The CRMP Marches On

ell, after three scoping sessions, four very long board meetings, a Fall meeting, several thousand phone calls and a lot of reading, agonizing, arguing and discussing, Grand Canyon River Guides has submitted to the planning team our final thoughts on the issues and their solutions for the new Colorado River Management Plan (crmp). We await the next step.
We've printed what we sent to the Park here in this bqr so you can see what we said. Now, here's the thing: you may not agree with what we said. You may read this and say to yourself, “I can't believe those *&%#$@!! proposed that!” If that's the case we apologize and humbly ask you to consider the following: we are an organization that comprises members from the following constituencies: full-time commercial guides, part-time commercial guides, no longer commercial guides, private boaters, scientists, Park Service, outfitters, managers, interested general public, rabid environmentalists, pilots, doctors, moms, dads, mechanics and messiahs (at least in their minds). In other words, how do you come up with a final opinion for a group of 1,700 people that diverse? 'Tweren't easy. We're tired.
We didn't hear from a lot of our members about this issue. If you feel like you got left out, or that your opinions aren't represented here, that may be why. You have to talk to us to let us know what's up. Come to the meetings, write, call, e-mail, un-elect us (please!), do something. We'll continue to keep you informed about the process. As we get into dealing with more specific issues and solutions, there will be more chances for comment later this year. Talk to you soon.

Christa Sadler

Issue: Adaptive Management and Public Input

The crmp must be treated as an evolving document, one that allows for continued public input and comment for changes as needs arise. The recently dissolved Constituency Panel, while often contentious and difficult, served an important purpose in bringing together diverse constituents to discuss issues and ideas relating to the Colorado River. In order to make a document such as the crmp truly representative of the needs of the community of users on the river, the Park needs to hear from all those groups. While the current scoping process does consider all the various viewpoints, this process must not end with the creation of the new crmp. As economic, social, environmental or political necessity demands, the crmp may need to change. This kind of flexibility and communication must be built into the process.

Solution: Adaptive Management and Public Input

Create a Federal Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from all constituencies to actively help the Park obtain feedback on the crmp throughout the life of the current document and in preparation for the next revision. This panel could be modeled on the Adaptive Management Work Group currently in place for the monitoring of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. This committee would be charged with providing recommendations for changes to the crmp to the National Park Service as situations and demands continue to evolve. Possible members for the fac might include representatives from:
• guides
• private boaters
• outfitters
• science (amwg)
• Indian tribes
• environmentalists
• educators
• nps

In addition, the crmp should be subject to full review by the Adaptive Management Work Group and all other constituencies.

Issue: Crowding and Congestion on the River

At certain times of the year, month, week and day there are noticeable crowding problems at major attraction sites in the Canyon, and competition for campsites in critical reaches of the river corridor. Exchanges on river trips often serve to increase congestion in certain reaches of the Canyon, especially above Phantom Ranch and in the Muav Gorge. In the middle of the summer, rowing trips who need to get passengers on the trail early in the morning will often double and sometimes triple camp in the few campsites of the Upper Gorge above Phantom. Trips that are attempting to get to the helicopter pad at Whitmore Wash from Havasu in one night will bunch up above Havasu in the Muav Gorge. Often these problems have repercussions far upstream in terms of attraction and campsites. This is clearly detrimental to the quality of the visitor experience.
We do know that many crowding and congestion problems can be dealt with effectively on the river, using information, education and communication between trips and guides. We do not in any way support the concept of campsite scheduling to alleviate this problem.
Solution: Crowding and Congestion on the River

Extensive research needs to be done to determine the effects of various changes within current operations. It is critical to develop a computer model that is based on sociological research done with commercial and private river runners as to the nature of their experience and their expectations on the river. This model needs to take into account these expectations to determine the extent of the congestion and how various options affect this congestion.
This model should not be intended as an answer, but used as a guideline to develop more flexibility in our present planning. This research and the development of the model needs to be done by an outside agency whose sole purpose is to oversee this study.

