The Portland, Salt Lake City and Phoenix Scoping Sessions for the new CRMP are behind us and the Park is now in the process of compiling and examining all the input they have received and are about to receive from everyone out there. A tall order, as you'll see.
GCRG had representatives present at each meeting: Andre and Tim Whitney in Portland, Christa at Salt Lake and Jeri, Bob Grusy, Jon Stoner and Andre in Phoenix. Other constituencies were represented in the form of outfitters, private boaters, commercial passengers and the science community, to the tune of about 125 people per meeting.
Prior to each meeting the outfitters hosted a large banquet where they discussed issues and concerns with previous passengers who would be at the scoping sessions over the weekend. Each scoping session was set up in similar fashion: the NPS solicited preliminary issues and concerns in a mass spewing of thoughts and ideas from the assembly. These were then reduced down to a few major issues, which were discussed in detail in break-away work groups, along with possible solutions. In general, the major issue categories broke down to the following:

• The Visitor Experience
• Allocation
• Access and the Private Permit System
• Resource Stewardship
• Commercial Operations and Motors

Within each of these larger categories were many subsidiary issues, such as crowding, noise, the length of the waiting list, technology and bureaucracy on the river, etc. Each meeting was remarkably consistent in terms of the issues and main concerns expressed by the constituents:
• The overall concerns of the outfitters and commercial passengers were whether the new CRMP might eliminate motors and the helicopters at Whitmore, force them to eliminate interchanges or reduce allocation to the commercial sector - in general, change the status quo.
• The private boaters' main concerns revolved around access to the river corridor, how long they must wait to get a private permit and whether or not the current allocation system accurately reflects public demand for the resource.
Generally, everyone seemed to agree that the visitor experience is by and large in good shape, and that many of the issues and problems revolving around this subject can be dealt with effectively by tweaking the current system (better education, communication on river, etc.). We all agreed that the private permit system is not really working well in its current form, although how to fix it was a matter of understandable controversy. Do we need to change allocation, do we privatize the system, turn it into a reservation or a common pool system, etc.?
In addition, everyone agreed that resource protection is a critical issue, although how to do this remained a matter of some controversy. Many folks seemed to feel that the current system has done a good job of protecting the resource, others felt that the river could even handle more users, still others felt that cutting back on users was the way to go. The touchy and extremely important issue of Wilderness and Potential Wilderness designation for the park and the river corridor became a matter of (often heated) discussion. There is a great fear on the part of the outfitters that any such protection is simply the first step towards eliminating motors and increasing levels of bureaucracy. Other constituents are concerned that true protection of the river corridor and the canyon against future challenges cannot be achieved without some such designation. All agreed that more information about the ramifications and details of such specification is needed. In fact, a call for more surveys, data, information in general was heard from almost all sectors: data on the private waiting list, data on what people want from a river trip, information on Wilderness designation, data on the carrying capacity of the canyon....
Quite a handful for the Park to assimilate, and it will be interesting to see what comes of these scoping sessions over the next year and a half. In fact, so much information was put forth at these meetings that the Park has unofficially extended the deadline for public comment until the end of the year. This is a good thing, because there is obviously a lot to talk about. This is where you come in. Grand Canyon River Guides will be making a statement of their issues and solutions to the Park on November 15 and we would really like to hear from you. We strongly urge you to write the Park as well with your own statement, but if there are things that you would like to see us say as an organization, we need to know - now. The accompanying article is a slightly enlarged version of a "general philosophies" statement that we handed out at the Salt Lake City and Phoenix meetings. PLEASE read this and comment on it to us. We need your input, or we are just going to have to go ahead and send the Park what the GCRG Board of Directors decided on at its meetings. If you want us to represent you, you need to talk to us. Can't make it any clearer - it's really important that we speak as an organization on this one; the Park is looking to us as a major voice in the community and on the river and our opinions and ideas an organization will be very influential.
To the right is the NPS format for submitting your comments. In addition we have enclosed two copies of the official NPS input sheets. PLEASE follow this format for as many issues as you feel are important and send your copies to the Park before the end of the year. The sooner the better; they stated that the earliest comments will stand a better chance of being considered. Send us your thoughts by November 1, as we will need to send in our statement soon thereafter. We're waiting to hear from you, and thanks.

Christa Sadler

To assure that your ideas are incorporated in the process as accurately as possible, we are asking that you prepare written statements for each of your issues and your proposed solutions to those issues.
We would like to divide the comments into Issues of Concern and Issue Solutions. Please limit each comment, whether an issue or solution, to one typewritten page.
Comments may be submitted by regular or electronic mail to:
Linda Jalbert
Grand Canyon National Park
P.O. Box 129
Grand Canyon, AZ 86023
(520) 638-7909
e-mail: gcra_crmp@nps.gov

Following these simple guidelines will enable the planning team to clearly identify each issue and to compile all of the proposed solutions for each issue. For both the issue and solution comments, clearly state the title of the issue at the top of the page along with your name, address, and phone number.
Two blank forms are included in the center of this issue. Photocopy as many more as you need, fill them out and send them in. Be sure, if you make your own forms, that you follow the format below.

PAGE 1—ISSUE
Name Jane Canyon
Address 1001 River Road, New York, NY 10001
Phone (area code) 100-1001
Issue Crowding and congestion at major attraction sites in the summer. One page maximum explanation of why you think there is crowding at major attraction sites along the river, and why this is a concern to you

PAGE 2—SOLUTION
Name Jane Canyon
Address 1001 River Road New York NY 10001
Phone (area code) 100-1001
Issue Crowding and congestion at major attraction sites in the summer.
Solution One page maximum explanation of what could be done to reduce congestion at major attraction sites.

In addition to submitting your ideas, the NPS would like to keep you informed of the progress of the process. Sign up for their newsletter, The Canyon Constituent by writing to:
The Canyon Constituent
Grand Canyon National Park
Box 129
Grand Canyon, AZ 86023