii^ 11,B
131 Other IV.V
141 Off-Road Vthiclo 27.V
131 Bildtrness 2V.7
III
171 Total Forest Service (in RRVl's)
IBI
IVIHatiooal Park Service (Ref. CENP7V/32-3VI CSMd/lO; pcoo-iBOctBS) 201 Eiven Total Eipressed in Activity lays
211 Z of total activity: projected and reported RVI Adj.
221 in IVBl in 1984 Factor
231 Sightseeing (see Other) 44.OZ 44.4Z 47.3Z .03 241 Picnicking S.OZ B.BZ 4.VZ .17
231 Caaping 2C.0Z 10.3Z lO.OZ 1.0} 201 Nater-skiing I.OZ .7Z .2Z .33
271 Boating i2.0Z I2.7Z 7.0Z .33 20! Fishing iB.OZ 20.5Z I0.2Z .33 291 Hunting .2Z .IZ .33 301 Cross-Country Skiing .0 .33 31! Snouaohiling .0 .17 321 Suisaing .31 .19
331 Other (in 1984 estiaated at 20. .4Z 20.0Z .17 341 Total of Z - lOO.OZ lOO.OZ lOO.OZ 331 Total Nat. Park SKvice (in HRVl's)
Reported in Year: 308.3 272.1 71.8 132.0 220.0 219.0 33.A 29.7 38.7 30.4 121.2 114.8 3A.i 28.0 898.2 852.0 990.0 1030.2 993.3 30.7 44.9 33.0 14.8 11.0 8.3 102.0 103.0 99.4 2.3 .7 .3 41.0 42.2 23.0 07.0 39.7 33.4 .7 .3 .3 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0 .7 .7 .0 203.1 204.4 219.2
37IBureau of Land Hanageoent (Ref. Conversation! 38! Eiven as preliainary estinate of RVI's
391
40! Developed Recreation
41! lisp. Rec. - Hunting 42! Fishing
43! Other
44! Off-Road Vehicle
43! Priaitive Areas (oildemess) 40!
47! Total Bureau of Land Nanagenent (in HRVD'sl
for year 1984 Lake City 70 3 3 30 70 30 3 2 145 3 2.3 2.3 111 /T 49!Divisian of Hildlife (Ref. VDEB4/2, FKPE/gun, and g84/gun)
30! Eiven as Nan Days and Hildlife Fishing User Days for E.C.
Si! RVD Adj. -'actor
52! Fishing (1980 in Nan-Days) 741.8 .41 S3! Hunting (1983 in HFUD's) - Deer 33.1 1.4
34! Elk 80.3 1.4
33! Non-Consuap. Hildlife 133 .2 301
37! Total Division of Hildlife (in NRVD's) 56!
SViPrivate Sector - RKreational Activity On Private Land 00! DOH less activity on pnhlic land
01! Hunting 021 Fishing
03!
04! (Other inforoation added as available)
03! Total of Activity on Private Land
TOTAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY IN EUNNISON COUNTY AREA (in NRVD's)
i II I! I ti 0 II r It Q II I II I It T tl H 11 V I
It fl|t 2/i
21 SECTIOH II — PMUECra FUTURE RCTIvm
II lor fttoflifon Coiaty irti ii yiv:
41
SI 1980 1981 1982 1983 1914 198S 1988 1987 1988 1189 41
Bii FS projKtiont iitind to tho ytor 2030.
272.8 274.S IIS.O 121.1 100.2 100.3 28.7 29.3 143.8 144.9 44.9 47.4 48.7 49.4 774.0 791.3 280.2 283.9 127.2 133.3 lOO.S 100.4 29.9 30.4 149.9 173(0 48.4 49.2 30.5 . S1.4 / 804.S 821.8 291.2 298.4 139.3 149.) 100.8 100.9 31.0 31.3 174.1 181.8 49.9 51.2 32.3 33.3 304.0 313.3 138.4 148.2 101.0 101.1 32.0 32.3 187.4 193.3 32.3 33.8 34.4 S3.S 840.7 844.4 892.0 917.7 1034.3 1130.0 1203.4 1281.1 1354.4 1432.2 1307.7 1383.3 1438.8
(note: iliovt ligurcs ere pivte ii totil ictivity ityt end convKted belon to RVB'i
according to pcrcintagt diitribotion of activity cipcriMctd in 1984)
231 39.9 42.7 43.4 48.4 31.3 34.2 37.0 59.9 42.7 45.4 24! 8.8 9.4 10.1 10.7 11.3 12.0 12.4 13.2 13.9 14.5 23! 103.3 112.8 120.4 127.9 133.3 143.0 130.4 158.1 143.4 173.2 24! .3 .4 .4 .7 .7 .7 .8 .6 .9 .9 27! 24.3 24.1 27.8 29.4 31.3 33.0 34.8 34.5 38.3 40.0 281 33.3 37.9 40.4 42.9 43.3 48.0 30.3 53.1 35.4 38.1 29! .3 .3 .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 30! .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 31! .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 32! .4 .7 .7 .8 .8 .8 .9 .9 1.0 1.0 33! 33.9 38.4 41.0 43.4 44.1 48.7 31.3 53.9 54.4 59.0 34! 33! 231.2 249.2 287.2 303.2 323.2 341.2 359.2 377.2 393.2 413.2
Ro tajor ckangea projKted by BUI for activitiei over years.
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 30.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.8 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.( 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.0 5.0 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 94.5 94.3 94.5 94.3 94.3 94.3 94.3 94.5 94.5 94.5
No eajor changtt projKted by MM for activities ovk years.