Suggestions to alleviate crowding:

1. Allow and encourage companies to launch at least a portion of their trips on days other than weekends and at different times of the day to avoid bunching up at key attraction sites.
2. Specify a minimum trip length of 4 days to Phantom Ranch, 7 days to the Whitmore pad, 8 days to Diamond Creek or Lake Mead. This adds one day to many motor trips, increasing flexibility and allowing for scheduling to avoid crowding at key sites.
3. Encourage outfitters to make less use of the exchange system. The more outfitters that eliminate or reduce the number of exchanges on their trips, the more this will help reduce crowding and congestion above exchange points.
4. Encourage companies to make a part of their offerings non-interchange, and stagger the interchanges they do have from company to company in the summer months so that trips do not stack up all at once above interchange points, forcing double camping.
5. Allow only one exchange per trip, either at Phantom Ranch or Whitmore Wash. This would again reduce crowding above these key exchange points by increasing the flexibility of the trips.
6. Further encourage companies and guides to make use of any and all available launch information (private and commercial), in order that trips may be modified on-river to reduce contacts and congestion.
7. Open up more campsites between Phantom Ranch and Horn Creek to alleviate summer crowding problems in the Inner Gorge for those exchanging at Pipe Creek.
8. The summer months are considered “sacrifice months,” in which river runners know they will come into contact with other trips, especially in those critical reaches of the canyon. This high-use season could be extended to a small degree into the shoulder or off-use season. These seasons should, however, be largely preserved for people who want a more solitary experience.
9. Increase educational efforts to private boaters and hikers who may be using river campsites. Let them know that they may be double camping in certain key areas, what is the proper etiquette when encountering other groups, how to work with their schedules to avoid conflicts, where to camp with small groups, etc.
10.Encourage outfitters to only use percent of their allocation in any given month. When outfitters use a huge percentage of their allocation in one month because they can sell the spaces, it creates far more congestion in the form of more boats and more people and more impact to the canyon and the quality of the visitor experience. A 25 percent cap on monthly allocation use would still allow outfitters to sell trips during the main season and not have to move far into the shoulder season if they preferred not to.

Issue: Diversity of Offerings Within
the Outfitter Spectrum

1. Variety of Offerings. The current trend toward fewer and larger companies is detrimental to the visitor experience. Only a few years ago, there were 21 companies running a wide spectrum of trips in Grand Canyon. That number has since fallen to 16, with a few companies getting much larger. In some cases, companies that charge a high daily rate have bought companies that charged a low daily rate, thereby decreasing the range of trip prices and resulting in a higher overall trip price. The recent prospectus process placed a large emphasis on profits and economic viability, which the larger companies or prospective companies can clearly demonstrate more easily than smaller ones. There is a real possibility that in the future large outside corporations will easily buy up companies that are for sale, or that the few very large concessions currently in existence will be able to buy out smaller ones. In addition, it should be recognized that some companies are doing an extremely good job of taking care of their employees through providing benefits, profit sharing plans, etc. The companies that provide these benefits do so from their own profit base. This should be encouraged and rewarded when considering permit renewal and initial applications.
2. Education. There is an enormous unfilled need for an educational allocation that provides trips for schools and organizations. The value of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River as classroom for many subjects cannot be overstated, and it is imperative that we allow access to those people who could benefit from this “classroom.” While some outfitters do run alumni association trips and educational trips for colleges, these are often highly specific and geared toward people who have the money to pay the relatively high costs of a commercial trip.
3. Limits to Diversity We believe that “diversity” has a limit, however, and that there must be confines placed upon the variety of offerings we provide the public. The ugly end result of trying to expand diversity would be one-day jet boat trips down the river.

Solution: Diversity of Offerings Within
the Outfitter Spectrum

1. Variety of Offerings and 2. Education
• As companies come up for sale, the Park could obtain the user days and either retire them, give them to the private sector or create an educational allotment that could be given out, on a wait list or lottery basis, to schools or other educational organ-izations.
• Help small companies remain economically viable so that they can provide guide benefits, etc. The Park could reduce the franchise fee for smaller companies, or allow permit transfers only to smaller companies, thereby evening out the size of companies.
• Cap or reduce the maximum size of a commercial company so that a few companies aren't able to obtain all the user days simply because they are economically capable of doing so.
• Make sure that the new buyer of a company has the proper experience to run that type of business. Companies that are run from huge corporate offices in other parts of the country may not have the knowledge or the connection to the canyon that allows them to make decisions that benefit either the canyon, their clients or their guides.
3. Limits to Diversity
Any shorter or faster trips must not be allowed.

