THIS VERSION OF THE 1989 COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS REPRINTED IN DECEMBER 2000. IT CONTAINS ALL THE TEXT AND GRAPHICS FROM THE ORIGINAL 1989 VERSION.


1989 COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

RECOMMENDED BY:
John Davis					9/5/89
Superintendent, Grand Canyon NP			Date

APPROVED BY:		
Lew Albert					9/14/89
Acting Regional Director, Western Region	Date


COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. PREFACE


The Colorado River in the Grand Canyon provides a thoroughly unique combination of thrilling whitewater adventure and magnificent vistas of a remarkable geologic landscape deeply incised by remote and intimate side canyons. The river's flow is regulated by Glen Canyon Dam, located just upstream from the Grand Canyon. The combination of erratic snowfall patterns and summer monsoons make the river corridor an extremely dynamic environment. The floor of the Grand Canyon is a narrow channel of Sonoran Desert life, snaking along a mile beneath the rim's coniferous forests. The flora and desert creatures that inhabit the inner canyon are beautifully adapted to the rigors of their harsh, variable environment. For these reasons a Grand Canyon river trip is perhaps the most sought after backcountry experience in the country, and nearly 21,000 visitors share that experience annually.

The purpose of the Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) is to address and resolve major issues surrounding the management of recreational use activities within the Colorado River corridor of Grand Canyon National Park and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with those activities. The purpose of this plan is to supplement existing management guidelines and directives, including but not limited to the 1976 Master Plan for Grand Canyon National Park, the Backcountry Management Plan, the Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan, the Aircraft Management Plan, the Water Resources Management Plan, the Land Protection Plan, the Supplement to the Regional Contingency Plan for the Colorado River for oil and hazardous substance spills, and other significant management guidelines identified on page 7 of this document. Furthermore, this plan will serve to update and revise the 1981 Colorado River Management Plan.

The Colorado River Management Plan is organized into six sections. The first five sections cover the historical perspective, goals of the plan, management objectives. summary of management changes, and a summary of the CRMP review. The sixth section consists of eight appendices. These appendices are part of the CRMP and have been separated for organizational purposes. Appendix C, the Commercial Operating Requirements, is a legally binding document which is referred to in the concession contracts.


COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN (CRMP)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	An Overview of the Colorado River Management Plan
	A.	Introduction and Historical Perspective
	B.	Graphics Indicating Use Trends
	C.	Legislative and Planning Influences
	D.	Plan Review and Update
II.	Goals of the Colorado River Management Plan
III.	Management Objectives of the Colorado River Management Plan
IV.	Summary of Management Changes Since Implementation of the 1981 Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP)
V.	Summary of 1987/1988 Colorado River Management Plan Review
VI.	Appendices:
	A.	Resource Monitoring Program
	B.	Limits of Acceptable Change
	C.	Commercial Operating Requirements
	D.	Noncommercial Operating Requirements
	E.	Guidelines for Conducting Research on the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park
	F.	Lower Gorge Interim Management Guidelines
	G.	Environmental Assessment
	H.	Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary of Public Comment



A.	INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Colorado River drains nearly one-twelfth of the continental United States as it cuts west at the southern edge of the Colorado Plateau and traverses the Grand Canyon area. For the next 277 miles, the Colorado River courses through some of the most spectacular scenery in North America. As a scientific resource, Grand Canyon is a mecca for geologists, geographers, and biologists throughout the world. It is also a place of tremendous natural and historic interest; a place of beauty. peace, quiet, or exciting adventure.

Best known for its geologic significance, the Grand Canyon offers a beautifully layered record covering the first three eras of geological time, nearly 2 billion years. It is one of the most complete continuous records of geological history anywhere in the world. Other important resources include scenic vistas, unique wildlife and vegetation, and historic and archaeological artifacts. The Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park, the longest stretch of recreational whitewater in the world, offers one of the most sought-after river trips in the United States as well.

Recreational use along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is concentrated within the riparian zone and on beaches. The time and location of visitor use in the river corridor is uneven, causing high density levels at certain locations throughout the river corridor. Crowding and congestion at attraction sites have not only impacted resources, but also the river trip experience for many visitors. Popular sites include geologic features, side canyons, archaeological and historical sites, caves., waterfalls, and unusual vegetation. The most popular attraction sites are marred by multiple trails, trampled vegetation, and compacted soils.

The desire of the American public to experience this unique area has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. In 1967, 2,100 people traveled the river through Grand Canyon National Park. The number of recreational river users rose dramatically to 16,500 in 1972. This sudden rise in use was noticeably impacting the vulnerable inner canyon ecosystem. Trash, charcoal, and human waste were accumulating, multiple trails were developing to points of interest, and the numerous prehistoric and historic sites near the river were being damaged.

The above problems were a direct result of the increase in recreational use of the area. In 1973, twenty-one commercial boating companies and noncommercial river runners carried more than 15,000 people through the river corridor, an increase of almost 700 percent in 6 years. Colorado River use for 1972 alone exceeded the 100-year period from 1870 through 1969.

Until the completion of the first dam on the Colorado River, the river remained fundamentally unchanged. Then, in 1935, Lake Mead, behind Hoover Dam, flooded the lower sections of the Grand Canyon up to Separation Canyon. The upper reaches of the canyon remained in a natural state until Glen Canyon Dam was completed in 1963.

Both Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam have had profound impacts on river running through the Grand Canyon. Lake Mead extended into the lower section of the canyon, producing slack water that marked the end of the free-flowing Colorado. Formerly, river runners had been able to float the entire length of the river to Pearce Ferry. With the advent of Lake Mead, trips had to take out 55 miles upriver at Diamond Creek or traverse the slack water of the lake to Pearce Ferry.

Glen Canyon Dam's effects have been more dynamic and dramatic. The amount of sediment and driftwood carried naturally along the river's course through the canyon has been significantly reduced. Water releases from Glen Canyon Dam have created more predictable seasonal water levels, but have resulted in extreme daily fluctuations. As a result, canyon beaches, which provide campsites for river runners, no longer receive sufficient replacement sediments and are subject to erosion by the erratic daily flows. During periods of low water release from the dam, passage at certain rapids has become difficult, creating hazards and delays. Heavy spring runoff no longer scours the river's banks, and this has allowed a new ecosystem to develop in the pre-dam flood zone.The attainment of National Park Service mandates and management objectives relative to managing the Colorado River are also dependent on evaluating the effects of alternative operational scenarios at Glen Canyon Dam on key resource conditions. Those include water, sediment, vegetation, channel morphology, and archaeological resources and their dependent uses: fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and education. To support this process, the second phase of Glen Canyon Environmental Studies are keyed to the scientific and economic evaluation of alternative management scenarios.

Prior to the influx of river runners and the advent of dams, the river required very little active management by the National Park Service (NPS). However, by the early 1970's it was apparent that a comprehensive river management plan was needed. In 1973 the NPS initiated a research program and planning process leading to the development of the Colorado River Management Plan in 1979. At this time the user day allocation concept was formulated and implemented. Any portion of a day a river user spends on a river trip is defined as a user day.

The 1979 Colorado River Management Plan and its associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were finalized and approved by the NPS, through the process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Congressional response to components of the 1979 Plan was negative when, in 1980, the Hatch Amendment was passed as an element of the Fiscal Year 1981 Department of the Interior Appropriations Bill. The amendment prohibited a reduction of summer season user days or passenger launches for commercial motorized craft below 1978 levels.