304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 304.1 49.1 112.7 24.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 11.4 207.4 11.2 204.3 11.0 201.3 10.9 198.2 10.7 193.1 10.5 192.1 10.4 189.1 10.3 184.1 10.1 183.1 219.0 215.7 212.4 209.1 205.8 202.4 199.5 194.3 193.2 1333.7 1388.4 1418.4 1448.3 1482.2 1322.7 1343.2 1403.7 1444.3
II X It r II Z II M II M II AC II M II «E II IF II M I
SECTIO* n — PRWECTBI FUTURE ACTIVITY
For SunaisM Couaty «rti la yiir:
l»W 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000
328.0 332.0 335.9 339.8 343.7 347.1 351.5 355.5 359.4 3iS.3 317.2 187. S 194.8 202.0 209.3 211.5 223.8 231.0 238.3 245.5 252.8 260.0 101.4 101.S 101.1 101.7 101.9 102.0 102.1 102.2 102.3 102.5 102.6 33.4 33.1 33.9 34.1 34.4 34.1 34.9 35.1 35.4 35.1 35.9 204.8 209.2 213.7 218.2 222.7 227.2 231.i 23i.l 240.i 245.1 249.5 SI. 4 57.3 56.3 59.2 10.2 il.l 12.0 13.0 13.9 14.9 65.8 S7.I 58.5 59.3 10.2 il.l il.9 12.8
■f 13. i 14.5 15.4 66.2 V49.1 981.9 1004.7 1022.5 1040.4 1058.2 1071.0 1093.8 1111.7 1129.5 1147.3 1809.9 1885.4 1935.9 1981.4 2031.9 2087.4 2138.0 2188.5 2239.0 2289.5 2340.0 18.4 71.3 73.2 75.1 77.0 78.9 80.8 82.8 84.7 8i.i 88.5 15.1 15.8 11.2 li.l 17.0 17.4 17.9 18.3 18.7 19.1 19.6 180.7 188.3 193.3 198.4 203.4 208.5 213.5 218.5 223.1 228.i 233.7 .9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 41.7 43.5 44.7 45.8 47.0 48.2 49.3 50.5 51.i 52.8 54.0 10.7 13.2 14.9 il.l 18.3 70.0 71.7 73.3 75.0 71.7 78.4 .5 .5 .5 .5 .1 .i .i .i .i ■i .6 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 il.l 14.1 15.9 17.1 19.3 71.0 72.7 74.4 71.2 77.9 79.6 431.2 449.2 411.2 473.2 485.3 497.3 509.3 521.4 533.4 545.4 557.5 361 371 • 381 391 40! 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.8 5.0' 411 ■ 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.4 50.0 42! 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 431 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 441 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 451 461 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 471 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 481 \ 491 50! 511 521 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 531 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 54! 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 SI 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 561 571 S8! 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 492.6 dDO 591 601 ill 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.6 621 180.1 177.3 175.4 173.4 171.5 169.5 167.6 165.7 163.7 161.8 159.8 631 641 651 190.1 187.1 185.1 183.0 180.9 178.8 176.8 174.7 172.6 170.5 168.5 661 671 681 691 1684.8 1717.7 1745.5 1773.3 1801.0 1828.8 1856.6 1E84.4 1912.2 1940.0 1967.8
t « tl I II C :: D !! E !l F II B
731
7ii SECTION III — VISITOR RCCOHIIOSATIDN CAPACm (Pkmm <t on> tiM in NRVOil )
77! PUBLIC SECTOR — *r«j is ttif Eunnison Count'y
7BI 7VI
iOIFwMt Service IRef. FSROES2/cSOOO-UOO)
Bll Cupgrovnds Sites In Eunnison Arei
B2I Sites - S POATs per site! 1 POAT • IRVI
631 Planned additions (Rel. FSRI84/20-21I
84! Total HRVD capacity Tor one day ol seasoo
831 Total Seasonal Capacity in RRVO's • days in season are 841 Reported and projKted use oT caipprounds in NRVs 671 as percentage of reported Developed Rec. - Roe f 681 Percentage of available capacity etilized
Dispersed / Nilderness Caeping
VSINational Park Service (Ref. C6IIP7T/MI C8IIP80/7i-77)
V4I Caapgroonds Sites
93! Sites - 4 POATs pK site; I POAT » I RVD 941 Planned additions (Ref. CRIi2-83/2-3l
971 Total HRVD capacity for one day of season
981 Total Seasonal Capacity in HRVDs - days in season are 99! Reported and Projected Use in HRVs - ron 23
1001 Percentage of available capacity utilized I03!Bureau of Land Hanageeent (Ref. Eunnison Basin Rapl 104! Canpground Sites
103! Sites - 3 POATs per site! 1 POAT > 1 RVD
104! Planned additions - none
107! Total HRVD capacity for one day of season
108! Total seasonal Capacity in HRVDs - days in season are 109! ■ Rpt'ed and Projected Use in HRVDs - ran 40 a L.C. Area i
110! Percentage of available capacity utilized
111!
1121 Dispersed / Nilde'ness Caeping
115!Public Lands Accoenodation Hatch The difference betueen HRVJs of
114! various sunuK recreational activities and caeping at develooe-i sites.
1171
118! HHAT TKY DO — Total SuMer Recreational Activity less Caiping 119! WERE THEY CAN STAY — Total Developed Caeping Capacity
1201
1211 Total of Dispersed Caeping
122!
1231 PRIVATE SEaOR ICCOHHODATION (outline)
124!
125!*Pillo<i' Capacity - 1 Pillou > 1 RVD 124! Existing facilities (Ref. CoC peon)
1271 Crested Butte Vea 128! Hotel
129! City of Eunnison Area 130! Rest of Eunnison County 131! Lake City Area
132! Renainder of Eunnison Country 133! Planned and proposed additions
134! Blue Hms Highlands Hotel
134!RKreational Vehicle Space - 1 space • i.3 RVDs 137! Blue Hesa Highlands (USPB4)
138! Rec. Vehicle Sites at 1.3 POAT
139!
140!Second Hone / Vacation Residences - 1 Unit ■ 3.3 RVDs
141! Existing
142!