Issue: Colorado River Ecosystem Management

The crmp is responsible for management of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon and of the surrounding largely pristine tributaries and desert habitats. While past crmps have largely dealt with the economic and social side of Colorado River Management, it is imperative that a substantial biological component be built into this and all future management plans. The current crmp contains a substantial biological component, which has been largely ignored. A healthy ecosystem is inseparable from the social and economic concerns of Colorado River running–indeed, often biological concerns form the basis for any social or economic decisions made. This crmp needs to build into its structure adaptive management concerns of the Colorado River ecosystem.
Adaptive ecosystem management requires: 1) clear definition of goals and objectives, 2) an understanding of existing ecosystem components and processes and 3) a proactive management approach coupled with monitoring and research. Scientifically credible information is required for these management elements. While some headway has been made through interactions with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, additional data and information synthesis are needed. Grand Canyon National Park has not performed a basic inventory of numerous river corridor biotic taxa, including fungi, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and the distribution of virtually all species is poorly known. This lack of attention to the ecosystem has resulted in the loss or perilous decline of at least nine vertebrate species from the river corridor in the past three decades, including four native fish species, northern leopard frog, zebra-tailed lizard, southwestern willow flycatcher, muskrat and Colorado River otter.
The potential impacts of groundwater development in gateway communities on the rim must be addressed by the crmp. Habitats surrounding small springs are profoundly important to numerous species and river visitors. Many of these springs are pristine pre-dam micro-environments that provide refuge for many native species. In addition, tens of thousands of river runners enjoy the aesthetic benefits of these desert oases that exist along the river corridor.

Solution: Colorado River Ecosystem Management

• Support a comprehensive, scientifically credible biological inventory and monitoring program.
• Actively promote the reintroduction of extirpated species.
• Protect existing populations of species of special concern (endangered, endemic and native indicator species).
• Encourage through funding opportunities: reduction in bureaucratic red tape, scientific discussion and research on the river ecosystem and its management. The Colorado River is one of the best-studied regulated rivers in the world. The nps should work actively to support the continuation of this globally significant effort.
• Produce an annual state-of-the-river-resources report for accountability with the public. The relationship of this report to that produced annually by the gcmrc Adaptive Management Work Group needs to be defined.
• Establish a scientific advisory panel (again, perhaps in conjunction with that of the amwg) to advise the nps on research, monitoring and management needs and priorities.
• Promote and fund studies and projects to control non-native species, especially noxious or threatening ones.
• Have the amwg review the crmp to enhance its technical and scientific credibility.
• The crmp should directly address impacts of groundwater development in gateway communities along the rim.

Issue: Fees and Funds

The Colorado River Fund was recently created using moneys from the commercial outfitters' gross profits each year. The stated purpose for these moneys is for one-time “capital improvements” within the canyon along the Colorado River. The problem with this very narrow description of the use of these fees is that there are few if any capital improvements that are needed or appropriate within the river corridor. Buildings, structures or physical “improvements” of any type are inconsistent with Wilderness management and wholly and completely unnecessary to the river or the visitors who use the river.
It is important that the language guiding the use of these funds be changed to allow alternative uses of the moneys. There are many uses of these fees that are consistent with the Park's Management Objectives and Guiding Principles that are not allowed under the current language. Creating projects simply to spend the money available overlooks many solutions that would be useful and benefit the people whose money makes up that fund–the commercial passengers.