Based on passage of this amendment. the NPS developed the 1981 Colorado River Management Plan to allow a diversity of river running experiences in Grand Canyon National Park. While some re-evaluation of management goals has taken place, the preservation of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River for future generations has remained a primary objective of this plan.

Scientific research, public input, historic considerations. and interpretation of legislative mandates have placed the current levels of commercial and noncommercial user days at an aggregate total of 169,950. One user day equals one person on the river for any portion of one day. The NPS reserves the right to add or subtract. allocate or reallocate user days based on review of all relevant factors. Current allocations are as follows:

	Commercial Sector:	Primary Season -	106,156 user days
		Secondary Season -	9,344 user days
		Total -	115,500 user days

	Noncommercial Sector	Primary Season	43,920 user days
		Secondary Season -	10,530 user days
		Total -	54.450 user days


The seasons are defined as follows:

	Commercial Sector:	Primary Season - 	May 1 through September 30
		Secondary Season -	October 1 through April 30
	Noncommercial Sector: 	Primary Season - 	April 16 through October 15
		Secondary Season -	October 16 through April 15



B.	GRAPHICS INDICATING USE TRENDS

The following graphs indicate use patterns since the 1981 Colorado River Management Plan.

Refinement of scheduling processes and the establishment of a user-day pool in 1983 have resulted in maximization of allotted use for the commercial sector. The noncommercial sector has demonstrated the ability to use all of their allotted launch dates; however, 20% of the noncommercial allocation was not available due to the fixed number of launch dates. The review of the 1981 Colorado River Management Plan indicated the need to provide an equal means for the noncommercial sector to access their defined allocation.


These two seasonal graphs indicate percentage of use based on each sector's allocation. User-day allocations are as follows:
	Primary Season	Secondary Season
Commercial	106,156 	9,344
Noncommercial	43,920	10,530

The waiting list has increased 77% since 1981, even though those on the list must continue their interest to remain on the list annually and those participating in other noncommercial trips are deleted from the list. The intent of the above policies is to promote integrity of the list; however, additional policies are needed. Therefore, a fee of $25 will be required to be added to the list. A fee of $50 will be required with the return of the application to ensure the noncommercial party will utilize their launch date.

The average use per month for the commercial and noncommercial sectors is indicated in the graph to the left. The percentage is based on each sector's allotted annual use.

Commercial passenger trip lengths have .declined since 1984. This is correlated with increased usage of passenger exchange points at the Whitmore Wash helicopter pad and Phantom Ranch.

The Hualapai tribe began allowing helicopter flights on tribal land in 1985 after the mule concession discontinued service on Whitmore trail. The Lava Falls helicopter pad was the only exchange point using helicopters prior to 1985. Since the Whitmore Wash helicopter pad has been in use, 432 of all commercial passengers utilized helicopter travel in connection with their river trip.


C. LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING INFLUENCES

Grand Canyon National Park was officially established as a "public park for the benefit and enjoyment of the people" on February 26, 1919. In 1975, the park was enlarged "in order to further protect and interpret the outstanding scenic, natural, and scientific values".

In all, approximately 20 pieces of legislation contributed to the establishment of Grand Canyon National Park and direct the protection of wildlife, objects of unusual scientific interest, geologic and paleontological features and objects, and other scientific and natural values.

Management of recreational boating on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park is influenced directly by legislative mandates. The most significant is the National Park Service Act of 1916 (also known as the Organic Act) which established the mission of the agency:

"...The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations, hereinafter specified, by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired."

The act of Congress which established Grand Canyon National Park in 1919 included only a portion of the canyon and river corridor. This was modified by the Grand Canyon Enlargement Act of 1975. This act added Marble Canyon National Monument, Grand Canyon National Monument, and portions of Lake Mead National Recreation Area to Grand Canyon National Park. All of the Colorado River corridor within Grand Canyon, except adjacent Indian tribal lands on the Navajo, Havasupai, and Hualapai Reservations, is now within the park boundary.

The Grand Canyon National Park Master Plan also contains statements which directly influence management of the Colorado River, including:

"...preservation of the Grand Canyon natural environment is the fundamental requirement for its continued use and enjoyment as an unimpaired natural area. Park management therefore looks first to the preservation and management of the natural resources of the park. The management concept is the preservation of total environments. as contrasted with the protection of only a single feature or species."

Additional legislation and executive orders which influence river management in the park include:

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
The Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
The Hatch Amendment No. 1754 to the FY81 Department of the Interior Appropriations Bill
Public Law 100-91 of 1987 (regarding aircraft management) Public Law 95-250 of 1978
Executive Order 11593
Executive Order 11987

The amendment to the congressional act that established Redwood National Park in 1978 reinforced the intent of legislation passed on August 18, 1970 which reaffirmed the mandate that all areas of the NPS were to be regulated consistently with the Organic Act. This law directed the Secretary of the Interior to afford the highest standard of protection and care to the resources of the National Park system. It stated that no decisions could be made in derogation of park values and purposes except as Congress may have specifically provided.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 required all federal land management agencies to re-examine their resources for possible wilderness classification. In 1976, the National Park Service prepared a draft environmental statement (ES) and preliminary wilderness proposal which was reviewed by the public. A recommendation was forwarded to the Department of the Interior in 1980 which proposed 980,088 acres. or approximately 80% of the park, for immediate wilderness designation. Further, 131,814 acres. or approximately 11% of the park, were proposed as potential wilderness additions. Action on this recommendation is still pending.

Several additional regional and park management plans directly influence the management of the Colorado River environment. These include but are not limited to:

The 1976 Master Plan for Grand Canyon National Park
The Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan
The Backcountry Management Plan
The Aircraft Management Plan
The Water Resources Management Plan
The Land Protection Plan
The Supplement to the Regional Contingency Plan for the Colorado River
(Addressing oil and hazardous substance spills)

Encompassing a total of 1,215.734.64 acres. the park is bounded on the north by national forest, public domain lands, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, on the east by the Navajo Indian Reservation, on the south by national forest and Hualapai and Havasupai Indian Reservation lands, and on the west by the upper reaches of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The park is located within Coconino and Mohave Counties. These adjacent land management entities also affect the management of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park.


D. PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATE

The Colorado River Management Plan will be in effect for a five to ten year period. A comprehensive plan review, directed by the Superintendent through the Division of Visitor and Resources Protection and the Division of Resources Management and Planning, will occur before the end of this period.

This comprehensive review process will incorporate public meetings and comments, data from monitoring/research projects, visitor use statistics, NPS policies, federal rules and regulations, and legislated mandates. The purpose of the review will be to fully examine evolving public concerns and develop far-reaching programs needed to protect natural and cultural resources and environmental processes, thereby enhancing the opportunity for park visitors to have a quality experience.

The Colorado River Management Plan will also be responsive, on an annual basis, to results of research, monitoring programs, and public and constituent group input. This annual review will primarily be concerned with the annual Noncommercial and Commercial Operating Requirements, which are dynamic in nature. Public input and research or monitoring program results may indicate that occasional changes in operational procedures may be necessary. These changes, after consideration by the park, will be initiated with the issuance of the Annual Operating Requirements prior to April 1st of each year. Changes that affect visitor safety or preservation of park resources may be initiated at the discretion of the Superintendent at any time.

