The CRMP, Redux

Pursuant to the resumption of the Colorado River Management Plan (crmp) process, the Officers and Board of Directors of Grand Canyon River Guides met several times and exchanged many ideas about our “position” for this go-round. Unsure of what form the public scoping sessions would take (or what the timetable would be), we commenced our analysis with a re-examination of gcrg’s original crmp statement (“The crmp Marches On”, bqr Winter 1997–1998, Vol 11 #1, pages 22-30), to determine its longevity and remaining applicability.
Three new gcrg board members and a new president-elect will take office before the final deadline for comments on September 20, 2002, and it is important that they be able to provide their input. What follows will evolve further before final comments are submitted to the park, but may nevertheless supply you with food for thought. By the time you read this, the five public meetings will have concluded in mid-August. If you have not done so already, it is imperative that you weigh in with your own comments to let the Park know how you feel. The Park wants you to describe your vision for future management by giving them your ideas on resource conditions, visitor experiences and recreational opportunities. You can do so through a variety of methods (email to grca_crmp@nps.gov; write to the crmp Team, Grand Canyon National Park, PO Box 129, Grand Canyon, az 86023; or hand deliver). Their website (www.nps.gov/grca/crmp) will give you all the information you need to respond and be a part of this important process.
Issue: Continuing 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. 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 of 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: Continuing Public Input
Create a Federal Advisory Committee (fac)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; Adaptive Management Work Group (amwg); Indian tribes; Environmentalists; Educators; and National Park Service (nps).
Issue: Crowding and Congestsion on the River
At certain times of the year, particularly during the peak primary season, 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. Often these problems have repercussions far upstream in terms of attraction and campsites, 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 support the concept of campsite scheduling to alleviate this problem.
Solution: Suggesstions to Reduce 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 reduce congestion at key attraction sites.
2. Specify a minimum trip length of four days to Phantom Ranch, seven days to the Whitmore pad, eight 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 to help reduce crowding and congestion above exchange points.
4. Encourage companies to make more of their offerings non-interchange, and stagger the interchanges from company to company in the summer.
5. Allow only one exchange per trip.
6. Further encourage companies and guides to make use of any and all available launch information, in order that trips may be modified on-river to reduce contacts and congestion. The launch calendar portion of the nps website (currently a secure website only accessible by outfitters) should be available and accessible to everyone.
7. Open up more campsites between Cremation and Horn Creek to reduce summer crowding in the Inner Gorge for those exchanging at Pipe Creek. Examine opening some restricted campsites to limited use (with no layovers and restricted hours). Some campsites, like Roy’s Beach could be mandatory for science trips.
8. Take advantage of motorized-trips efficiency by extending the motor season to September 30th and make the non-motor season October 1 through March 31.
9. Increase educational efforts to all those who may be using river campsites. Revamp and re-issue the “Grand Canyon Courtesy Flyer” that was initially developed by private and commercial boaters and other canyon lovers in cooperation with the National Park Service as a means of encouraging positive encounters among river users. The flyer addresses double-camping, etiquette when encountering other groups, how to work with schedules to reduce conflicts, and many other useful topics.
10. Evenly spread summer allocation equitably month to month during the six-month primary season so that approximately one-sixth of all trips are used per month (with a maximum of 20%, or one-fifth, used in any one month.
11. A computer simulation model has been developed that uses existing and new river trip data to simulate river traffic to study the relationship between river use and distribution given resource management goals at camps and attraction sites. Urge its use in order to determine if any improvements can be made through the examination of different launch scenarios. This model should not be intended as an answer, but used as a guideline to develop more flexibility in our present planning.
Issue: Whitmore Exchanges
Any decision on the helicopter exchanges at Whitmore Wash will be made nation to nation between the Park and the Hualapai Tribe as per the memorandum of agreement. Flying people in and out of the Canyon by helicopter at Whitmore Wash encompasses and impacts so many important concerns: the “wilderness experience”, noise levels, the overflights issue, crowding and congestion in the river corridor, and safety.
Solution: Whitmore Exchanges
The crmp must investigate alternatives to the current level of Whitmore exchanges that do not exacerbate crowding and congestion at other exchange points further downriver. Many ideas put forth in our “Suggestions to Reduce Crowding” section are applicable here. The computer simulation model may be of particular assistance in combination with some of our other suggestions.
Issue: Colorado River Ecosystem Monitoring
The crmp is responsible for management of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon and of the surrounding largely pristine tributaries and desert habitats. It is imperative that a substantial biological component is built into this and all future management plans. A healthy ecosystem is inseparable from the social and economic concerns of Colorado River running.