Solution: Fees and Funds

Change the language on the legislation creating the crf moneys to allow alternative uses for those moneys. In addition, these moneys need to go to projects that directly benefit the people who paid into the fund, i.e. the commercial passengers. The fund must be accountable. The public needs to know what is being collected and where that money is going.
Possible uses of crf moneys:
1. Equipment, salaries, food, etc. for the Park, outfitter and guide-sponsored resource management trips. The members of these trips are doing a very important service for the Grand Canyon and ultimately for the river visitor. It is critical that these trips continue and are well supplied and it is only fair that the boatmen be compensated for time and effort.
2. Scholarship funds to help offset loss of revenues for providing commercial river trips for education, low-income or special populations. If an outfitter lowers the price of a commercial trip to accommodate a low-income user, that outfitter should be compensated to bring the price back up to the standard level.
3. Design and build a river-running wing to the Visitors' Center at South Rim. This wing could deal specifically with a portion of the canyon's history that most of those visitors have never even heard of. The wing could house (indoors) the historic boats now deteriorating under the eaves of the Visitor Centers' courtyard. The boats should be restored using these funds, so they remain an important and irreplaceable part of the Park's history.
4. Modification of the boat ramp at Lees Ferry to allow private trips to more easily rig and launch. Currently, they are relegated to the rocky downstream side of the ramp, often a difficult and dangerous (to equipment) place to rig.
5. Rehabilitation and clean-up trips are desperately needed for some of the beaches in the first thirty miles of Marble Canyon. Jackass and South Canyon are examples of places that have become heavily polluted with charcoal and huge amounts of human waste, making them not only unpleasant but dangerous places to stop and camp. These and other campsites need to be rehabilitated often to keep up with the visitation they receive. Efforts should be stepped-up to educate visitors hiking to these areas.
6. Cooperative efforts with surrounding Indian nations for clean-up efforts (i.e. the first 30 miles of Marble Canyon), trips to monitor environmental degradation and river use, etc. This would give those tribes a vested interest in the health of the river and the canyon and encourage stewardship. The desired result would be that tribes understand the importance of keeping the river corridor clean and uncrowded, and do not feel the need to build structures on the river (such as the ramada-heliport on Lake Mead that is utilized by helicopter trips), nor develop additional helicopter use or visitation on lands belonging to them within the canyon, etc. The tribes are important constituents with whom the Park often has disputes over visitation and boundaries. Partnering with the tribes in efforts to care for the canyon may help curtail some of these disputes, and will certainly benefit both the canyon and the river visitor in the desired results. This use is consistent with Management Objective Number 7 (work cooperatively to assist local tribes in managing lands adjoining the Park). There is no reason that the Park cannot cooperate with tribes in stewardship of the lands within the Park as well.
7. Computer modeling of issues such as crowding and congestion, social interactions, etc. (see crowding and congestion, allocation).
8. Species inventories, both native and exotic, biological and ecological research.
9. Funding for current and future crmp reviews.

Issue: Helicopter Exchanges at Whitmore Wash

While it is clearly inconsistent with Wilderness principles to be helicoptering people in and out of the canyon at Whitmore Wash, Grand Canyon River Guides does recognize the need for this exchange point on a river trip. From a congestion standpoint alone, the crowding at take-out points further downstream would become unmanageable were this exchange point removed as an option. gcrg does not, however, support any increase in helicopter use at either Whitmore or at any other possible places along the river. The section of river below Separation Canyon is already heavily utilized by helicopters run by the Hualapai Nation, and this use only continues to increase. Any helicopter exchange point along the river sets a dangerous precedent for future helicopter use elsewhere (i.e. helicopter use by the Hualapai above Diamond Creek, etc.), and it is clear that this must not be allowed to happen.

Solution: Helicopter Exchanges at Whitmore Wash

• There should be no increase in the use of helicopters at Whitmore Wash.
• No additional helicopter use should be allowed at any points along the river within Park Service jurisdiction, and attempts to reduce use below Diamond Creek should be made as well.
In order to curtail helicopter use at Whitmore, outfitters should be encouraged to offer passengers the option of hiking out the old stock trail. The trail is currently being improved; it is an easy and quite lovely hike and many river passengers are capable of making the trip. While this is not a suggestion that helicopter use be stopped at Whitmore, it may serve the purpose of helping reduce the current numbers of flights, which would reduce impact on other boating parties and wildlife. Hikers could be jeeped to the Bar 10 from the rim. Improvements of the jeep road may be made using crf moneys.

Issue: Allocation (total)

The Colorado River has reached carrying capacity in terms of the total number of people currently using the river corridor. In the past, the trend has been to increase the allocation to accommodate increasing demand. This will not be possible any longer without serious and irreparable damage to the resource and the visitor experience. Crowding is already a problem during certain seasons and times of the week and additional numbers will only increase that crowding. An increased number of river visitors also means an increased strain on the resource: trails, camps, fragile vegetation, water quality, etc. The problems that currently exist within the system can and must be dealt with using the current allocation.
Before any changes in allocation are made, there needs to be extensive research done as to the carrying capacity of the river corridor, both environmentally and socially. Until such a study is completed, simply increasing allocation to satisfy demand may have negative and lasting repercussions for both the canyon and the river visitor.