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments to the Superintendent for consideration at any time for use in the annual reviews.


II. THE GOALS OF THE COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN


The basic goals of Grand Canyon National Park in the management of the Colorado River reflect those of the NPS as expressed in the National Park Service Act of 1916 and the Redwoods Act of 1978. These legislative mandates serve as the driving force behind management decisions in NPS areas across the nation. The goals of the Colorado River Management Plan are thus predicated on, and the result of, these mandates and management objectives. These goals are as follows:

1) To preserve the natural resources and environmental processes of the Colorado River corridor and the associated riparian and river environments.

2) To protect and preserve the historic and prehistoric cultural resources in the river corridor and associated environments subject to impact by visitor use or natural processes.

3) To provide Colorado River users the opportunity to participate in and appreciate a variety of the unique experiences offered by Grand Canyon National Park as a whole and by the riverine environment in particular.

4) To provide a quality Colorado River experience through Grand Canyon National Park:
a) by determining the impact of crowding and use levels on visitor experience (considering, trip size, number of contacts per day, visitor expectations, and time of year) through social science research;
b) by then establishing a human use capacity and a limitation on use based on the results of the above research and related management considerations; and
c) by managing visitor use to provide opportunities and settings for certain experiences and critical attributes as defined in the Limits of Acceptable Change guidelines found in this document (Appendix B).

5) To ameliorate social conflicts and activities which result in resource degradation involving backcountry and river users (especially in the upper Marble Canyon area).

6) To protect and preserve the river corridor environment within the National Park Service's ability to do so considering the unpredictable and therefore unmanageable effects of Glen Canyon Dam. This goal will be attained through interagency cooperative efforts in management of downstream resources.

7) To provide opportunities for people of most ages. abilities, and physical disabilities to participate in river trips.

III. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES OF THE COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN


The management objectives of the Colorado River Management Plan acknowledge the natural, cultural, and experiential components which constitute the unique quality of a Grand Canyon river experience, including; solitude and natural quiet, hiking opportunities, the whitewater adventure, unique scenery and geologic features, wildlife and vegetative ecosystems in a natural condition, archaeological and historic features, and social and group interactions while on the river trip. These management objectives are governed by the preeminent NPS mandate of preserving the natural and cultural resources of the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park.

The following objectives (not in priority order) are designed to provide general guidance to park managers both conceptually and in the practical context of making decisions. Where applicable, certain management objectives are further defined and quantified in the Limits of Acceptable Change section (Appendix B) of this plan.

1) Research and Monitoring Program--Establish, design, and implement an integrated, long-term monitoring program to assess changes in the status of natural, cultural, and experiential resources.
a) This long-term monitoring program will require an integrated and standardized data base, statistical analyses, and management decision-making process.
b) This program will require definition of present resource status, and these data will serve as the baseline against which changes will be measured.
c) Results from the monitoring program will be reviewed each year to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of operational procedures.

2) Social Science Research--Initiate social science research to develop visitor profiles and user expectations for the Colorado River whitewater experience.

3) Glen Canyon Dam Operations--Advocate and support operational objectives for the Glen Canyon Dam which are most compatible with protection of the intrinsic resources of the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park. Furthermore, promote seasonal water releases which are consistent with the requirements of a safe, high quality, whitewater rafting experience. The attainment of NPS mandates and management objectives, relative to managing the Colorado River, is dependent on implementation of alternative management of Glen Canyon Dam; adequate development of which is in turn dependent on the study of operational alternatives determined by the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) and the NEPA process.

4) Off-river Activities--Allow for visitation to attraction sites, for hiking side canyons, and for general off-river time versus on-river time.

5) Natural Experience--Provide the opportunity to experience solitude, quiet, and the unique and natural environment of the canyon.

6) Safety--Maximize river safety by determining and enforcing regulations regarding boat operations and equipment standards. These regulations must be adequate to minimize injuries and accidents due to equipment failure or craft design.

7) Fishing--Allow fishing as a recreational activity only if it does not adversely impact or jeopardize any threatened or endangered species inhabiting the river or dependent on river resources. Such species include humpback chub, and bald eagles.

8) Research--All scientific research will be in compliance with the research guidelines for the National Park Service and Grand Canyon National Park. To ensure compliance, researchers using the Colorado River will be required to make research available to the National Park Service in a timely manner.

9) Pre-trip Information--Provide NPS-approved trip information to confirmed clients of park concessioners which accurately describes trip size, trip length, and boat capacity. Concessioners will be required to provide this information to all passengers, thus aiding the planning process by comparing visitor trip expectations to their actual experiences.

10) Crowding and Congestion--If desired, parties will have the opportunity to avoid crowded areas and/or attraction sites, regardless of season, and find other places they do not have to share with any other group. Within existing user day allocations and seasonal distribution patterns, river users must expect to share high-use areas with at least one other group during the primary season. If deemed necessary and functionally effective, a computerized launch model may be used to reduce the frequency of trip contact to levels consistent with the park's general objectives of reducing crowding at attraction sites and of reducing competition for overnight camps.

11) Health, Sanitation, and Water Quality Guidelines--Implement and enforce all state and local public health and sanitation standards for all trips on the river. Maintain, to the extent possible, water quality in side streams and river to comply with state, county, and national health standards.

12) Commercial Guide Education--Continue to encourage concessioner support and guide participation in a yearly, park-sponsored Guide's Educational Seminar. This will enhance knowledge of park regulations and Annual Commercial Operating Requirements, as well as enhance their knowledge of the natural and cultural history of the park and the river corridor.

13) Spectrum of Opportunities--Maintain the opportunity for visitors to select commercial or noncommercial river trips offered on a variety of watercraft powered either by oars or motors.


IV. SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT CHANGES SINCE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
1981 COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN (CRMP)

Following is a brief summary of policy, regulatory, and administrative changes that have been or will be instituted as part of the Colorado River Management Plan revision.

Subject/Change: Guide Certification
Implementation Date: 1988 Primary Commercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: All commercial guides carrying passengers for hire on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park will be required to pass a written exam based on the Annual Commercial Operating Requirements.

Subject/Change: Limit on Commercial Trip Size
Implementation Date: 1987 Primary Commercial Season
Duration: Temporary
Policy Description: The 1981 Colorado River Management Plan established an upper limit of 36 commercial passengers traveling and camping together on one commercial river trip. During the 1987 and 1988 primary commercial river seasons that limit was raised to 40 passengers on a temporary basis. Based upon evaluation of all input related to crowding and congestion problems in the river corridor during the Primary Season, the limit is restored to 36.

Subject/Change: Commercial Maximum Trip Speed
Implementation Date: 1989 Commercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Maximum trip speed allowed shall average no more than 40 miles per day and may not travel farther than 50 miles in any one day except in an emergency or when necessitated by water releases from Glen Canyon Dam which create unforeseen travel requirements.

Subject/Change: Commercial Deadhead Trips
Implementation Date: 1990 Commercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Commercial trips traveling downriver with empty boats for the purpose of picking up passengers at Phantom Ranch or Whitmore Wash will be required to expedite travel to those destinations. These boats will not be allowed to stop at attraction sites. and will be required to use smaller. less popular camps. On days that deadhead trips depart Lees Ferry, the number of passengers being picked up downriver will be counted against that day's commercial passenger launch limit.

