Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
about the Colorado River Management Plan (Feb 2004)

Where are you in the EIS process?

The Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) Planning Team is close to issuing the draft environmental impact statement (EIS).

The following is a list of accomplishments	,
what is currently being worked on	,
and where we're going in the EIS process	:

Phase 1: (Spring - Fall 2002)
		Assembled planning team, identified project's scope and issues, analyzed data and customized planning process (March - May, 2002)
		Issued Notice of Intent (June 13, 2002)
		Interviewed Stakeholders (June, 2002)
		Gathered public input via electronic outreach and written comments (June - November, 2002)
		Held public meetings in seven cities across the United States. (August - October, 2002)
Phase 2: (Fall 2002 - Summer 2004)
		Analyzed public input and developed range of alternatives (Fall 2002 - Fall 2003)
		Held Expert Panel Series (January, 2003)
		Held Stakeholder Group and Public Workshops (January, 2003; June, 2003)
		Analyzing natural, cultural, and socio-economic effects/impacts for draft alternatives (Fall 2003 - Spring 2004)
		Issue Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with preferred alternative ( May 2004)
		Public review of DEIS; Conduct public meetings and gather public comments
Phase 3: (Summer - Winter 2004)
		Analyze public comments on DEIS
		Prepare Final EIS (FEIS)
		Issue FEIS for public review
		Issue Final NEPA Compliance Document by December 31, 2004

What does the process involve?

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park Service is mandated to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concurrent with the development of a management plan (CRMP). The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. Through this process, a total of 13,770 responses, consisting of 55,165 individual comments were submitted during public scoping for the CRMP in the summer and fall of 2002. The CRMP Team, assisted by environmental consultants, reviewed each submission and created a master database. Comments were reviewed and analyzed, and subsequently categorized by issue, solution, desired future condition, or value. The comments, as well as a series of expert panels and two stakeholder workshops were used as a framework for developing the alternatives. A summary document was prepared and a list of major issues was developed. (Public Scoping Issue Analysis and Stakeholder Group and Public Workshops)

A number of complex issues from public and internal scoping, stakeholder groups and public workshops are being addressed in the EIS. Some of these issues include, but are not limited to:

• Appropriate levels of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and preservation mandates;
• Allocation of use between commercial and non-commercial groups;
• Non-commercial permit system;
• Level of motorized and non-motorized watercraft use;
• Range of services and opportunities provided to the public; and
• The level of helicopter use near Whitmore Wash.

Given the spectrum of concerns expressed by the public, we are charged with finding ways to strike a balance between protecting resources, visitor experience, tribal concerns, local and regional economies at the same time offering fair access to the river and its diminishing beaches. Our task is to create a management plan that is sensitive to both the resource and the broad range of public concerns.

What is an Impact Analysis?

An impact analysis determines how the implementation of alternatives affect cultural and natural resources, visitor experience, the local and regional economies, tribal concerns, administrative costs, and local and regional populations. NEPA requires that we understand the consequences of proposed actions. It is the most important part of the NEPA process. The analysis includes an examination of ways to reduce (mitigate) adverse impacts, and what kind of impacts the mitigations might have.

Do you have a preferred alternative?

A draft preferred alternative is being analyzed along with other alternatives, including the current condition (No Action Alternative).

How are you going to determine carrying capacity?

The deliberations in the CRMP planning process have generated several new ways to analyze visitor carrying capacity, visitor experience, and potential "visitor use impacts" on the resource. As applied to National Parks, visitor carrying capacity is defined as "the type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining acceptable resource and social conditions that complement the park. (http://planning.nps.gov/document/verphandbook.pdf - PDF file, 1mb) "The concept of carrying capacity is intended to safeguard the quality of park resources and the visitor experience. (Park resources in this context encompass all of the biophysical, aesthetic, and cultural elements and features contained in a park). Visitor use impacts are primarily attributable to visitor behavior, use levels, types of use, and location of use. Examples of natural and cultural resource and social/visitor experience considerations used in determining carrying capacity can be found at Handouts from the Stakeholder & Public Workshops

While there are many factors that help determine carrying capacity on the Colorado River, three primary factors are:

• Number, size, distribution, and expected lifespan of camping beaches;
• Number, types, and vulnerability of natural and cultural resources; and
• Indicators of visitor experience, that include: Contacts per day, double camping, Trips At One Time (TAOT) and People At One Time (PAOT) on any given day on the river, and group size, trip length, and launches.