143! Planned and proposed additions 144! Blue Hesa Highlands Residential
I R II D II P II t II R II S II T II U » I SECTIOR in - PUBLIC SECTOR RCCOmOOftllOR
P<]t 3/R Ttir 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1981 I Reporttd ] r 1987 1988 1989 ProjKtid ] 584 384 584 584 584 584 584 384 584 584 25 3.0 3.8 3.0 411.1 411.1 411.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 394.2 394.2 394.2 394.2 394.2 394.2 394.2 179.1 281.1 114.9 175.4 249.8 251.3 212.8 45.41 72.7Z 41.81 44.51 13.41 15.01 11.71 i 219.2 275.7 282.2 13.51 17.11 18.11 175 175 175 175 175 175 313 .7 .7 .7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 105.0 105.0 105.0 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 99.0 102.0 93.0 105.0 99.0 143.0 150.1 175 75 175 2.0 2.0 2.0 292.8 292.8 292.8 ISS.l 115.1 173.2 54.01 51.11 59.21 94.31 97.11 88.11 35.91 33.81 48.81 51.41 .2 21.1 .2 .2 21.1 21.1 .2 21.1 .2 .2 21.1 21.1 .2 21.1 .2 .2 .2 21.1 21.1 21.1 22.5 22.5 22.5 104.21 104.21 104.21 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 104.21 104.21 104.21 104.21 104.21 104.21 104.21 1405.1 1419.1 1432.5 1441.0 1410.2 1477.8 520.8 520.8 520.8 708.1 708.1 708.1 1495.4 1513.0 1530.1 708.1 725.5 725.5 300 300 300
I I II 74i::;;::;::: 751 7i!Yeir 771 IWO 7B! I 771 I 11 Y 11 Z 11 M 11 M II AC !! M I! K It DF II M I
SECTION HI - PUniC SECTOR ACCOmOMTION Fiqc i'o
IWi H?2 1793 1994 1995 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 — ProjKtid Nl 811 821 584 831 841 3.0 851 411.1 584 584 584 584 584 584 584 584 584 584 40 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 411.1 411.1 411.1 438.1 438.1 438.1 438.1 438.1 438.1 438.1 841 871 288.7 292.1 295.4 299.0 302.5 305.9 309.4 312.8 314.3 319.7 323.2 71.11 71.93 72.n 49.03 69.83 70.43 71.43 72.23 73.03 73.83 ■ i 881 70.n 891 901 911 921 931 941 951 175 94! 971 2.0 981 292.8 175 75 175 175 75 175 175 75 175 175 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 292.8 188.3 193.3 198.4 203.4 208.5 213.5 218.5 223.4 228.4 233.7 44.33 44.03 47.73 49.53 71.23 72.93 74.43 74.43 78.13 79.83 99! 180.7 100! 41.73 1011 1021 1031 104! 1051 1041 107! 108! 109! .2 21.4 22.5 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 104.23 110! 104.23 111! 12! 13! 14! 15! 14! 17! 18! 1548.3 1543.3 1575.7 1588.2 1400.4 1413.0 1425.5 1437.9 1450.3 1442.8 1475.2 725.5 725.5 725.5 725.5 752.5 752.5 752.5 752.5 752.5 752.5 119! 120! 121! 122! 123! 124! 125! 124! 127! 128! 129! 130! 131! 132! 133! 134! 1351 134! 137! 138! 139! 140! 141! 142! 143! 144! 725.5 25 25 25 25 300 300 25 25 25 25 25 25
i r< n jfjL
f^/^Z/
\ ^ ': s :: c :: d : i e i i f i : IIWNIIIiON COUNir flPEA RrCPEAIION FORECflSIS 0
21 SECTIOH 1 — PEPDRTED AND ESTIRATED ACTIVITY
Jl jur»5 i" 'ho'-'sand* of Recrtation Viiitor Days
AI 'I RVC - 12 ho'jrs o( activity)
D
ilForest 3»rvice; (Ref. fSRI8tMB-19l
71 'r'oipcticti? adj. to S.C.'s I of 1983 ropt. total activity)
B: 6C Z of FS Tot.'
91 CcvEloped Pecreatioi 47.2
101 Ocvnhill 'liitiq 51.B
111 Di;p. Rec. - Huntin; iO.7
121 Fiohino 11.B
131 Otiipr 19.9
Ml Off-R?ad Vehicle 27.9 151 Kildernees 29.7 til
171 Total Forest Service (in RVD'i)
raft 30/Aiip/a5 - R.
7 11 r 1
pa^e 1/3
Reported in Year:
19BI 19B3
191Nationil Part Service (Ref. CBKP79/32-39 and CSKB4'10I
201 Biven Total Erpressed in Activity Days 988.9 1050.2
211 RVD Ad). Factor
221 Z of total for activity in 19811 1983; and proj.
231 Sightseeing 46.4 53.4 44 .16 84.5 89.7 241 Picnicking B.7 6.4 5 .25 15.8 16.8 251 Caeoing 10.3 10 20 1 98.9 105.0 261 Nater-skiing .7 .1 1 .41 .4 .4 271 Boating 12.7 12.1 12 .5 59.8 63.5 2B1 fishing 20.5 17.2 IB .41 69.7 74.1 291 Hunting .2 .09 .0 .0 301 Other 0 .03 .0 .0
321 Total Nat. Far); Service (in RVD's)
331
341!ureau of Land Kanageient (Ref. Conversation)
351 Biven as prelininary estieate of RVD's for B.C. 37! Developed Recreatior
3B1 Disp. Rec. - Hunting 391 Fishing
401 Other
411 Off-Road Vehicle
42! Rriiitive Areas (nilderness) 431
441 Total Bureau of Land Kanageient fin RVD's) 451
4ilDivision of Nildlife (Ref. VDEB4/gun and FRPE/gunl
471 Biven as Kan Davs and Nildlife Fishing User Days for B.C.
4BI RVD/Adj. Factor
491 Fishing I19B0 in Kan-Days) 741.B .41 501 Hunting (!9B3 in HFliD's) - Deer 3B.1 1.4
Sll EU BO.S 1.4 521 Non-Consuip. Nildlife 133 .2 in year 19B4 5 SO 30 2 5 2.5
541 Total Division of Nildlife (in RVt'sl 551
541Frivate Sector - Recreational Activity On Private Land 571 DON less activity on public land
5B1 Hunting
591 Fishing
&01 Other: (to be added if infornation it available] ill
621 Total of Activity on Private Land
TOTAL RECREAflONAL ACTIVITY IN EUNNISW COUNTY AREA (in R9D'il (sun of -S, NPS, BLK, and Private)
L !! H * :i 0 I! p :i B I! R :i s i: I i: u :
paqt 2/3 SECTION II — PROJECTED FUTURE ACTIVITY
Tor Gunniscn County irti in year:
1980 1781 1982 1983 1984 1985 1984 1987 1988 1989
Ths PS projections entend to the year 2030.