Subject/Change: Commercial Secondary Season Use
Implementation Date: 1989 Commercial Secondary Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: This plan awards all historical users their average allocation from October 1. 1981 through April 30, 1987. If a company failed to average over 300 user days, they were allotted a base allocation of 300 user days. All 20 companies have been given a equal shares of the remaining user days. and the minimum user days allocated per company is 343.

Subject/Change: Administrative Charges for Noncommercial Users
Implementation Date: 1990 Noncommercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Applicants to the noncommercial waiting list will be required to pay $25 in order to be placed on the list. All trip leaders will be required to pay $50 upon return of their noncommercial river trip permit application to the River Permits Office. Both charges will be non-refundable and non-transferable. These charges are being established by authority of 36 CFR 71.10, Sec. 1-6, Special Recreation Permits and Special Recreation Permit Fees.

Subject/Change: Scheduling of Noncommercial Launch Dates
Implementation Date: 1990 Noncommercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Noncommercial launch dates will be scheduled two Years in advance. Each year a sufficient number of waiting list applicants will be contacted in order to fill available launch dates for two years (Primary and Secondary Seasons).

Subject/Change: Noncommercial Supplemental Launches and Resultant Effects on Commercial Launch Calendar
Implementation Date: 1988 Noncommercial Primary Season
Policy Description: In order to more fully utilize the existing noncommercial allocation in the Primary Season, 38 additional noncommercial launches have been added. Beginning in the 1989 Noncommercial Primary Season, one supplemental launch will be scheduled per week. On the supplemental launch day, the commercial launch limit will be held to 134 passengers. During the Secondary Season, 12 additional launches will be scheduled.

Subject/Change: Noncommercial Continuing Interest and Participant Rules
Implementation Date: 1990 Noncommercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: All applicants to the noncommercial waiting list will be allowed to miss one continuing interest deadline and may participate in one noncommercial river trip other than their own for the duration of the time they are on the list.

Subject/Change: Call-in System/Filling of Open Noncommercial Launch Dates
Implementation Date: 1990 Noncommercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Any noncommercial date in the upcoming season which is not filled by the initial launch system, or which opens due to cancellation, will be filled by the River Subdistrict Office. The office will contact applicants at the top of the list by phone and/or in writing. If a date is not filled by either of these methods, the date may be claimed by anyone on the waiting list under the Call-in System Guidelines, as defined in Appendix D of this document.

Subject/Change: Noncommercial Deferral Policy
Implementation Date: 1990 Noncommercial Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Noncommercial waiting list applicants will not have the option of deferring their launch date by one year.

Subject/Change: Noncommercial User Day Pool
Implementation Date: 1989 Noncommercial Primary Season
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Noncommercial user days which become available due to trips with fewer than the maximum allowed participants or river days will become available through an NPS administered pool. As sufficient days become available, additional noncommercial launches will be scheduled as supplemental launches throughout the Primary and Secondary Seasons.

Subject/Change: Lower Gorge Management
Implementation Date: January 1990
Duration: Temporary pending development of Colorado River Lower Gorge Management Plan.
Policy Description: Use in the lower gorge below Diamond Creek will be monitored and regulated to determine future management needs. Interim guidelines have been designed to regulate use coming upriver from Lake Mead during development of a comprehensive Colorado River Lower Gorge Management Plan. These Guidelines are contained in Appendix F of this document.

Subject/Change: River Trips Conducted for Research Purposes
Implementation Date: December 1989
Duration: Permanent
Policy Description: Research trips conducted on the Colorado River will be required to submit research proposals and justifications for each trip member's participation prior to launch. Following completion of each trip, a brief report of trip activities must be submitted to Grand Canyon National Park in a timely manner. Published research results must be submitted to the park as soon as they become available to the researcher.


V. SUMMARY OF 1987/1988 COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

Included in this section is a brief summary of the review process and public involvement plan that has been implemented since the initiation of the revision of the Colorado River Management Plan.

1987

March - CRMP review process commences with notification of over 4000 individuals, including media. interest groups, congressional delegations, and cooperating agencies.

June through July - Planning Guides mailed to over 1000 interested individuals to participate in identification of major issues.

July - Scoping session with advisory group comprised of river managers, recreation and social researchers and NPS managers. Session designed to target primary issues and potential changes to 1981 plan.

September - Due to the magnitude of interest and volume of comments (115 letters up to that date). the decision to expand and extend the revision process was announced.

September - Meetings with Grand Canyon commercial river guides in Flagstaff and Marble Canyon, Arizona to discuss guide certification program, resource management programs. and boat capacities. Approximately 50 were in attendance. December 1988, was established as the target completion date.

October - First meeting with park's Concessioner Steering Committee at Marble Canyon, Arizona. Contact and discussion with elected representatives of Colorado River commercial outfitters, including representatives from small, large, old, new, motor, and oar companies.

October - River Rendezvous, Telluride. Colorado. Approximately 200 people contacted. comprised primarily of noncommercial boating interests.

October - Annual Colorado River Concessioner's Meeting, Grand Canyon National Park. Issues discussed with the park's twenty commercial outfitters and company representatives.


1988

January - The mailing list exceeded 1,000 names of individuals and organizations interested in being involved in the review process. One hundred fifty written comments had been received, and the targeting of issues of greatest concern was begun. Thirty additional noncommercial launches ("supplemental launches") were added to the 1988 calendar on a trial basis.

January - Guide Certification Program instituted as an amendment to the Annual Commercial Operating Requirements.

February - Western River Guides Association Meeting, Denver, Colorado.

March - CRMP Issue Workbook developed from public comment and input and mailed to those on mailing list who requested one (approximately 400).

April - First public meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. Approximately 34 people took advantage of workshop and formal comment opportunities.

May - Public meetings in Denver, Colorado and Reno, Nevada with about 50 people participating.

June - Over 50 completed workbooks returned by review/comment deadline.

July - Meeting with Concessioners' Steering Committee to discuss Draft Preferred Alternatives.

August - Meeting with Constituent Advisory Committee to discuss Draft Preferred Alternatives.

August - Draft Preferred Alternatives mailed for public review.

October - Attended River Rendezvous in Telluride, Colorado. Approximately 30 people contacted.

November - Draft 1988 Colorado River Management Plan distributed to over 500 individuals and organizations on mailing list. Draft open for comment for 30 days, until December 9, 1988.

December - Comment period extended to January 20, 1989.



APPENDIX A
RESOURCE MONITORING PROGRAM


I. Introduction
	A. The Need for An Integrated Approach to Resource Management
	B. Contents and Schedules of Reports
	C. Management Actions
II. Resource Monitoring Issues
		1. Listed, Threatened. Endemic, and Alien Species
		2. Camp and Attraction Site Quality
		3. Visitor Experience in the River Corridor
		4. Water Quality in the River Corridor
		5. Cultural Resources
III. References
IV.  Addendum A - Bald Eagle Research Program


I. INTRODUCTION

To fulfill its congressional mandate to protect all resources, the National Park Service (NPS) must keep pace with dramatic changes in the dynamic system of the Colorado River. Effective, efficient management of the many resources in the Colorado River corridor must be based on consistent, long-term monitoring data which have been carefully collected, appropriately analyzed, and thoroughly considered. The dynamic nature of the river corridor and recent advances in technology require this monitoring program to be periodically evaluated, updated, and integrated using modern data management practices. This portion of the CRMP summarizes the on-going and proposed monitoring activity, on which the next revision of the CRMP will be based.