Solution: Allocation (total)

• Do not increase the total allocation of people using the river corridor. There are many reasons that an increase in allocation should not be considered as an option. These include:
• Continually increasing the number of visitors to an area proposed as Wilderness is inconsistent with the principles of Wilderness management.
• Increasing numbers means increasing visitor contacts, congestion and crowding at attraction sites and in regions of critical campsites.
• Increased visitors to the river corridor increases environmental degradation to campsites, the old high water zone, trails and water sources.
• Other people use the river corridor as well as river runners. Backpackers and fishermen both make an impact to the area and stand to be impacted by increasing use of the river corridor.
If numbers get shifted around, or certain times of the year become more heavily used, this must be done within the current allocation. If it is necessary, the primary season could be extended to reduce crowding and spread the impact on the resource out over more time; however, it is extremely important that the canyon and the river be given enough time during the winter months to recover from summer use.
• Research must be done to examine the carrying capacity of the river corridor. This research should address, among other things:
• congestion and crowding
• social interactions
• impacts to the environment:
• old high water zone
• trails
• campsites
• wildlife
• water sources (springs, seeps, tributaries)
• side canyon vegetation.

Issue: Regulations, Bureaucracy, Technology and the Visitor Experience

Increasing regulations and the number of outside regulatory agencies are diminishing the flexibility and quality of Grand Canyon river trips. In order to comply with the management of the river corridor as Potential Wilderness, as is stated in the Park's Guiding Principles, the Park must recognize that the primary role of any regulating agency is to provide information, not law enforcement. This information should allow the visitor to successfully and safely interact with a wilderness setting with a minimum of outside contacts. Any agency contacts should be respectful of the visitor's desire for a wilderness experience, and must therefore be low-key, noninvasive and minimal impact.
In addition, many of the current issues being discussed as part of this crmp process can be dealt with without adding another set of regulations to the crmp. Communication, education and information are the most important and effective means for resolving many on-river conflicts (crowding, campsite availability, etc.).

Solution: Regulations, Bureaucracy, Technology and the Visitor Experience

1. It is unnecessary to conduct law enforcement trips on the river to monitor and evaluate commercial and private use. The Park Service needs to acknowledge the river guide community in their very powerful role as interpreters, educators and protectors of the Canyon. No one has more consistent contact with the visitor to the Colorado River than commercial guides and it is important that the Park Service recognize and encourage the role the river guides play in carrying out the Park's mission of protecting the Canyon and educating visitors. A more cooperative relationship than is currently demonstrated by the existing law enforcement patrol trips would benefit everyone concerned. In addition, it is extremely offensive to river passengers, both commercial and private, to have law enforcement officials enter a camp, often with visible firearms, for the purposes of inspection.
2. Instead of enforcement-oriented patrol trips, the Park Service should conduct resource management trips in cooperation with the guides that would help monitor commercial and private trips, campsite use and environmental degradation, provide information, etc. These collaborative trips could include Park Service Interpretive rangers and Resource and Concessions staff, river guides, private boaters and other pertinent parties. These trips would be less invasive to the visitor experience than purely enforcement-oriented patrol trips, and would provide important information to the Park, guides, outfitters and private boaters about issues pertaining to the river corridor and the river industry. In addition, these trips could do important restoration work to sites that need it. These and any trips that are done should be fully accountable to the public. The activities that are performed on the trip, the results and their benefits to the public's need to be demonstrable and a full disclosure made for public review.
3. Any science, Park Service or Resource Management trips should use the minimum tools necessary to complete their work. Whenever possible, the use of nonmotorized craft in these trips needs to be encouraged. Any additional use or increase in motorized craft or invasive technologies such as on-river cameras, jet skis, cell phones, etc. should be discouraged as being inconsistent with Wilderness values and seriously damaging to the visitor experience.
4. The Park needs to take a stronger role in keeping other outside agencies out of regulating the river. Food handler's licenses, drug tests and Coast Guard licenses are inconsistent with a Wilderness experience, and usurp much of the responsibility for managing that experience from the Park.
5. Wherever possible, the crmp should be structured so that the idea or ultimate goal is stated without a new rule or regulation being designed to address that problem. Flexibility is a critical tenet of any river trip and Wilderness experience, and additional rules and regulations cannot realistically be created for each situation as it arises. Educational and informational efforts can be increased so that situations can be effectively dealt with without new rules. Rather than creating a new regulation for every issue that comes up, Grand Canyon River Guides supports intelligent application of reasonable guidelines. In other words, if the guidelines are stated, the users can apply those guidelines intelligently to situations as they arise.