272.8 774.5 280.2 283.9 291.2 298.4 304.0 313.3 320.7 115.0 121.1 127.2 133.3 139.3 149.0 158.4 148.2 177.9 100.2 100.3 100.5 100.4 100.8 100.9 ICl.O 101.1 101.2 . , 28.7 29.3 29.9 30.4 31.0 31.5 12.0 32.5 32.9 f'' 143.8 144.9 149.9 173.0 174.1 181.8 1E7.4 193.3 199.0 44.9 47.4 48.4 49.2 49.9 51.2 52.5 53.8 55.1 48.7 19.4 50.5 51.4 52.3 53.3 54.4 55.5 54.5 774.0 791.3 804.5 821.8 840.7 844.4 892.0 917.7 943.4 1054.5 1130.0 1205.4 1281.I 1354.4 1432.2 1507.7 1583.3 1458.1 (note: above figures are given at total activity days.)
74.2 79.4 84.9 90.2 95.5 100.8 104.1 ii;.5 114.8 122.1 13.2 14.1 15.1 14.0 17.0 17.9 18.8 17.8 20.7 21.7 210.9 224.0 241.1 254.2 271.3 284.4 301.5 3U.7 331.8 344.9 4.3 4.4 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 7.1 43.3 47.8 72.3 74.9 81.4 85.9 90.5 95.0 99.5 104.1 77.8 83.4 89.0 94.5 100.1 105.7 111.3 1U.8 122.4 128.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 443.7 475.5 507.3 539.1 570.9 402.7 434.4 444.2 498.0 729.8
No aajor changes projected by BLR for activities over years.
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5uO 5.0 5.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 • 50.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94 5 94.5 94.5
No aajor changes projected by DON for activities over years.
491 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 314.1 304.1 304.1 50! 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 511 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 52! 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 531 54! 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 55! 54! 57! 58! 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.8 10.7 10.4 591 142.1 155.9 149.7 143.4 137.4 131.4 125J :i9.3 113.2 40! 41! 42! 173.8 147.4 141.1 154.8 148.5 142.3 134.2 130.0 123.8 43! 44! 45! 44! 1519.8 1540.5 1401.2 1441.9 1484.3 1737.4 1788.9 1840.2 1891.5
V :! U II I 11 7 11 I 11 HA 1 1 A8 1; AC 1: AD II AE 1 1 AF 1 pioe 3/3 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 328.0 332.0 335.9 339.8 343.7 347.4 351.5 355.5 359.4 343.3 347.2 187.5 194.8 202.0 209.3 214.5 223.8 231.0 238.3 245.5 252.8 240.0 101.4 101.5 101.4 101.7 101.9 102.0 102.1 102.2 102.3 102.5 102.4 33.4 33.4 33.9 34.1 34.4 34.4 34.9 35.1 35.4 35.4 35.9 204.8 209.2 213.7 218.2 222.7 227.2 231.4 234.1 240.4 245.1 249.5 54.4 57.3 58.3 59.2 40.2 41.1 42.0 43.0 43.9 44.9 45.8 57.4 58.5 il.Z 40.2 41.1 41.9 42.8 43.4 44.5 45.4 44.2 949.1 984.9 1004.7 1022.5 1040.4 1058.2 1074.0 1093.8 1111.7 1129.5 1147.3 1809.9 1885.4 1935.9 1984.4 2034.9 2087.4 2138.0 2188.5 2239.0 2289.5 2340.0 127.4 132.7 134.3 139.8 143.4 147.0 150.5 154.1 157.4 141.2 144.7 22.4 23.4 24.2 24.8 25.5 24.1 24.7 27.4 28.0 28.4 29.3 342.0 377.1 387.2 397.3 407.4 417.5 427.4 437.7 447.8 457.9 448.0 7.4 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.4 8.4 B.B 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.4 108.4 113.1 114.2 119.2 122.2 125.2 128.3 131.3 134.3 137.4 140.4 133.4 139.1 142.9 144.4 150.3 154.1 157.8 141.5 145.2 149.0 172.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 741.4 793.4 614.4 835.9 857.1 878.4 899.7 920.9 942.2 943.4 984.7 5.0 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.5 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 304.1 49.1 49.1 47.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 49.1 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 112.7 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 492.4 10.5 10.J 10.2 10.1 10.0 9.0 9.7 9.4 9.5 ».4 7.3 107.2 101.4 97.4 93.4 09.4 85.5 01.5 77.5 73.5 49.5 45.4 117.4 111.7 107.4 103.5 99.4 95.3 91.2 87.1 83.0 7B.9 74. 2254.3 23C1.3
ECONOMIC VALUE OF BENEFITS
FROM RECREATION AT HIGH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIRS
Richard G. Walsh Robert Aukerman Dean Rud December 1978 A"S i» X: m ^:fe£i«ar^sa
m
■z-rszf^m
£jrs 3feTechnical Report No. 14
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This brief technical report examines the potential economic value of recreational use of water storage reservoirs located at high elevations on the front range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. It is made possible by funding support from the Legislative Council which enabled the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute to extend research on the subject already in progress. That work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology;
The Colorado State University Experiment Station; and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
SUMMARY REPORT
ECONOMIC VALUE OF BENEFITS FROM RECREATION AT HIGH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIRS
Richard G. Walsh, Professor of Economics Colorado State University
Robert Aukermari, Professor of Recreation Resources Colorado State University
Dean Rud, Graduate Assistant, Economics Colorado State University
Research Sponsored by
The Legislative Council
Colorado General Assembly
January 1979
Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
ECONOMIC VALUE OF BENEFITS FROM RECREATION
AT HIGH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIRS
Richard G. Walsh, Robert Aukerman, and Dean Rud—
Rapid population growth along the Front Range of Colorado exerts
increased pressure on the state's natural resources, degrading exist
ing water recreation areas and diminishing the value of water recreation
activities. Economic information is needed to assess the feasibility
of expanding recreation opportunities on high mountain reservoirs which are now closed to public use. Until recently, more than 100 reservoirs were closed, with 3,500 surface acres representing AO percent of the total surface area of reservoirs at 6,000 to 11,000 feet elevation on the Front Range of Colorado (Auckerman, Springer
and Judge, 1977). In the future, these small reservoirs of 10 to
AOO acres in size may be able to satisfy uses for water-based
recreation while continuing to serve other uses, such as storage for
irrigation and domestic water supply.