A. The Need for an Integrated Approach to Resource Management

The management objectives of the CRMP require identification and protection of specific river corridor resources. Effective and rigorous resource management must be based on an integrated, long-term monitoring and research program. Monitoring methods and management options will be subject to external review, and a standardized data management system will be used. In the future, several tasks will be accomplished: 1) resource assessment of the monitoring issues identified here will be initiated or continued; 2) baseline resource conditions will be assessed and relevant literature compiled for each major resource issue; 3) a standardized, coordinated, computerized data management system will be developed to store and analyze all river resource data and will be used to identify significant departures from baseline resource conditions; and 4) an integrated, long-tern monitoring plan will be developed and externally reviewed to integrate baseline data, assess resource changes, and direct management decisions. The monitoring program presented here is also supplemented by the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) monitoring approach, as described in Appendix B.

The NPS will consult with a professional data-base manager to develop the data base system, and this data management system will be on line before January 1, 1990. Analyses, graphics and other statistical products will contribute substantially to interpretation of monitoring data and will be used in annual and summary monitoring reports.

External and in-house review of monitoring methodology and management options will improve the scientific integrity of management approaches and actions. Recognized experts in the fields of water quality, public health, wildlife and habitat management, archaeology, recreation sociology, and systems analysis will be contacted as needed to review the monitoring methodology for each monitoring issue, the long-term monitoring program, as well as to examine management options.


B. Contents and Schedule of Reports

Resources requiring identification and protection include natural. cultural. and experiential river corridor resources. A separate monitoring statement has been developed for each major management issue and each statement will be reviewed by qualified scientific experts in that field. A baseline status report will be prepared for each resource issue by January 1, 1990. This baseline report will include a comprehensive literature survey and history of action on each resource, as well as any data pertaining to evaluation of resource quality.

Monitoring of river corridor resources will take place at regular intervals, with an annual NPS monitoring river trip in the fall/winter of each year. In some cases. pre-season versus post-season evaluations of visitor impacts may be necessary. The annual monitoring report will be written by February of each year, reviewed externally, and the findings made available to the public upon request. The annual monitoring report will serve to update managers on the status of resources, introduce any changes in the monitoring program, and identify new issues which require management attention.

A summary monitoring report will be prepared for any major revision of the CRMP, summarizing the information contained in the annual reports. These reports will be prepared by the Division of Resources Management and Planning.

In addition, within two years of implementation of the CRMP, a long-term monitoring and research plan will be designed to integrate management concerns and perspectives on all river corridor monitoring efforts, data compilation, and statistical analyses, and it will suggest appropriate methodologies for development of management alternatives. This long-term plan will be reviewed externally and within the NPS. This long-term plan will confer a broad scientific perspective on the CRMP monitoring program and will strengthen the integrity and defensibility of future management decisions made by the NPS in Grand Canyon National Park.


C. Management Actions

The long-term monitoring and research plan will address the implementation of management decisions which are triggered when a change in resource status reaches unacceptable levels. The scientific community can assist the NPS regarding the need for and range of management options. Within the constraints of statistical decision-making, the standard value used for judging the significance of a deviation from a given baseline is p = 0.05, and a change of 0% to 5% (depending on the resource) from the baseline value is considered an unacceptable level of change. Increased variance will also be used to evaluate changing status of resources. These statistical indicators will be used to evaluate change in resource status away from baseline conditions throughout the monitoring program. The annual and summary monitoring reports will document trends (nonsignificant changes or changes of less than the pre-established percentage) to allow NPS managers to distinguish incremental changes above p < 0.05 (e.g. the p < 0.10 level), and these increments will serve as indicators of potential or developing problems.

When management action is merited through monitoring data and has been verified by on-site inspection, a range of management options will be considered by NPS resource management and administrative staff. Consequences of each management option will be evaluated as well. The management problem, management options, and consequences of each option will be summarized and evaluated by internal and external review and, where necessary, through the process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Where possible, management options will be developed to maintain resource availability to the public by considering alternatives to visitor access reduction; however, the goals of the CRMP are maintenance of resource quality, and degradation of resources may require reduction of public access to facilitate a resource recovery program.

When indicated, management action will be taken following completion of the review process. The success of management action will be evaluated through continued monitoring of the affected resource using the methodological protocol previously described.



II. RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUES
RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUE 1: LISTED, THREATENED, ENDEMIC, AND ALIEN SPECIES

The population status of listed, threatened, endemic, and alien species is of primary importance to the park. Information on these species will be compiled and updated in the annual and summary monitoring reports. In several cases, data can be gathered from on-going studies sponsored by other agencies, however, some species will require examination in the field by staff or other qualified researchers.

Listed Species

Humpback Chub and Peregrine Falcon: Populations of these endangered species are currently under study in the park. Literature and data on population dynamics, habitat requirements. and distribution in and near the park will be gathered from on-going studies and summarized in annual CRMP reports on the status of important listed, threatened, endemic, and alien species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be initiated immediately, when applicable, to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Wintering Bald Eagle: The Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is federally listed as a rare and endangered subspecies. Wintering bald eagles have been observed in Marble Canyon since 1984. and the population has increased dramatically since 1986. In March, 1987 :pore than 18 individual bald eagles were observed in a single observation .3t the mouth of Nankoweap Creek. The period of eagle occupation corresponds roughly with the trout spawning period. From observations made at Nankoweap Creek in January, 1988, wintering bald eagles are extremely sensitive to the presence of humans and fly from foraging areas when humans are within 0.3 miles.

More information is needed on the presence of wintering bald eagles in Grand Canyon National Park, and a research program is currently being developed by the NPS (see Addendum A). In addition, an informal consultation with the USFWS will be initiated to comply with Section 7 for bald eagle and other rare and endangered species in the park following the 1988/1989 winter observation period.

Threatened Species

The status of all threatened species will be documented in the annual CRMP monitoring report. For example, the current status of the Colorado River otter (Lutra canadensis sonora) in the park is unknown. A recent study by B. Spicer of the Arizona Game and Fish Department found no evidence of this species in the park; however. several observations have been recorded and scats have been located in the river corridor during the last decade. Ranger patrols and other river users will be informed of the need for data on this species. A literature survey and any recent information on this species will be included in the summary CRMP monitoring report.

Similar attention should be devoted to the small population of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) which inhabits the lower Grand Canyon below Colorado River Mile 208, and to the populations of Traill's Flycatcher and Bell's Vireo.

Endemic Species

The Colorado River corridor in the Grand Canyon hosts several endemic plant and animal species, such as Flaveria macdougallii, and the Grand Canyon rattlesnake, (Crotalus viridis abvssus) which are not federally listed. The taxonomic status of the collared lizard (Crotaphytus spp.) in the Grand Canyon is also unknown and is worthy of further investigation. Research on these and other potential endemic species will be encouraged by the NPS. Data on these and other endemic species will be compiled and presented in the baseline, annual, and summary monitoring reports.

