The Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) is being revised. So what? you say. Another government document that will be filled with the usual jargon, not at all pertinent to the situation and constituents for which it was designed. Perhaps. But we'd better make damned sure that's not the case. This CRMP may be the most important piece of work that we ever encounter in our river careers: it has the power to determine everything about our river trips, from the number of people on the river to the type of experience that private and commercial river runners have in the canyon. Do not take this lightly: it will affect your river trips in the future. Lucky for us, we can have a say in what is included in this management plan and we fully intend to express our opinions and concerns and fight hard for them if need be. We'll need everyone's help.

The National Park estimates that the process of revising the CRMP will take about two years. They have begun sending out information about how to get involved in the process and the following is excerpted from the most recent Canyon Constituent, sent out to interested parties in May of 1997. Following this will be a schedule of important dates and meetings you may want to attend to be involved.

In the 1995 General Management Plan (GMP) for Grand Canyon National Park, the Park Service defined their management objectives for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Briefly, these are:
• To restore altered ecosystems to their natural conditions (to the maximum extent possible).
• To manage visitor use, development and support services to protect the park's resources and values.
• To protect the park's natural quiet and solitude, and mitigate or eliminate the effects of activities causing excessive or unnecessary noise.
• To manage the areas meeting the criteria for Wilderness designation as Wilderness.
• To manage the Colorado River corridor to protect and preserve the resource in a wild and primitive condition and to actively pursue the designation of eligible sections of the river and its tributaries as part of the Wild and Scenic River System.
• To provide a variety of primitive recreational activities consistent with Wilderness and NPS policies on accessibility.
• To work with local Indian tribes in planning, developing and managing lands adjoining the park in a compatible manner.
• To provide a Wilderness river experience on the Colorado River, while still allowing for uses non-compatible with Wilderness designation (i.e. motors).
So, the CRMP will incorporate resource, recreation and experience management. It's a tall order and there are a lot of considerations and constituents to deal with. The Park has a set of guiding principles for the CRMP which covers all these bases, but the specifics are still up in the air. That's where we, you, them, all of us come in. Some of the Park's guiding principles are as follows (some of the considerations we might want to contemplate follow in italics):

• The type and amount of recreation will be regulated to make sure that the degree and type is sustainable, with acceptable resource impacts. OK, what type, what degree, what is an “acceptable” impact? What can the canyon and the river sustain?
• The recreation/experience opportunity spectrum for this section of the river will be based in part on the range of recreational needs expressed by the public and the total spectrum of opportunities available within the Colorado River system. Should everyone who wants to go down this river necessarily be allowed to, just because they can pay the bucks - should we try and let people know about other opportunities/rivers that perhaps are better suited to their time/budget/physical constraints? What do we want people to be able to get out of a Grand Canyon trip?
• Until Congress acts on the GCNP Wilderness Recommendation, the river will be managed as Potential Wilderness, which allows for continued use of motors, but in all other respects manages the area for Wilderness. OK - if this is the guiding principle, then we need to look at things like allocation, crowding, visitor experience, accessibility, Science and NPS presence, technology in the corridor, etc. in that light. Does a particular issue or solution to an issue conform to Wilderness ideals and management principles? This is a really important point and one that should not be glossed over because it is RIGHT THERE in the NPS guiding principles).
• Quiet motor technology will be pursued to the greatest extent possible to eliminate unnatural sources of noise in the river corridor (as is consistent with Potential Wilderness designation). Any thoughts?
• Allocation and permitting processes will be evaluated based on current and projected future conditions and needs. Who gets to go? How many? How much should they pay and how long should they wait? How do we handle increasing demand from an ever more adventurous and “place-collecting” public?
• Methods for managing and distributing use of the river corridor should be based primarily on achieving resource protection and Wilderness management objectives. How many people is “crowded”? How many people/trips do you want to see on the river? How do we distribute people and trips? What type of experience do we want our folks, and other people's folks to have?)
• The spectrum of concession-outfitted river trips will be evaluated and defined as to what is “necessary and appropriate”, with the changes appearing in the next concessionaire contract revision in 2001. What should the outfitters be doing? Should we look at things like trip length, interchanges, price, accessibility, education, opportunities for passenger involvement? Should we think about the trend towards fewer and larger companies? Whaddya think?)

So that's what the Park is thinking. Now we need to know what you are thinking. A few of us, private, commercial and others, got together back in June to discuss these issues and our preliminary list of important concerns and possible solutions is summarized in the accompanying article. Take a look at it and let us know what you think. We were only a few people. You are hundreds, perhaps thousands; we and the Park Service need to hear from you.