The recreation benefits found in this study can be compared to the costs of developing and managing recreation facilities along with legal, environmental and institutional considerations to assess the feasibility of expanding recreation opportunities on high mountain
reservoirs. Results may be useful to the state legislature when it makes appropriation decisions, such as whether to lease or buy access
and minimum pools in high mountain reservoirs. Results may be useful
Dr. Walsh is Professor of Economics, Dr. Aukerman is Associate
Professor of Recreation Resources and Mr. Rud is a graduate research
assistant in the Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
to state and local agencies having responsibility for water resource management under existing legislation. Ditch and reservoir owners may find the information useful in deciding whether to open reser voirs for public use.
Research Procedure
This study developed and applied a procedure for measuring recreation benefits of high mountain reservoirs. Two hundred people
were interviewed at 12 high mountain reservoir sites on the Front Range of Colorado during the summer of 1978. The 12 study sites
represented the range in size from 10 to 400 acres and other character istics such as road or trail access and facilities, typical of
reservoirs located at 6,000 to 11,000 feet elevation along the Front
Range of Colorado. For comparison, 40 boaters were interviewed at
two reservoirs located in the foothills of the Front Range at 5,000 to 6,000 feet elevation. Study sites are shown on Figure 1 and their characteristics in Table 1.
Each recreation participant was asked for an estimate of his
or her direct out-of-pocket costs in making the trip. Direct costs associated with the activities were identified easily. This was
followed by a surplus value question, which asked respondents to consider the maximum worth of their recreation experience, defined as the increase in total trip expenses above which they would decide not to participate, given water level and crowding level as they existed on the day of the interview.
'
*J, / >«*•--!►• , 'X. :• !
'■ '■
■:. ' A ■ ,
'\ \ W' , * »■ 1 ; ■■ I ■
Oo^tdy L«k« P«rvln Lakai
I
• / .»v V. •... •• ■ W Blue Laiia • _ > \ . I - (.9r»f r- p^,.. ' \ I f ' N Chanbars . FOR • lake •/ ''. .COL ) I Horsctooth ZInr>erman , Res. Lake '/' FOR ZInr>erman , Res.I i ^.JoNuon ' , ,
T ' I'I lA ,/'®F'«'=« •>/ - .C01-l-U(3® . f I ■•, I Es^ei , . _ j \ Pork £*tei(
\ Gfond \^ '^c::
B«rtr>oud':y^'\
. '.' . .. f «. ' ' ©Lyons " \ GfOnd \ B«rtr>oudO V-~oL,on.
on/Ttnoth O ^CREELEY ® I o~ LQveiond I o Evans Qc.rter Like |j^B«rtr>OudO I ' Miiliken | ' Muhken ©Peckhom©Peck
I Q
\.rT ■ ■ ■ oL,on.
.:v":;. j
' Fir.,.on.' )
Left hand Rat. I ©FredencK )
Lake Isabella I o i '« t BOULDER , f®*"'. BuekinghomO ••• • J* r (' . ^ r* «. a .. 'a ^
l"\
V Fbrt(5) I Morgan•
C'
^ A•arker Res. ^^oNaderlond
. ...
/ ■
0
j ■
I
> E R ' ' \ ■ I f
' ' " ' Fireslon. 1 .• ' ;
i Res. 1 ©FredencK I OKecociS'jrg I I
o i '*> c I {
Dococo Forr Hudson P'ospect I
iUe Lupfon vc ley |
I M p ' R 6 # I ^ I nornton I L P I N I ® * i _y.roltTN.NT Golden^ s
Idaho I •
'
f^R3R—
0 Idaho IU G.Ofa.to»n Spnng. 1 jJ ^ ^ \ A ;■] P > A'. M ||o e'
>.>CLEAR CREEK ENOLEWOODg.^^ p I . . , 1 \
"l ® ■' '
i .' i.
I I . o i Efitobalh J ^
X I ' Castia I a K»0»0 -if .^1
I
/
■
I 1 ./ .
' . y'
1^.
"A. ATarryall Rel./ ,! . 0 U S iU A S I E, -L , B -'e ., I R t'/
I** * " •* I X
' '
I I
\^ 11 • p fpolmtr )• Lok« ; \ ' / .. I I ^ ,/\.f \ J -. • °Colhon I , , ' I f ~ ■ V I Creen Mtn. , '■ ;5 ' ■ Foil, \ 1 ' ' n ■ •ItELLER COLORADO SPRINGS
I • Monilou ®
\ Cf-ppi* L E^ L, P A S 0
P / I Green ivJwild^ ^curi>y
J COLORADO SPRINGS Wor*iiou ® reen ivlwild^ * « Skayw.iy Rt*s- ® ■ — — I I , .
i-\ •(
V/-R E M OConohN T I ® o Lincoln Pork © q ij
j Flor.ne.
X j 'V ** i " ColoradoFigure 1 . Location of the Study Sites, High Mountain
Table I . Number of Persons Interviewed, Size, Storage Capacity, Shoreline Mi les, and Annual
Recreation Use, 12 High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Recreation Site
High Mountain Reservoirs
Smal1, 1-50 acres Bear Tracks Lake Blue Lake Brainaird Lake Lake Isabelle Zimmerman Lake Medium, 51"150 acres Dowdy Lake Jefferson Lake Lefthand Reservoir Parvin Lake Skagway Reservoir Large, 151-^00 acres Barker Reservoir "Chambers Lake Lake Estes Tarryal1 Reservoir Low Mountain Reservoirs Over 400 acres Carter Lake —Horsetooth Reservoir Number of Interviews Surface Acres Storage Capacity, Acre Feet Shorel i ne Mi les Annual Number of User Days, 1976 1.899 n,222 1 ,720 1 ,534 900 3,678 12,125 8,824 3,000 13,135 133,500 143,500 266,995 214,730
Maximum reservoir water level was determined by clearly ob
served water lines showing maximum bankful conditions. Interviewers estimated, in percentage terms, how water level the day of the
interview compared to maximum bankful conditions. Then, respondents
were asked to estimate how their participation and value would change
with changes in the current water level to five threshold levels:
100, 75, 50, 25 and zero percent of maximum bankful. Thus, respondents
were asked to consider each of these water levels as unique recreation
resources, with the expectation that each would have a distinct demand.