Alien Species

Numerous alien species occupy the river corridor and, for the most part, their population dynamics are unknown. Alien species of primary importance include salt cedar, camel-thorn. several Bromus grasses, Russian olive, Chinese elm, white and yellow sweet clover, alfalfa, and other plant species; river "shrimp" (Gammaris lacustris), rainbow and other trout, striped bass, carp, and other fish species; house sparrows, and other vertebrates. The park will determine the rate of population change for alien species. Such a determination will be based on data from on-going studies and periodic surveys of the flora and fauna in the river corridor. The population status of each major alien species will be detailed in the baseline, annual and summary monitoring reports. Management actions will be developed, reviewed, and presented in the CRMP summary report.

In addition to listed, threatened, endemic, and alien species, the NPS monitoring program will periodically evaluate the status of the river corridor habitat, including beach campsite availability and size; the distribution, cover and change in vegetation along the Colorado River and its tributaries; and changes in xeric sites. So too, the population status of indicator species will be pursued. For example, populations of the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), riparian obligate bird species, and/or small mammals may be used to evaluate ecosystem changes. These data will be compiled and presented in a baseline report and updated for the summary monitoring report.


RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUE 2: CAMP AND ATTRACTION SITE QUALITY

Trailing, refuse accumulation, and the destruction of vegetation and cultural resources is a perennial problem in the river corridor. Sites historically prone to visitor use impacts are listed in Table 1. These sites, as well as others which may sustain high levels of use in the future, require an active program of photo documentation, baseline data accumulation, and monitoring.

The site quality monitoring program will involve the following steps:

1)	Baseline data will be compiled for each site. Existing information, photographs, and maps will be compiled for each site to serve as the 1990 baseline, against which future change will be measured. These baseline data will include location, slope and aspect, parent rock type, sand color (in beach areas), amount and type of vegetational cover, flora and fauna of special importance (listed, threatened, endemic, or alien species), type of site (campsite, attraction site. or other), extent of impacts (trampling, trailing, rock movement and destruction, litter and waste accumulation), and a detailed map of each site. At each site a comparable low/no-impact site will be established to serve as a control against which future changes will be evaluated. If these baseline data are not currently available, data will be gathered and compiled by qualified personnel.

2)	A use area map will be developed for each site, to be used to document present conditions and to identify critical locations for monitoring. For example, the camping area at a beach camp site should be mapped, and the impact area calculated for comparison through time. As another example, trail width and depth may be measured at 30 pre-designated sites along an attraction site trail and compared over time to evaluate trail area increases.

3)	Impacted sites will be monitored through time during ranger patrol river trips. The map previously prepared for each site will be used to evaluate and/or measure changes in the field. Fire pits and fractured rocks will be counted, litter accumulation will be assessed through predetermined transects, and sand color in the heavily used areas will be determined using a set of grey cards. Data will be compiled following the patrol trip and entered into the pre-existing, computerized data base.

4)	Management priorities will be established by ranking sites according to level of impact: Sites with the highest levels of impact will receive immediate management attention, as compared to sites with low impact levels. High impact sites will be monitored at yearly intervals, while low impact sites will be monitored at 2 to 3 year intervals. Patrol rangers will visit all high-and low-impact sites over the course of a year and report any pronounced changes in resource quality at any site. However, actual monitoring/assessment activity at low impact sites will take place at 2 to 3 year intervals. Improved protection and recovery of damaged attraction sites will be assured by establishing management priorities for each site and by providing sufficient time for an evaluation team to complete an adequate assessment of each site. Thus, all high-impact sites will be monitored each fall, but low-impact sites may only be evaluated every other year.

5)	A report on the status of each site will be completed for the annual summary CRMP monitoring report. This report will document management actions taken. and recommendations for future management action based on the results obtained during the monitoring program.

6)	If impacts are significant and/or exceed a pre-designated percentage (not to exceed 5%) of the 1990 baseline level, management action will be taken. This decision will be announced publicly through press releases, at constituent meetings and will be posted at Lees Ferry, Phantom Ranch, and Pearce Ferry. Depending on the severity, urgency, and magnitude of the problem, management action may consist of any of the following: a) voluntary reduction in use; b) reclamation activity directed by NPS staff, and/or; c) administrative closure of specified camps, attraction sites, or beaches until recovery to the 1990 baseline state has occurred.

Reclamation activities of degraded areas may include litter reduction, trail work, and/or revegetation of selected sites by NPS staff and volunteers. Efforts currently underway have been successful and will be continued.

7)	Continued monitoring will assess recovery rates of managed sites and will be used to evaluate the duration of management action. Completion of management action will be announced publicly.

8)	The management of upper Marble Canyon (Mile 0 to Mile 13) entails special considerations due to conflicting use patterns and multiple jurisdictions. The use of the Colorado River shoreline in upper Marble Canyon by fishermen has increased sharply in recent years. Sanitation and litter accumulation are worsening, and fisherman have been using beach camps also required by river runners. With major river camps destroyed by debris flows at Miles 18 and 19, and with camps at 6 Mile Wash, Badger Creek, Soap Creek, Salt Water Wash, and 13 Mile Camp often preempted by fishermen, few camps remain in the critical first-day reach for noncommercial and commercial river parties. Conflicts between fishermen and the river running parties are expected to worsen in the near future.

Use levels, site degradation, and waste accumulation on these beaches will be documented on a monthly basis to at least Mile 8. Rigorous efforts will be undertaken with the Navajo Tribe concerning management of the affected reach, and the success of this management effort will be reported in the annual and summary CRMP monitoring reports.

TABLE 1: Camps and attraction sites in the Colorado River corridor in the Grand Canyon with moderate to high levels of estimated use-related impacts.

* Type of Impacts: A = attraction site with trailing; C = campsite;
D = departure site; F = fishing-related impacts (waste and trailing);
H = hiking-related impacts; R = rapid scouting and trailing