This crmp must 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 coupled with monitoring and research. Scientifically credible information is required for these management elements. Additional data and information synthesis are needed through interactions with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
Continued sediment loss on Grand Canyon beaches, preservation of natural and cultural resources, and protection of endangered species such as the imperiled humpback chub are often inextricably directly linked to dam flows. While not directly under the purview of the crmp, effective ecosystem management is impossible without linking thecrmp directly to the Adaptive Management Program governing the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. This becomes increasingly evident when those resources are severely threatened by flow regimes, as is the case with the precipitous decline of humpback chub populations. The future of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon should encompass all of what makes it unique today, with continued protection of its biodiversity and resources for subsequent generations to enjoy over the long term. Allowing a completely separate process to so greatly affect and in many cases, hinder, the Park’s ability to wisely and effectively manage its own resource must be addressed and rectified.
Lest we forget, activities on the rim itself may also engender negative repercussions on habitats below it. The potential impacts of groundwater development in gateway communities on the rim must therefore be addressed by the crmp. Undiminished groundwater flow from the aquifer into the seeps and springs below the rim is crucial for supporting these fragile habitats and microenvironments, while maintaining their biodiversity. The continued viability and sustainability of these desert oases is also profoundly important to river visitors and to the visitor experience.
Lastly, a broad-scale economic evaluation of the less “tangible” resources contained within the Colorado River ecosystem is an additional tool for guiding its scientific management to achieve the greatest ecological and economic integrity. The question of values as perceived by stakeholders should be asked of all resources connected with the Colorado River’s aquatic and riparian components, including endangered species, pre-dam resident species protected by the National Park Organic Act, exotic invaders, as well as non-living elements such as beaches, banks, water flows, temperatures, sediment loads, and river chemistry. Based on well-designed research, and by placing specific numerical evaluations on all of these “non-use values,” their importance can no longer be minimized.

Issue: Colorado River Ecosystem Monitoring
• Urge the completion of a comprehensive, scientifically credible biological inventory and monitoring program.
• Protect existing populations of species of special concern (endangered, endemic, and native indicator species) as well as promote studies and projects to control non-native species, especially noxious or threatening ones.
• Link the Adaptive Management Program (amp) to ecosystem management in Grand Canyon to amplify protection efforts and jointly meet the sprit of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Work in concert with the amp on research, monitoring, and management needs and priorities. Enhance the technical and scientific credibility of the crmp through the solicitation of input or review from the amp.
• Create accountability to the public through an annual state-of-the-river resources report.
• Address any groundwater development in gateway communities along the rim as it pertains to impacting resources below the rim.
• Create and conduct a research program to reliably evaluate among all groups of stakeholders their specific valuations of the various resources, living and non-living, which together characterize the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, historically and at present.
Issue: Use Levels (Total)
The Colorado River may have 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 in order to accommodate increasing demand, which should not be the driving force behind this decision. Appropriate research must be done to determine the carrying capacity of the river corridor, both environmentally and socially within the definition of the “limits of acceptable change.” Until such a study is completed, simply increasing allocation to satisfy demand may have negative and lasting repercussions for both the canyon resources and the visitor experience. It is imperative that any increase in allocation be justified in terms of compliance with both carrying capacities.
Short Term Solution: Use Levels (Total)
Evenly spread summer allocation equitably month to month during the primary season so that approximately one-sixth of all trips are used per month (with a maximum of 20%, or one-fifth, used in any one month).
Make full use of the computer simulation model previously discussed under “Suggestions to Reduce Crowding.” Utilizing the model to study changes in distribution patterns through the manipulation of differing launch scenarios should be done to determine where we can gain in efficiency while maintaining flexibility.
A program should be developed to educate all trip leaders on how to run a low-impact trip. Building stewardship and strengthening the “Leave No Trace” ethic will go far to reduce overall impacts to the physical resource.
Long Term Solution: Use Levels (Total)
Research must be done to establish both the physical and social carrying capacity of the river corridor. All forms of use must be considered in the overall picture: commercial, private, research, and administrative use. It is entirely possible that the river corridor may reach socially perceived limits before the physical ramifications manifest themselves. The “Limits of Acceptable Change” might also be re-evaluated for their continued validity.
Social research should include a thorough examination of the interplay between congestion, crowding, and social interactions. “Social” carrying capacity must take into consideration, but must not be limited to, the following points:
• Without proper launch scenarios, continually increasing the numbers of visitors is detrimental to the wilderness experience and infringes upon the opportunities for solitude and reflection that the Grand Canyon uniquely affords.
• Increasing numbers means increasing visitor contacts, congestion, and crowding at attraction sites and in regions of critical campsites.
• The perception of acceptable limits for social contact is entirely subjective and can change drastically from person to person (i.e. someone coming from a crowded urban environment may perceive the acceptable number of contacts to be greater).
• The physical impacts discussed below can affect the visitor experience and therefore social perceptions.