The first two factors describe physical environment and serve as a foundation for determining the appropriate level of overall use. The third factor represents the variables that make up that use. We are familiar with the character of the camping beaches based on our data. We also have good data on the types of resources that are located at attraction, camping, and launch sites. We have good data on how visitors impact those resources. Through utilization of the Grand Canyon River Trip Simulator (GCRTS), and other tools, we have been able to analyze indicators of visitor experience and determine how various group sizes, trip lengths, and launch scenarios accommodate the limited campsites available for camping on the river and affect visitor experience and resource vulnerability. The result is a range of acceptable alternatives.

What factors have you been using to determine carrying capacity?

Several factors that have been extremely valuable in determining carrying capacity include: the Grand Canyon River Trip Simulator (GCRTS), public comments, river use statistics, visitor use research, and camping beach research. The GCRTS is an integrated statistical and artificial intelligence-based computer simulation that models the complex and dynamic human-environment interactions along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Data on river trip behavior was collected for the GCRTS in the form of trip reports from commercial and non-commercial boaters during the 1998 - 2000 summer seasons. From this data, river trip speed, the probability of a trip stopping at a site, the average time spent at sites, crowding at attraction and launch sites, and many other important factors were calculated. The GCRTS has many output and analysis options including: graphs, tables, charts, and visualizations. These analysis tools have been used to create new and alter existing launch schedules, analyze current trends and use patterns, and determine the number of trips, people, group sizes, and user days that the Colorado River and its camping beaches and attraction sites can handle at any given time.

In addition, a map that shows all known cultural and natural resource areas of concern, as well as recreational stopping points and their level of use based on the river trip simulator, has been developed. When different launch schedules are run in the trip simulator, changes in the intensity of use can be predicted at each of the river stops, and then compared to biophysical impact data (from various Grand Canyon monitoring projects) and the resource map. In this way, we can identify areas of resource vulnerability from visitor impacts based on various launch schedules.

Years of research conducted through projects in the canyon have given us baseline data on cultural and natural resources and visitor use, as well as impacts from visitors, non-native species, and Glen Canyon Dam. These kinds of data have provided an in-depth understanding of the river corridor environment, both how it has been affected and might be in the future. The data have shown the effectiveness and cost of restorative efforts, how visitors impact the environment, and visitor expectations for a river trip.

The GCRTS has helped the CRMP Planning Team develop several new indicators of visitor use and carrying capacity, some of which include:

• Trips At One Time (TAOT) - number of trips at any given time in the river corridor on any given day. This helps us determine the anticipated number of contacts per day and number of campsites occupied that directly correlates to visitor experience (i.e., crowding at attraction, launch, and take-out sites that affect one's overall river experience).
• People At One Time (PAOT) - number of people in the river corridor on any given day. This number helps us to measure crowding, and provides information on groups, boats, and behavior, within the river corridor.
• User Discretionary Time (UDT) Quotient. The UDT Quotient calculates the approximate amount of time that those on the river have to interact with the terrestrial environment. This quotient recognizes that trip type, trip length, and time of year (available daylight) all affect the amount of time available to interact with the environment.

Spreadsheets have also been created that (based on GCRTS data), takes launch schedules (including trip type, size, and length) and calculates the anticipated number of TAOTS, PAOTS, and contacts per day, user-days, commercial-non-commercial ratios, UDT, and total passengers per year.

How have Tribal concerns been incorporated into this EIS?

The Grand Canyon National Park has been in consultation with representatives from the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Southern Paiute Consortium, the Havasupai Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, and the Pueblo of Zuni Tribe. Additionally, the Hualapai Tribe, who shares a common boundary along the Colorado River, requested and received cooperating agency status in the CRMP/EIS.

Tribal concerns have been incorporated into alternative development and Tribal input has been a valuable tool in assessing current resources, visitor impacts, and mitigation strategies.

What is happening with the non-commercial wait list?

Pending the outcome of the Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP), a hold has been placed on adding new members to the non-commercial river permit waitlist. As part of planning, park staff is carefully examining and considering alternatives to the current waitlist permit system. Those currently on the waitlist are not affected and remain in line and eligible through the normal process to apply for permits available through the non-commercial allocation.

Throughout the planning process, an overwhelming majority of public comments stated that the permit system should be overhauled. With this in mind, Park management did not want to perpetuate the current system while other alternatives were being considered. There are now over 8,000 people on the waitlist, and more than 1,000 are typically added each year. Given the existing non-commercial allocation, it could take 20-30 years or more to accommodate everyone on the waitlist. In addition, of those who have joined the non-commercial waitlist over the last two years, none has successfully claimed a launch date even through the cancellation list.

In the event that the current system is selected as part of the final CRMP decision, the system for adding names to the waitlist would simply be reinstated.

Until a Record of Decision, current waitlist members will be served in the same manner as they have been in the past.