** Level of Impact: L = low, M = medium; H = high; estimated from current observations

"R" or "L" in Mile column indicates river right or river left

			ESTIMATED
		TYPE OF	LEVEL OF
SITE	MILE	IMPACT*	IMPACT**

Lees Ferry Area	0.0R	A,C,D,F	M
Upper Marble Canyon	1.0-13.0L,R	H,F	M-H
4-Mile	4.0L	H,F	H
6-Mile	6.0R	C,F	M-H
Jackass Canyon	8.0L	H,F	H
Salt Water Wash	12.0L	H,F	M
19 1/2-Mile	19.5L	C	M-H
North Canyon	20.0R	C,A	M
24 1/2-Mile	24.5L	C	M-H
South Canyon	30.5R	C,A,F,H	M-H
Redwall Cavern	33.0L	A	M
Martha's Camp	38.4L	C	M-H
Buck Farm Canyon	41.0R	C,A	M
Royal Arches	41.5R	C,A	M
Anasazi Bridge	43.0R	A	H
President Harding Camp	43.9L	H,A	M-H
Triple Alcoves	46.5R	C,A	M
Saddle Canyon	47.0R	C,A	H
Nankoweap Area	52.0R	C,A	H
Kwagunt Canyon	56.0R	A	M
Little Colorado River	61.0L	A	H
Carbon Creek	64.5R	C,A	M
Chuar Canyon	65.3R	C,A	M
Palisades Delta	65.5L	A	M
Tanner Canyon	67.5L	A,H	H
Cardenas Creek	71.0L	C,A	M-H
Furnace Flats	71.2R	A	M
Unkar Delta,	72.3R	C,A	M-H
Red Canyon	76.5L	C,R,H	M-H
Cremation Camp	87.5L	C	H
Phantom Ranch	88.0R	A,D,H,F	M-H
Pipe Creek	89.0L	D,H	M
Monument Creek	93.0L	C,H	H
Hermit Creek	94.0L	H	H
Crystal Creek	98.0R	C,R	H
North Bass Camp	108.0R	C,A	M-H
Shinumo Creek	108.5R	A.F	H
Garnet Canyon	115.0L	A,H	M-H
Upper Royal Arch Creek	116.5L	H	M
Elves Chasm	116.5L	A	M-H
Blacktail Canyon	120.0R	C,A	M-H
Forster Canyon	123.0L	C	M
Galloway Canyon	131.8L	C,A	M-H
Stone Creek	132.0R	C,A	M-H
Tapeats Creek	133.5R	C,A,F,H	M-H
Thunder River/Tapeats Cave	133.5R	C,H	M-H
Surprise Valley	136.0R	H	M
Christmas Tree Cave	135.4R	A	M
Deer Creek Area	135.8-136.3L&R	A,C,H	H
Poncho's Kitchen	138.0L	C,A	H
Kanab Creek	144.0R	A,H	L-M
Olo Canyon	145.0L	C?,A	L-M
Matkatamiba Canyon	148.0L	A	M-H
Slime Canyon	155.0R	A	L-M
Havasu Canyon	157.0L	A	H
National Canyon	166.5L	C,A	M-H
Mohawk/Stairway Cyns.	171.5L&R	C,A	M
Fern Glen Canyon	168.0R	C,A	M-H
Lava Falls	179.0L&R	R	H
Helicopter Pad	87.0L	D	H
Whitmore Wash Trail Area	187.5R	A,H,D	H
Granite Park	208.5L	C	H
Granite Park Springs	208.7L	A	M
220 Camp	220.0R	C	H
Diamond Creek	226.5L	D	H
Travertine Canyon	229.0L	A,C	H
Spencer Canyon	246.0L	A,C	M
Surprise Canyon	248.0R	A,C	M
Bat Towers	266.3R	A	M
Rampart Cave	274.5L	A	M-H
Pearce Ferry	279.5L	D	H


RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUE 3: VISITOR EXPERIENCE IN THE RIVER CORRIDOR

The challenge and thrill of the Colorado River's many rapids have made river running in the Grand Canyon a much sought-after experience. Summer use is strongly dominated by commercial concession-operated trips. Spring, autumn, and winter use is predominantly enjoyed by noncommercial parties. To balance the many and different demands for river recreation, this plan recognizes the value-of a "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum," in which various kinds and lengths of commercial and noncommercial river trips can take place, depending on the season and historical use patterns.

To clarify the many conflicting viewpoints regarding use of the river corridor, visitor experience will be evaluated through a comprehensive sociological monitoring program during the period of baseline data compilation. This evaluation will be designed and implemented by qualified recreation sociologists. "Visitor experience" should be defined to permit management of use levels in the Grand Canyon. Visitor experience depends on individual preconceptions and expectations, not simply on visitor satisfaction. Present evidence suggests that visitor trip preferences and expectations have changed and will continue to evolve. Scientific investigations will be directed at determining which components of visitor experience are manageable and the optimal values of those experiential qualities. Some of the components of visitor experience include:
a) the number of contacts with other parties
b) trip size
c) trip length
d) boatman qualifications
	1) guiding skills
	2) interpretation skills
	3) safety skills
e) crowding at attraction sites
f) camping beach quality and size
g) sanitation

Each component will be evaluated. The sociological monitoring program will also include a thorough documentation of the extensive recreation sociology research conducted in this and other systems. Methodology of this program may include: mailings to passengers and whitewater guides; on-river evaluation and interviews; and experimentation with different types of river trip experiences to determine the importance of key parameters. Results will be compiled into a baseline report within three years of implementation of the CRMP.


RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUE 4: WATER QUALITY IN THE COLORADO RIVER CORRIDOR

A comprehensive water resources management plan for Grand Canyon National Park was prepared in 1984. This plan addressed all relevant issues pertaining to maintenance of water quality and public health in the Colorado River corridor. Since the release of that plan, concerns have been expressed over radioactive wastes from tributaries, and at least one new water-borne disease organism appears to have entered the system. The recommendations made in the 1984 Water Resources Management Plan need to be implemented by the park. Effective management of water quality will require: 1) an updated literature review on the water quality in this system; 2) establishment of baseline criteria for river and tributary water chemistry, physical parameters, bacteria, and disease organisms; 3) a monitoring program for the mainstream and major tributaries; 4) development of an integrated data management system for data compilation and ease of analysis of resource status; 5) definition of management options for maintaining water quality in this system; 6) a plan for implementation of management actions; and 7) assessment of effectiveness of management actions.

Essential baseline information regarding water quality in the park will be provided through an integrated sampling program in the river corridor and tributaries. This program will include an assessment of water quality (including bacterial and other disease organism counts) in the Colorado River at three stations (Lees Ferry, Phantom Ranch, and Diamond Creek) for a period of three years at seasonal intervals. Thereafter, one river station (Diamond Creek) should be sampled regularly throughout the year. Major tributaries (the Paria River, the Little Colorado River, Bright Angel Creek, Kanab Creek, Tapeats Creek, and Havasu Creek) should be sampled at base flow and during flooding during the initial 3-year period and resampled at least every other year after that time. Parameters to be sampled are listed in Table 2. Collections should consist of 3 or more separate samples from the main current to provide an estimate of variance at each site, and sampling should conform to accepted standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Arizona State Department of Health.

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Tucson is presently developing a research plan for assessing water quality in the Colorado River drainage in the Grand Canyon. This research would emphasize the status of physical and chemical water characteristics, major ions, heavy metals, and bacteria and disease organisms in the mainstream and in selected tributaries. In the interest of conserving money and time, the NPS will request access to the USGS water quality data, should such a program be undertaken by the USGS. The project could provide the NPS with pertinent water quality data, and the NPS would assist in development of research criteria, such as sampling sites, sampling regime, replication, and sampling schedule.

TABLE 2: Physical, chemical, and bacteriological parameters for analysis of water quality in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon National Park.

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS	TRACE ELEMENTS
	Temperature		Aluminum
	Flow		Arsenic
	Turbidity		Boron
			Cadmium
			Copper
MAJOR		Iron
	pH (field and lab)		Lead
	Alkalinity		Manganese
	Hardness		Mercury
	Specific conductance		Molybdenum
	Total Dissolved Solids		Nickel
	Chloride		Selenium
	Sulfate		Vanadium
	Calcium		Zinc
	Magnesium
	Potassium
	Sodium	RADIONUCLIDES
	Bicarbonate		Gross alpha
	Fluoride		Gross beta
	Silica		Combined Ra 226, 228
	Dissolved Oxygen		Strontium 90
NUTRIENTS
	Nitrate	DISEASE ORGANISMS
	Phosphate		Fecal coliform
			Streptococcal and total
			coliform
			Shigella sonnei
			Salmonella spp.
			Giardia lambla
			Unidentified podophilic bacterium


RESOURCE MONITORING ISSUE 5: CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archaeological resources in the Colorado River corridor have received a considerable amount of attention from NPS staff. Many major archaeological sites have been identified along the river, and a site-specific monitoring program has been initiated for some of these. Monitoring priorities have been established on a six-year monitoring cycle in which major sites are monitored annually, and some sites may require no monitoring. The six-year monitoring cycle is adequate for minor sites to allow staff to identify changing resource conditions; however, major sites will continue to be monitored annually. NPS archaeologists have found that visitor impacts and natural impacts to archaeological sites are often interrelated; for example, trailing may cause drainage channels to further expose archaeological deposits. The CRMP identifies the need for additional monitoring activity necessary to ensure that resource managers keep pace with changing conditions.