Issue: Current Allocation System
(User Days and The Visitor Experience)

The current allocation system compromises the visitor experience by encouraging trips that are shorter and faster, with multiple exchanges, to maximize profit. While we recognize that every visitor to the Colorado River should not be forced to do a two-week trip, there are certain limits that should be considered in terms of length and character of a Colorado River trip. The length and number of exchanges of a river trip can affect the quality of the visitor experience. It takes a certain amount of time for people to become comfortable with their surroundings, and learn how to take care of both themselves and the environment. In addition, gaining or losing members of the trip part of the way through the canyon can have a detrimental affect to the continuity and community spirit of the journey.
Exchanges also bear on issues such as crowding and congestion. When several trips of the same length have launched the same day, they will all reach the exchange point at the same time. When several trips are waiting to exchange at Phantom Ranch, this unnecessarily crowds the Gorge campsites. Certain critical areas of the canyon tend to become more crowded (Upper Gorge, Muav Gorge above Havasu) when many trips of the same length pass through, all on the same schedule. Often, trip schedules have repercussions on crowding far above the exchange point. Encouraging longer trips allows for more flexibility; fewer exchanges also increase flexibility as well by not binding trips to a particular time table. In addition, during the middle of the summer, it can be dangerous to clients if they are not on the trail early in the morning. This causes problems with double and sometimes triple camping above Phantom Ranch to get passengers on the trail before the heat of the day.
There are several outfitters who offer few or no exchanges and sell their trips as readily as other outfitters, so trips without exchanges can be sold. We believe that outfitters need to encourage their clients to take trips without exchanges, both for the quality of the trip and to help alleviate the problems stated above. We recognize that many outfitters run excellent trips that either have no exchanges or that perhaps have exchanges but offer their passengers and their guides benefits in other arenas. We do not wish to cut into the profit margin of the outfitters and do not want to unnecessarily hurt outfitters who are offering other benefits on their trips, but we would like to see encouragement to offer longer trips with fewer exchanges.

Solutions: Current Allocation System
(User Days and The Visitor Experience)

Gcrg offers three possible solutions to help alleviate some of the issues stated above, with the understanding that it is almost impossible to make any definitive changes without further study. Each possible solution must be extensively modeled to determine the results given various scenarios. These and any other suggestions must be experimented with using results from sociological studies dealing with visitor expectations and experience before any decisions can be made.
Gcrg supports a gradual move towards the solution presented in Number 1; however we recognize that making changes to the current system may alleviate problems. These suggestions are listed in Number 2. If modeling proved that Number 3 was a viable solution, we would support that concept.
It is also important to recognize that we need to actively inform prospective visitors to the river about the spectrum of other opportunities for river trips throughout the Southwest that may more conveniently fit into their time frame and encourage visitors to explore those other options. Do not hesitate, in the Park Service literature, to come out and say that “It's the Grand Canyon and if you want to run the river, you need to take some time.” Nor should commercial outfitters be reluctant to turn people away who do not have the time to do the kind of trip that the Grand Canyon warrants.
1. People-Based System - Move to a system based on “people” as opposed to User Days. In this system, the total number of user days per company is divided by the average trip length to give each company a number of people they can take down the river. Within this system, each company can run whatever trip length they want, but the system encourages companies to keep people on the river longer, rather than run them through quickly to maximize profit. This may also have the desired effect of reducing numbers of people in the canyon.
2. User Day System -
a. Specify a minimum trip length of 4 days to Phantom Ranch, 7 days to the Whitmore pad, 8 days to Diamond Creek or Lake Mead. This adds one day to many trips, increasing flexibility and allowing for scheduling to avoid crowding at key sites. It also allows the visitor one more day to experience the river and the canyon.
b. Encourage outfitters to make less use of the exchange system. The more outfitters that eliminate or reduce the number of exchanges on their trips, the more this will help reduce crowding and congestion and avoid fragmenting the visitor's experience by gaining or losing trip members.
c. Allow only one exchange per trip, either at Phantom Ranch or Whitmore Wash. This would again reduce crowding above these key exchange points by increasing the flexibility of the trips.
d. Encourage companies to make a part of their offerings non-interchange, and stagger the interchanges they do have from company to company in the summer months so that trips do not stack up all at once above interchange points, forcing double camping. Encouraging companies to do trips that are either complete exchanges or none at all keeps all exchanges on a few trips, instead of running every trip with a few people exchanging.
3. Launch-Based System. Move to a “launch-based system” in which a given number of launches are allowed per day, with a maximum cap of 25 people on commercial trips (suggested) and 16 on private trips. A suggested number of two commercial and two private launches would be allowed per day in the primary season (mid-April to mid-October), with a lesser number in the secondary season.