Here's How To Get Involved:

The Park is holding three meetings/workshops for public input to the CRMP in September. At these meetings you need to show up with your ideas arranged thusly: list the stated problem or issue and then a proposed solution to these issues in a written statement. Explain why you think this issue is a problem and why it is a concern to you. The ideas will be listed on flip charts and discussed in break-out groups and the written statements will be collected at the workshops for further use by the Park. Give them your name, address and phone as well.
While the Park needs to hear from you as a constituent, GCRG needs to hear from you as well. We are going to prepare a statement with issues and solutions to present to the Park and we need you to contribute to this. If we cannot speak as a group on this one, we will not have a powerful voice. So please send us your thoughts. What are your concerns and what solutions have you thought of?
The meetings are in September and by January they will summarize what they have received from everyone, so we, and they, need your comments ASAP. The meeting schedule is as follows:
September 5 and 6
Portland, Oregon
Lewis and Clark College,
Templeton Student Center
Friday: 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm
Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:30 pm

September 12 and 13
Salt Lake City, Utah
Holiday Inn Airport
1659 W North Temple
Friday: 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm
Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:30 pm

September 19 and 20
Phoenix, Arizona
YWCA Leadership Development Center
9440 N. 25th Ave. (east of I-17 at Dunlap)
Friday: 7:00 pm to 9:30 pm
Saturday: 9:00 am to 5:30 pm

Send your comments to:
ATTN: Linda Jalbert
Grand Canyon National Park Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park
P.O. Box 129
Grand Canyon, AZ 86023
For more information or to get a copy of the Canyon Constituent from the Park, contact Linda Jalbert (CRMP Team Leader) or Ken Weber (Recreation/Social Science Program Manager) at the above address or call:
(520) 638-7753 (Ken Weber)
(520) 638- 7909 (Linda Jalbert)

Please come to the meetings or send in your thoughts to us and to the Park. If you only do one thing this summer, or ever, this should be it. One thing is clear: river running, private or commercial, will change in the future. As demand increases and more pressure is put on the experience and the canyon from the outside world, this document may be the only thing that we can use to help preserve and protect what we love so dearly about this place, but only if we get our two cents in. Now. Thanks—we'll be waiting to hear from you.

Christa Sadler

The following is a working list of issues and suggested solutions for the new CRMP put together in an informal meeting of constituents, sponsored by the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, back in June.

This list is only a spewing of concerns and ideas. Look this over, add your thoughts, let us know.

ALLOCATION
(who is going, what are the numbers,
what are we going to do about increasing demand,
does the wait list reflect an accurate cross-section
of who is going? or is it padded?)
• even 50/50 commercial to private numbers
• keep the status quo
• add an educational user group, in addition to commercial and private
• require the commercial companies to provide low cost trips for educational institutions (one per year per company)
• we need to use the Wilderness guidelines to define a use ceiling
• reduce the total number of use for everyone

ACCESS
(who is going, when are they going, how long are
they waiting, how easy is it for the “average Joe”
to get on a trip, and is the current system fair?)
• go to a launch or people-based system as opposed to user days for commercial use
• make the private system a lottery
• keep the status quo for privates; it's easy to get on if you play the system
• spread use into the winter season
• keep winter use where it is, the canyon needs time to heal from the summer
• provide more budget-rate trips from the commercials, within the guidelines that they can make a “reasonable profit” as defined by the GMP and CRMP.
• count crew as user days on commercial trips
• count interchanges as two user days, not one
• reverse the trend toward fewer and larger commercial companies. More smaller companies allows for more diversity and increases competition. Will this bring prices down or force outfitters into more environmentally and Wilderness oriented practices?

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
(what do we need to do to protect the place, how
do we have to change our MO's, are curent
practices of the commercial, private, science and
NPS trips consistent with Wilderness protocol?)
• minimum trip length
• better education for private trips
• allow privates to hire a commercial guide to help educate and care for canyon
• manage Lake Mead for riparian habitat, lower the lake level

THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE
(crowding, trip length, interchanges,
Wilderness ideals, natural quiet)
• spend CRF money on a computer model to figure out how to avoid crowding
• a launch-based system could reduce crowding
• encourage longer trips with more flexibility
• get rid of interchanges
• get rid of Whitmore helicopter exchanges—use stock instead
• explore quiet motor technology
• should NPS Law Enforcement Division be doing river patrols, or should it be Interp Division? A low-key, minimal impact presence of NPS is more consistent with Wilderness Management. Go back to oar rigs or kayaks; ask the NPS to set an example for Wilderness Management.

FEES
• make all fees equal, private and commercial
• there should be more public input to fee structure and where the money goes
• the CRF should NOT be used for capital improvements; we don't need $800,000 per year of “improvements” on the river