Types of Recreation Activities
Table 2 shows the types of recreation activities at high moun
tain reservoirs. The primary activity during the summer of 1978 was fishing, which accounted for two-thirds of total time at the
reservoir sites. This was particularly true for medium-sized and large-sized reservoirs with road access. Fishing accounted for 36
percent of total time at small reservoirs with trail access only. Fishermen reported that 7.2 percent of their time at the study sites was devoted to recreation vehicle camping and 6.9 percent to tent camping. On large-sized reservoirs, RV camping was more important where it accounted for 11.5 percent of total time. Tent camping was more important on small walk-in reservoirs where it accounted for
18.2 percent of total time. Backpacking was also an important activity
*
at small reservoirs where it accounted for 17.9 percent of total time. Hiking accounted for 8.1 percent of total time at small reservoirs but represented only about 3 percent of total time at all high mountain reservoirs. Inactivity accounted for 5.4 percent of the
Table 2 . Types of Recreation Activities Reported at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Recreation Site Sample SI ze Camp ing (RV) Camp-1 ng (Tent) Flsh-1 ng Hiking Back-pack ing . Slght-see1ng PIcnlck-1 ng Swim-mi ng Canoe ing, Raft ing Off-Road Vehicle Reiax-1 ng Photo graphy Hunt-i ng Power Boat -i ng Sal 1-Boat ing I Other - - - - • .. .. - .
- - Percent of Time at This Site - - - ■ .. ,
- - -..
-High Mountain Reservoirs
Smal1, 1-50 acres 37 2.11 18.16 36.2't 8.05 17.89 1.89 .27 .27 0.00 .61 5.68 5.35 1.08 0.00 0.00 2.30 Medium, 51-150 acres 101 6.5'i 5.50 76.61. 1.83 .15 1.29 .50 .35 .80 0.00 5.15 .65 0.00 .50 .30 0.00
Large, 151-'•00 acres 62 11.115 2.50 69.'.6 1.69 1.21 1.58 2.15 0.00 .57 0.00 5.55 .68 0.00 2.58 .81 0.00
TOTAL 200 7.2'. 6.91 66.83 2.9'. 3.79 1.69 .97 .23 .58 .08 5.37 1.36 .20 1.05 .60 .63
Low Mountain Reservoirs
total time at high mountain reservoirs. Photography accounted for
about 5.4 percent of the total time at small high mountain reser voirs but accounted for one-tenth that (0.5 percent) on medium-sized and large-sized reservoirs. Power boating was limited to large high mountain reservoirs where it accounted for only 2.6 percent of total time. Sailing, canoeing and rafting were unimportant, account ing for about 0.5 percent of total time. Sightseeing accounted for
1.5 percent of the time at study sites, but driving off-road vehicles accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total time. Picnicking was important at the larger reservoirs where it accounted for 2.2 percent
of total time.
Economic Value of Recreation Benefits
Table 3 shows that the value per day of recreation at high mountain reservoirs would increase by $0.34 for each 1 percent increase in water level and peak at $34 with 100 percent bankful.
Participation in recreation activities at the study sites would
increase by .067 days per participant for each 1 percent increase
in water level and peak at 6.65 days annually with 100 percent bankful.
Table 4 shows that the average price of recreation at high
mountain reservoirs was $15 per day. This is the direct out-of-pocket cost of round trip mileage of 326 miles, equivalent to 4.6 cents
per mile. This was considerably less than the price of fishing on
West Slope streams where the average price was $25 per day in 1978 (Walsh, Ericson and Arosteguy, 1978). It is comparable to the average
Table 3 • Effect of Water Level on Will ingness to Pay to Participate in
Recreation Activities at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Recreation Site Samp 1 e
S i ze
Percent of Maximum Bankful Water
100 75 50 25
Level
00
- - - Dol 1ars per Day - - .- _ .
High Mountain Reservoirs
Smal1, 1"50 acres 37 $33.54 $35.05 $22.24 $9.46 $1.54
Medium, 51"150 acres 101 27.61 22.59 12.47 2.54 .16
Large, 151-^00 acres 62 44.83 38.88 29.37 7.98 .03
TOTAL 200 34.05 29.95 19.52 5.51 .19
Low Mountain Reservoirs
mi I innLWWHic.
Table ^ . Mi les Traveled, Direct Cost per Trip and Per Day at Site, with Consumer Surplus per
Day of Participation in Recreation Activities at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, i97o.
Recreat ion Si te
High Mountain Reservoirs
Sample Size Average One-Way Mi les Traveled on This Trip
Average Direct
Out-of-Pocket Cost for This Trip Total Cost of Trip Cost Per Day Average Consumer Surplus Above Trip Cost per Day Average Total Wi 1 1 i ng-ness to Pay per Day
Smal1, 1-50 acres 37 zs^.ok $56.35 $14.85 $17.34 $32.19 2.17
Medium, 51-150 acres 101 1'»5.68 28.98 14.05 10.60 24.65 1.75
Large, 151-^00 acres 62 136.15 I43.9B 17.14 20.73 37.87 2.21
TOTAL 200 162.77 38.69 15.16 14.99 30.15 1.99
Low Mountain Reservoirs
in 1973, with inflation averaging about 10 percent annually over the past five years (Ross, Blood and Nobe, 1975).
Total benefits include both the price actually paid plus willingness to pay, which is the area under the demand curve for the activity. This consumer surplus of fishing at high mountain
reservoirs averaged $15 per day. When added to direct costs of
$15 per day, total benefits were $30 per day. The consumer benefit/ cost ratio for fishing at high mountain reservoirs was 2.0 (= $30/$15) compared to stream fishing with a ratio of 1.6 (= $40/$25). Boating on low mountain reservoirs was more expensive with a B/C ratio of 1.4 (= $53/$37). These B/C ratios were calculated with total benefits as the numerator and direct trip cost as the denominator.