Issue: The Private Waiting List

The wait to obtain a private permit is too long. Private demand for the resource has skyrocketed and shows no sign of leveling off. Grand Canyon River Guides recognizes that an 8 to 10 year wait for a permit to run the river is unfair and should be shortened to 3 to 4 years.
It is possible to shorten this waiting time to a reasonable period without changing allocation at all. This must be done. Raising allocation just to accommodate the numbers of private boaters who wish to go downriver is only a temporary solution and a dangerous precedent to set. Instead, the permit system should be examined and modified. There are many problems with the current system, not the least of which is a lack of complete knowledge about the character of the waiting list and the people on it, the fact that the current system appears to be manipulated by a few people who know how to do so, and that the cancellation period is too short to allow many people to take advantage of it. In addition, the Park Service has a difficult time handling the cumbersome waiting list due to insufficient staffing and funding. All of these issues combine to create a system that is almost unworkable in its present form.

Solution: The Private Waiting List

• This entire issue needs to be handled as a separate forum from the crmp process. It is an extremely complex issue that needs to be dealt with in a committee that is devoted entirely to solving these problems. gcrg recommends that a committee made up of members of all the various constituencies meet with the goal of finding solutions to these problems within no more than two years.
Some suggestions for helping the current system:
1. More information is needed as to the character of the waiting list. We need to know who is on the list and how long they have been waiting, how often do some people go, and how effectively used is the cancellation system. How many people does the list truly represent (6,000 or 6,000 x 16?), etc.
2. The current waiting list system needs some revisions, which could include:
• Design it so that one person on the list equals one person on a trip, not that one person on the list equals the 15 people they would like to bring with them.
• Make sure that all people on the list are qualified to act as trip leaders on a private trip, which could reduce the number of people “tagging along” on the list.
• Turn the private system into a user-day system instead of a launch-based system, where several smaller trips could leave Lees Ferry in a day, as long as the number of user days didn't exceed the limit. This would get some people off the list more rapidly.
• Make the cancellation period a longer one. This longer lead time would allow some people on the list to more easily be able to take advantage of cancellations. A suggestion would be 4 to 6 months.
• Have a substantial penalty for withdrawing from the waiting list (excepting emergencies). This could serve the purpose of dissuading people from getting on the waiting list and crowding it, only to cancel at the last minute.
• When cancellations occur, someone must go name by name down the list to fill that cancellation, instead of simply opening the space up to whoever can call in quickly enough.
• An outside company could run the waiting list as a private enterprise. It is a full-time job to manage the waiting list. Private enterprise would be able to focus entirely on that issue and on developing a system that reduced the wait.
• Various parties on the waiting list could be matched up with other parties of similar character, thereby reducing the wait for people who would not mind sharing a permit with people of like mind to get on the river more quickly. This would necessitate someone keeping a data base and calling private parties. Funding and staffing constraints at the Park might call for this to be done by a private contractor, to be paid for in part by the new fees collected from private boaters.
3. When commercial companies go up for sale, the Park could obtain the user days and transfer them to the private sector. This would increase private allocation without increasing overall allocation.
4. If a new system is deemed necessary to deal with private access, and the current waiting list changed in favor of some other system, Grand Canyon River Guides does not support a lottery system. Lotteries are too chancy. Although they are technically fair in the sense that everyone in a lottery has an equal chance of obtaining a permit, it is possible that someone in a lottery system would never go down the river while other people could go often. At least the current system does guarantee that eventually one's number will come up.