The physical carrying capacity of the Colorado River Corridor must take into consideration, but must not be limited to, the following points:
• Impacts to the environment (including old high-water zone, trails, campsites, wildlife, water sources such as springs, seeps and tributaries, and side canyon vegetation)
• Impacts on cultural resources
• Impacts to the campable area of Grand Canyon beaches by flow regimes from Glen Canyon Dam, which directly affect carrying capacity, especially in critical reaches where camps are sparse, small, and/or in high demand
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. 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, information, and flexibility are the most important and effective means for resolving many on-river conflicts.
Solution: Regulations, Bureaucracy, Technology, and the Visitor Experience
1. No one has more consistent contact with the visitor to the Colorado River than commercial guides. It is important that the Park Service continue to support the role the river guides play in carrying out the Park’s mission.
2. Any science, Park Service, or resource management trip should use the minimum tools necessary to complete their work, and the trips should be run as to have minimum impact on other users of the river corridor.
3. The Park needs to retain their lead role in keeping outside agencies out of regulating the river.
4. 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 to maximize or enhance the quality of any river trip and wilderness experience. Additional rules and regulations cannot realistically be created for each situation as it arises. Educational and informational efforts should be increased for all trip leaders, private and commercial, so that goals can be achieved without new rules.
Issue: The Privaate Waiting List
The wait to obtain a private permit is very lengthy. Grand Canyon River Guides recognizes that a greater than ten-year wait for a permit to run the river is unrealistic and should be shortened to some reasonable term of five years or less.
It is possible to shorten this waiting time to a reasonable period without changing allocation. 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. The Park Service has made some definite improvements (for example, in how cancellations and their resultant openings are handled), however, the fact remains that the system is unworkable in its current form.
Solution: The Privaate Waiting List
1.In that the waiting list may be too “broken” to fix, all alternative systems – for example, lotteries, weighted lotteries, bidding systems, or a combination – should be seriously examined to replace or alter the waiting list process for distributing private permits. An examination of systems currently in use by federal agencies on other rivers around the United States would be the most logical starting point.
2 If the existing waiting process were to be retained, then the following should be considered:
• 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 of the list more rapidly.
• A non-refundable deposit (excepting emergencies) would be payable within 30–45 days after launch dates are assigned. (Note: launch dates are assigned a year in advance at this time).
3.When commercial companies go up for sale, the Park could obtain the user days by purchasing them at fair market value and transfer them to the private sector. This would increase private allocation without increasing overall allocation.
Issue: Wilderness Designation
While the Wilderness issue is not directly addressed in the crmp, direction on this complex issue may flow out of the public input that the crmp fosters. Indeed the decision to pursue (or not to pursue) Wilderness designation will affect most, if not all other issues encompassed within the Colorado River Management Plan. Resolution is therefore imperative to dispel the ambiguity and contentious political maneuvering that has plagued the park for years.
Solution: Wilderness Designation
We encourage Grand Canyon National Park to:
• Formulate, at their earliest opportunity, a Wilderness recommendation firmly based on public opinion during this scoping process.
• Promote their position to Congress and petition Congress to act upon the recommendation in an expeditious manner.
• Directly and consistently tie their Wilderness recommendation to the management of the Colorado River until such a time as Congress acts upon that recommendation.
• Manage for a wilderness experience in the spirit of the Wilderness Act by preserving the ecological characteristics of wilderness and keeping the level of use within the visitor’s expectations of a wilderness experience.
Issue: Diversity of Offerings Within the Outfitter Spectrum
Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (nepa) requires a systematic analysis of “all reasonable alternatives” including an examination of the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized (oar powered) use. nepa compliance also necessitates the inclusion of an alternative wherein motorized watercraft are not permitted on the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park.
Lastly, over the years, there has been some consolidation in the number of commercial outfitters offering trips in Grand Canyon. Such consolidation and the reduction of the number of independently operated companies is detrimental to diversity and consumer choice.
Solution: Diversity of Offerings Within the Outfitter Spectrum
Gcrg would like to see the spectrum of offerings for river trips as diverse as it is now and encourages competition and choice. The park should also not hinder any voluntary change to more oar powered/non-motorized use within the current allocation, appropriate season, number of people, etc…
Furthermore, Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. has always acknowledged motors as a historic, viable way to run the river. The Canyon can and should be shared by a broad range of people, underscoring the intrinsic value of diversity in type and length of trips. The advent of four-stroke motors has further enhanced the river experience with quieter technology and less pollution.
While encouraging diversity, gcrg also believes it has its limits. Some confines must be placed on the variety of offerings to the public. The ugly result of trying to expand diversity too far would be one-day jet boat trips down the river. Up-running of the river should also be disallowed for obvious safely reasons.
Additionally, no fewer than the current number of independently operated commercial outfitters should be maintained in order to preserve diversity.