Optimum Capacity of Reservoir Recreation
Indications are that high mountain reservoirs are used to capacity. Reserve recreation capacity of only about one person per
activity day existed at the study sites in the summer of 1978. Table 5 shows this as the difference between optimum number of encounters (An encounter was defined as one person within 50 yards of the respondent.) calculated as 15.0 persons and the 13.9 persons encountered on the day of the interview. Optimum capacity was
defined as the number of parties encountered which would maximize
the total value of recreation activity on the reservoir. This occurs at the point where the added costs of congestion to existing users just equals the benefits gained by the additional user. This was
Table 5 . Hours on the Reservoir and Number of Other Parties Encountered Per Activity Day, With
Optimum Capacity for Maximum Total Value, the Number Preferred for Maximum Enjoyment, and the Maximum Number Tolerated Before Discontinuing Participation in Recreation
Activities at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Recreation Site
Number of Other Parties Encountered Per Activity
High Mountain Reservoirs Smal1, 1-50 acres Medium, 51"150 acres Large, 151-^00 acres TOTAL Sample S i ze Hours on Reservo i r Per Act i V i ty Day The Day of I nterv i ew 15.93 li».19 13.92
Day at this Site
Most Preferred Maximum Tol- Optimum For Maximum erated Before Capacity for Enjoyment of Discontinuing Maximum Total
Act i vi ty Activit Va .1 ue 3.36 1 .Ik 12.13 8.OA 17.11 28.39 31 .37 27.23
Low Mountain Reservoirs Over AOO acres
Table 6 . Effect of Number of Other Parties Encountered Per Activity Day on Wi ll ingness to Pay to Participate In Recreation Actlvltes at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Recreation Site
High Mountain Reservoirs
Smal1 , 1-50 acres Medium, 51-150 acres
Large, 15l-'iOO acres
Sample Size
Number of Other Parties Encountered per Act i vIty ~'l'5 I 20 I 25 "I 30 r~ 35 r '<0~T - - - Dollars per Day
-$1)8.82 $1)0.0') $29.73 $11.79 0 0 0 35.98 33.'i't 29.08 23.39 $17.70 $7.75 0 56.51) 55.06 52.29 117.93 110.78 28.72 $6.30 1)1).73 1)1.87 39.50 35.07 21).1)9 7.78 0
Low Mountain Reservoirs
Reservoir users reported they would prefer to encounter 8.0
persons on the reservoir during an activity day, or 5.9 persons
fewer than the 13.9 persons encountered on the day of the interview. The maximum number they would tolerate before discontinuing the activity was 27.2 persons. Optimum carrying capacity which would maximize the total value of the recreation activity at the reservoirs was calculated as 15 persons per day, or nearly double the most
preferred number of encounters. However, optimum carrying capacity
was about one-half of the maximum number of encounters users would
tolerate before discontinuing the activity at the study sites.
Characteristics of Recreation Users
Table 7 shows some of the characteristics of participants in
recreation activities at high mountain reservoirs. Average annual income was reported as about $19,000, compared to average income of households in the state of $13,600 in 1976, the latest year available. This finding is consistent with other studies of outdoor recreation
which show that participants tend to be in the middle and
upper-middle income groups. Fishermen at high mountain reservoirs have considerably less income than fishermen on West Slope streams, who reported average incomes of $26,000 (Walsh, Ericson and Arosteguy, 1978). Average incomes of fishermen at high mountain reservoirs
were identical to boaters on low mountain reservoirs. Recreation
users of high mountain reservoirs with trail access only had average
incomes of $21,600, or slightly more than users of high mountain
Table 7 . Socioeconomic Characteristics, Income, Education, Age, Sex and Number of Years
Participated in Primary Recreation Activity at High Mountain Reservoirs,
Colorado, 1978. Recreation Site Sampl e S i ze Average 1ncome Average Years of Educat i on Average Age of Respondent Average Age of Head of Household . _ 1 Percent Mai e Years Part i ci pated in Primary Act i vi ty
High Mountain Reservoirs
Smal1, 1-50 acres Medium, 51"150 acres
Large, ISI-'iOO acres
TOTAL 37 101 62 200 $21,568 17,158 20,258 18,935 1'».95 13.27 12.61 13.38 31.19 k] .01 147.21 l4l .12 31.87 I4I4.88 148.142 I43.57 89^ 86^ &G% I3.AI 18.93 25.I48 19.9i»
Low Mountain Reservoirs
Average number of years education was reported as 13.4 years,
which was one year more than the average education of the adult population of the state reported as 12.^ years. This finding is
consistent with national surveys of outdoor recreation which show that participants tend to be somewhat more educated than the national
average. Boaters at law mountain reservoirs reported one-half year
more education than fishermen at high mountain reservoirs.
The average age of participants in recreation activities at high
mountain reservoirs was 41.1 years, only slightly less than the average age of adults in the U.S. of 41.5 years. Recreation users of high mountain reseir/oirs with trail access only averaged 31.2 years of age, or 10 years less than users of all mountain reservoirs. which have road access for the most part,
Fishermen on high mountain reservoirs reported 20 years'
experience in the activity, compared to only eight years for boaters on low mountain reservoirs. This fishing and boating experience of
reservoir users was consistent with that of stream users on the
West Slope where fishermen reported 22 years' experience compared to six years for kayakers and five years for rafters.
Alternative Management Practices
Table 8 shows the effect of alternative management practices on the value of recreation at high mountain reservoirs. Toilet facilities, campsites, picnic tables and fire rings contributed to
the value of recreation at medium-sized and large-sized reservoirs
Table 8 . Effect of Alternative Management Practices on Will ingness to Pay to Participate in Recreation Activities at High Mountain Reservoirs, Colorado, 1978.
Alternate Management Pract i ces
Average Total Wil lingness to Pay per Day
Reservoir Water Dirty, Pol 1uted
User Fee Imposed of $2 per Day or $10 per Year
Sanitation Facil ities Did Not Exist
Road Access Poor
Hike Trail Only Access
to Reservoir (1+ mi le) No Off-Road Vehicles A1lowed No Motor Boats A1lowed No Campsites, Picnic Tables or Fi re Rings Shorel ine Too Steep
and Rocky
Reservoir Not Stocked Well With Fish No Swimming
A1lowed
High Mountain Reservoi rs
Low Mountain Reservoi rs Sma1 1 , 0-50 acres Med i urn, 51-150 acres Large, 151"^00 acres TOTAL $32.19 $2^.65 $37.87 $30.15 $52.92 10.03 6.57 8.56 7.83 31 .05 17.28 17.50 19.6't 18.11 49.46 31 .\k 18.61 19.79 21 .29 39.12 32.99 19.21 30.0^1 25.12 19.41 32.62 19.'♦6 1.6.64 21 .02 1.14 3^.^9 29.7^ 44.73 35.27 49.42 35.26 29.^9 42.52 34.60 6.54 3^.2i» 17.93 20.67 21.79 22.73 25.59 13.82 17.50 17.14 9.24 21 .65 8.13 10.94 11.50 35.75 3^.55 29.22 42.36 34.28 30.10
but were unimportant to users of small reservoirs. The quality of
the access road also contributed to the value of recreation at
medium-sized and large-sized reservoirs but was unimportant to users
of small reservoirs. If hiking trails were the only access to reservoir recreation, the value of recreation at medium-sized, and in particular large-sized reservoirs, would be reduced substantially,
but values to users of small reservoirs would be unaffected.