Issue: Access to Under-served
Portions of the Public

In many cases the price of commercial river trips is rapidly outdistancing the ability of the “average” person to pay for them. The price of a Colorado River trip has been steadily increasing as low-price companies are bought out by higher-priced ones, and demand increases for a scarce resource. Outfitters need to be actively encouraged to make some of their trips available to people who cannot afford $250 per day.
There is also a need for an educational allocation that provides trips for schools and organizations that may not have large funding sources (see Diversity of Offerings)

Solution: Access to Under-served
Portions of the Public

1. Outfitters should be encouraged to provide some of their user days for lower-cost trips. People who might benefit from this service could be low-income families, inner city or disadvantaged youths, Native American groups or schools, etc. A scholarship fund could be set up using crf moneys to help offset some of the costs of such trips.
2. Outfitters should be encouraged to provide some of their user days for an educational allotment that provides access to schools and other educational organizations who wish to use the Grand Canyon as a classroom but who do not have access to commercial-level funds. One trip per outfitter per year could be set aside as a lower-budget educational trip specifically designed for a particular school or group.
3. When companies go up for sale, the user days could be transferred into a lower-cost guide service (as long as it still complied with safety and insurance demands). This lower-cost service might bridge the gap between the commercial sector and the private river runners who might otherwise go on a commercial trip if they could afford one. This would ultimately have the desired result of lowering private demand.

Issue: Wilderness, Potential Wilderness
and Wild and Scenic Protection

The Colorado River Corridor and its surrounding region do not receive the level of environmental protection they deserve and require for future defense against environmental challenges and for safekeeping of the experience enjoyed by visitors to the Colorado River. The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River were recommended for inclusion under the Wilderness Act in 1980. Since that time, and until such time as Congress decides to adopt or refuse this recommendation, the Canyon is required to be managed as a Wilderness in all ways. One has only to look at the increasing numbers of people, increasing congestion, regulation, technology and environmental degradation to know that the Canyon and the river corridor are not being managed for the purposes and values stated within the Wilderness Act.
Wilderness (and Potential Wilderness) designation is the only legislation that describes and establishes an overall criteria for use of the resource and the quality of the visitor experience (i.e. contacts, numbers of people, etc.). In other words, this legislation requires the Park to provide a Wilderness Experience for visitors. In light of increasing commercial and private demand for the resource, this designation is becoming more and more critical to protect that experience, instead of continually increasing the numbers to accommodate demand. In the Park's own Management Objective and Guiding Principles (Number 4), it is clearly stated that the Park will be managed as a Wilderness and the river corridor shall be managed as a Potential Wilderness, and that the Park will pursue Wild and Scenic designation for any eligible tributaries and portions of the mainstem in Grand Canyon.

Solution Wilderness, Potential Wilderness
and Wild and Scenic Protection

• Actively pursue Wilderness status for the backcountry portions of Grand Canyon National Park, with Potential Wilderness status for the river corridor, as stated in the Park's Guiding Principles.
• Wilderness status and the details of Wilderness management must be part of a public planning process. The Park would make the final decisions as to the details of management but with public input. Decisions cannot be made on an arbitrary basis. It should be written into the crmp that the public will be the watchdog to make sure that the Park follows the plan to comply with the regulations set out by the Wilderness Act. If the Park is to make any substantial changes to management, there must be a public review.
• For Potential Wilderness status, the use of motorized craft would be grandfathered in and allowed indefinitely. Gcrg recognizes the historical significance of motorized rafts in Grand Canyon, as well as the important role they occupy in satisfying visitor demand and maintaining diversity.
• The Park should actively pursue Wild/Scenic status for tributaries and eligible portions of the mainstem, and submit recommendations for Wild and Scenic suitability to the Secretary of the Interior as soon as possible. Wild or Scenic status provides another layer of protection for the resource that deals more with ecological threats (dams, water quality, minimum flows, etc.), as well as pre-empting any development along the river corridor, such as buildings, cable crossings, etc.