Crumbo's View

We are about to embark on a revision of the Colorado River Management Plan. The issues are daunting: frustrated private river runners demand access; scared outfitters demand status quo; perplexed conservationists demand preservation; the Park Service, nervous as usual, demands respect; and the guides, divided as usual, demand all the above. Before we launch into the inevitable cauldron, consider why the Canyon, the Colorado River, enriches our lives. How can we preserve these qualities for ourselves and for those many souls who follow 10, 50 and, perhaps, 100 years from now?
Access to the River constitutes one of the most pressing issues. Over 21,000 people float the River each year and more want to go. Aggressive marketing and convenient, short trips allow outfitters to consistently fill their allocation, about 70 percent of the total recreational use. Private river runners line up on a 10-year or longer waiting list for do-it-yourself river trips. While past river management actions (1972, l980, and 1989) accommodated increased demand with increased allocations, current use often results in overcrowding and congestion. Any substantial use increase under the current launch system would make matters worse.
The Park Service's favorite cliche describing this phenomena, “loving parks to death,” comes to mind. How do we love something to death? We can screw it to death, perhaps, but love it to death? To love something or someone is to care deeply. Caring is involvement and commitment. Caring sometimes requires struggle, heartache, sacrifice and, if all else fails, rational thought.
There are two ways to resolve the current demand for river trips. The first option is simply to increase allocation. In 1964, the year the Wilderness Act passed, 547 humans floated the river. In 1972, the Park Service established the first limits based on existing, exploding use of about 12,000 commercial and about 500 privates. In 1980, as demand for private trips skyrocketed, the Park Service increased the noncommercial allocation 600 percent. The outfitters also enjoyed a 30 percent increase.
A second option establishes defensible use levels based on qualitative criteria, and there is only one legislated designation that protects the experience the Colorado River provides. Wilderness alone mandates protection of experiential quality. Wilderness experience, although scarcely a precise, infallible concept, is definable and defendable. Critical elements of wilderness experience such as group size, the number of encounters with other folks, and other experiential parameters are adequately defined in a growing body of research and should be incorporated in any future Colorado River Management Plan.
Wilderness experience allows a rational basis for establishing overall use. Providing a wilderness experience, accommodating existing allocations and allowing a meaningful increase in private access is possible. But it is possible only if total use is distributed over a longer season to avoid congestion and crowding. The obvious result of establishing limits is the creation of a fixed allocation “pie”. We already have a pie, but it keeps getting bigger and the impacts and the disparities in access continue to increase. Wilderness will protect visitor experience, but it will not resolve the difficult, politically divisive issue of dividing the pie .
Managing for a wilderness experience has other implications aside from limiting numbers. Wilderness requires the acceptance of certain risks, including possible dangers arising from wildlife, weather conditions, physical features, rapids, scorpions, sun, heat, ants, and other elements inherent in wildlands. A wilderness experience means we're on a camping trip, not at a restaurant, and not on a carnival cruise. Sometimes we get wet, sometimes tired and hungry. Sometimes we eat out of cans and, God forbid, sometimes we run out of beer.
In Wilderness, the Park Service may not eliminate or unreasonably control risks that are normally associated with wildlands. In Wilderness the agency's primary role is educational, not law enforcement. It should provide users with general information concerning possible risks, recommended precautions, and minimum-impact use ethics. Wilderness requires only a minimum level of regulations and agency presence to protect ecological integrity and other natural cultural values. Management should be on low-key, unobtrusive, respectful of the visitor's desire for solitude and a “primitive and unconfined experience.” In Wilderness, river runners can insist upon this approach .
The reason Grand Canyon, unquestionably one of the greatest American wildernesses, is not designated Wilderness lies with the resistance from the river running industry, a preoccupied environmental community, and inconsistent and conflicting directives within the Park Service. Since mechanized use conflicts with the Wilderness Act, most conservationists rightly oppose wilderness designation which allows motorized use. Since most outfitters and many guides equate the loss of motors with the loss livelihood, the motor issue remains as the principal obstacle to wilderness designation.
In spite of the motor concerns, good reason and opportunity exist to pursue wilderness designation for Grand Canyon. First of all, as required by law, the NPS submitted a wilderness recommendation for Grand Canyon in 1980 . This wilderness recommendation provides a rationale for compromise on the motor issue, at least temporarily, by proposing “potential'' wilderness designation for the Colorado River. Potential Wilderness is defined as wilderness that has been authorized by Congress but not yet established due to temporary incompatible conditions, in this case: motorboats. This special provision defers the motor issue and gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to designate potential wilderness as wilderness at such time she or he determines they qualify. Potential wilderness provides wilderness criteria for managing river use, avoids diluting standards for designated wilderness, and provides respite from the politically volatile issue of motors versus wilderness designation. This compromise language provides an opportunity to protect wilderness values and, by deferring the motor issue, avoids an intra -guide battle.
In the mean time, the Park Service policies require long-term preservation of wilderness values, including visitor experience, until Congress addresses wilderness through legislation.
Like it or not, we are about to embark on a necessary, perhaps historic, journey to decide the fate of our river. This may well be the last chance for wilderness on the Colorado of Grand Canyon. Some will cheer at that thought, no doubt. The rest of us must consider why the Canyon, the Colorado River, enriches our lives.

Does any of this matter to anyone or anything? Is the river bothered by what we do? Does the Canyon anguish over our loss of solitude? If we glimpse sight of a peregrine falcon, or awake to the fragrance of sand verbena, or quietly revel in the cool shade of Shinumo or Stone Creek, does the river care? Does it really care if we do this alone, or with a few others, or with the complete contingent of two J-rigs, three S-rigs, a C-Craft, 15 dories, and 24 oar rafts? Does the River care of such things?

Do we?

Kim Crumbo