Fish stocking programs make a substantial contribution to the
value of recreation at high mountain reservoirs. The same can be said for regulations which prohibit the use of motor boats and
swimming. Prohibition of off-road vehicles also contributes to the
value of recreation at high mountain reservoirs. Imposing a recreation fee of $2 per day or $10 per year would substantially
reduce the value of recreation at high mountain reservoirs by considerably more than the out-of-pocket costs to the user.
Quality of the environment contributes to the value of recreation
at high mountain reservoirs. A steep and rocky shoreline reduces
recreation values by a substantial amount. Dirty or polluted water
CITATIONS
Aukerman, Robert, William T. Springer and James F. Judge, Inventory
of Colorado's Front Range Mountain Reservoirs. Information Series
No. 23, Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, May 1977. '
Ross, Lee Ann, Dwight M. Blood and Kenneth C. Nobe, A Survey of Sportsmen Expenditures for Hunting and Fishing in Colorado.
1973, Natural Resource Economics No. 20, Department of Economics,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, April 1975.
Walsh, Richard G., Ray K. Ericson and Daniel J. Arosteguy, An
Empirical Application of a Model for Estimating the Re^eation
Value of Instream Flow. Completion Report No.
, Environmental
Resources Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
ECONOMIC BENEFITS /^ND COSTS OF THE
FISH STOCKING PROGRAM AT BLUE MESA RESERVOIR, COLORADO
Donn M, Johnson and Richard G. Walsh
Final Report to
Division of WlldlIfe State of Colorado
6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
ECONOMIC BENEFITS /^ND COSTS OF THE
FISH STOCKING PROGRAM AT BLUE MESA RESERVOIR, COLORADO
Donn M. Johnson and Richard G. Walsh
INTRODUCTION
Recreation fishing at Blue Mesa Reservoir 1s a product of the cooperation
of many government agencies. Including the Bureau of Reclamation, the National
Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service conducts a fish stocking program as part of the Clear Canyon
Project fuh hatchery at a cost of approximately $57,500 per year to produce
fish to stock Blue Mesa Reservoir for the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition,
the Colorado Wildlife Division administers recreation fishing at Blue Mesa
under the state licensing procram, and conducts a stocking program at a cost of
approximately $250,000 per year.
Managers of the agencies Involved are Interested In Improving efficiency
of government operations. In particular, cost effectiveness of the fish
stocking program at the reservoir. The program was Initiated under Section 0
of the Colorado River Project Act of 1956 (Public Law 485, 70 Stat. 105) which
established federal responsibilities for stocking. The Bureau of Reclamation
administers Section 8 funding for the development and operation of recreation,
fish, and wildlife facilities. Funding Is provided to mitigate losses of and
Improve conditions for the propagation of fish and wildlife.
This study
responds to the question; What are the benefits and costs of the fish stocking
program?
STUDY SITE
The study was conducted at Blue Mesa Reservoir, one of three reservoirs,
which also Include Morrow Point and Crystal, that constitute the Curecanti
National Recreation area with over 1.1 million visitors per year. Blue Mesa
was completed 1n 1965, Morrow Point in 1968, and Crystal In 1977 along a
40-mile stretch of the Gunnison River a short distance from the Gunnison National
Monument. Blue Mesa's primary functions are flood control, water storage, and
power production.
At maximum capacity it is 20 miles in length, has a
shoreline of 96 miles, a storage capacity of 1 million acre feet of water with
a surface area of 9,000 acres.
Fishing is good for rainbow trout, kokanee salmon, brown trout, and lake
trout. The area has two of Colorado's better known trout streams—the Gunnison
River and the Lake Fork, a stream feeding into the south side of Blue Mesa.
There are three major campgrounds and several smaller ones around the
reservoir. Boating, water skiing, sailing, windsurfing, hiking, and horseback trails are available. In addition, boating tours are conducted on Morrow Point
Lake, which offer spectacular scenery in deep canyon settings.
Indications are that the catch rate for rainbow trout is highly correlated with the stocking rate for the same species. The evidence is that at least 90 percent and probably 95 percent or more of the rainbow trout caught
in Blue Mesa are stocked fish. This means that a 10 percent decrease in
stocking rate would possibly result in a 9 percent decrease in catch rate. Wiltzius (1978) found that 92 percent of the creel census in 1975 were
flourescent-marked rainbow trout from 1974 stockers. Since unmarked rainbow
trout have been stocked in the main river above the reservoir each year and in other tributories, it seems likely that most of the unmarked catch were also stocked fish. Consequently, it is apparent that naturally reproduced rainbow
trout contributed little if anything to the Blue Mesa fishery. Other species
may have different stocking requirements to maintain a viable fishery. The kokanee salmon fishing is maintained by stocking, while small brown trout and
STUDY DESIGN
The data used in this study were obtained from on-site interviews by
sampling 200 fishermen at the reservoir. Interviews were conducted on random days throughout the summer of 1986. Interviewing was initiated at the
beginning of the day with the first person encountered at the study sites.
Subsequent interviews were conducted with persons randomly selected throughout the day. The interviewer was identified as an employee of Colorado State
University to establish the legitimate scientific purpose of the study. Of those approached only 2 persons refused to participate in the survey (thus
sample bias should be insignificant).
The value questions were designed to be as realistic and credible as
possible. Respondents were first asked to report the direct costs of their
current trip. Then, they were asked to estimate the maximum amount they would
be willing to pay rather than forego the recreation experience. Direct trip
costs represent a generally accepted method of paying for recreation trips.
This relatively neutral measure of value was selected over alternatives such as
an entrance fee or tax in an effort to avoid emotional reaction and protest against the method of valuing fishing quality. As a result, protest responses, which were removed from the analysis, represented less than 5.0 percent of the
sample, well within the Water Resources Council's (1979, 1983) standard of 15.0
percent.
An iterative bidding technique, recommended by the Council, was used to
encourage fishermen to report maximum values, representing the point of indifference between having the amount of income reported or the specific change in quality of the resource. The respondents were asked to react to a