The same process will be followed for cultural resource monitoring as has been proposed for natural and experiential resources. A site-specific baseline inventory will be completed for each site, including consideration of control sites. The staff archaeologist presently maintains a list of all recorded sites, and the baseline inventory report has already been completed for most of those sites. Monitoring priorities will be established or modified when baseline information has been compiled or when additional information is obtained. Monitoring will be carried out on a six-year cycle, with an annual monitoring report prepared for all major and/or stabilized sites, and with less frequent monitoring of minor sites. A summary report will be prepared for the periodic revision of the CRMP.

Cultural resource data differ from those obtained from other resources by falling primarily into nominal and ordinal categories and, consequently, require the use of nonparametric statistical analyses for interpretation. Within the LAC management approach, no or very low levels of change are acceptable at most archaeological sites. These differences not withstanding, management decisions will be made in the same fashion as for other park resources. If management action is warranted, options will include stabilization, data recovery, and/or closure to visitation. Several sites have already been stabilized in the river corridor, and closure has been required at several sites (the Anasazi Bridge, the Hopi Salt Mines and the Furnace Flats area).



III. REFERENCES CITED

Bennett, P.S. and M.R. Kunzmann. 1987. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Biosphere Reserve Sensitive Ecosystems program. National Park Service Cooperative Resource Studies Unit Special Report No. 7, Tucson. 82 pp.

Grand Canyon National Park. 1984. Water Resources Management Plan. Grand Canyon. 161 pp.



IV. ADDENDUM A: BALD EAGLE RESEARCH PROGRAM

The NPS bald eagle research program must be timed to coincide with the wintering/foraging activity period of the eagles (November through March). Questions to be addressed in this plan include:

a) What is the pertinent literature on bald eagle wintering behavior, habitat requirements, sensitivity to human disturbance, and changes in distribution patterns?

b) What is the range and duration of wintering bald eagle presence in the Grand Canyon, including upper Lake Mead?

c) What are wintering bald eagle habitat requirements and are those requirements limiting bald eagle presence in Grand Canyon: 1) Do wintering bald eagles specifically require spawning trout populations in tributaries (a period of observation during which the river is turbid is required here); 2) do dam releases or low-flow years restrict trout access to spawning tributaries or limit eagle foraging success; 3) what is the carrying capacity of this system?

d) What levels of human presence interrupt bald eagle foraging and roosting behavior?

This research should involve frequent observations of eagle presence at Nankoweap, with several periods of long-term observation to gather foraging data and population dynamics. Special attention should be given to the arrival period in late November and the staging/departure period in February/March.

After these data are collected, a biological assessment will be prepared, in accordance with Section 7 protocol. Should the bald eagle presence continue and impacts indicate a need for mitigation, the NPS will examine management options for minimizing disturbance of the eagles by recreationists. These options and management decisions will be reviewed in consultation with the USFWS office in Phoenix, Arizona.


APPENDIX B
LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE

	Introduction
1. 	Temporal "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum"
2. 	Influence of Recreational Use on the Natural Environment
3. 	Influence of Glen Canyon Dam on Natural Environment, Flow Regime
4. 	Management of Water Quality
5. 	Influence of Man on Cultural Resources
6. 	Trailing Development
7. 	Fisheries
8. 	Aircraft Use
	References


INTRODUCTION

The "Limits of Acceptable Change" concept was developed by Stanke, et al. It has become an accepted planning scheme, used by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service for recreational use management.

"Limits of Acceptable Change" identify those levels at which management action will be taken. Their foundation lies in management objectives which are either measurable or based upon some value of the resource or sociological condition.

If a management objective is to be stated, there should also be an evaluation of the alternative means of assuring attainment; otherwise, there is no commitment for accomplishment and no incentive for the public to accept either a lower level means or the limit of acceptable change. By evaluating all alternatives, some should become evidently more favorable and thus, more willingly adopted if necessary. The lowest level of management action and intervention will be the NPS posture in assuring that recreational use impacts are within the "Limits of Acceptable Change".

The accompanying matrix does the following: it states the management objective and the level of change or recreational influence at which management action will be taken; it identifies the various means available for assuring attainment of the stated objective, listed with a brief description of the consequence of each; it prescribes a monitoring program and its objectives, along with the desired form of results and the means which will be employed to evaluate them; and it specifies the relationship of the monitoring program to the "means of assuring attainment". It should be clear that the intent of the matrix is to provide the means of translating a management objective into a management action.

In the temporal "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum" (ROS), use levels and patterns of recent years were used as baseline. Contact levels for each of the periods specified in the ROS are taken from results of research completed in 1976, which are believed to adequately approximate current contact probabilities. Three experience opportunity periods are defined: high and moderate use-level periods within the Primary Season, and a low use-level period within the Secondary Season. The ROS is intended to serve several purposes: to specify objectives for managing visitor experience opportunities; to provide the visitor the opportunity to make clear choices as to the use period that will satisfy their preferences; and give the NPS clearer direction for monitoring and applying management action.

Opportunity classes were developed around current use patterns, with contact/crowding levels that should be in the range of present levels. The purpose is to establish foundations for management and focus for monitoring on the river. Future requirements of the plan will include new sociological research on visitor preferences and actual monitoring results of on river contact and crowding. Future decisions for refinement will be based on public input and sound scientific results.

The following criteria were considered in developing the management objectives: (1) each objective should clearly reflect a specific social, physical, natural, or administrative condition of the Colorado River corridor; (2) each objective should reflect a value which can be altered or influenced by changing management practices; and, (3) each objective should be sensitive to recreational use.

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
	1. Temporal "Recreational 0pportunity Spectrum":
		1(a). Primary Season (high use period-6/1-8/15): This use will period be managed for higher density use. Density will be managed below those thresholds at which private and commercial boatmen reduce number of attraction sites visited to less than 10 to 14 sites, due to crowding and contacts. During this period of year, demand on the commercial sector is historically greatest (June is peak use month of the year). The commercial customer in most cases brings the least defined set of references. High density use will likely have the least impact on this group. The private boater who uses this period assumes higher density-related impacts, assuming they bring expectations for greater solitude.
		1(a). High Density Use Period:

i. Launch limits:166 people / day: 1000 people / week.

ii. # river contacts / day:
80% probability that a party will contact with 7 or less parties per day, with up to one and one half hours in sight of less than 125 people.

iii. # attraction site contacts / day:
80% probability of contacts with other groups at 70% of the sites; but the probability of meeting other groups at the Little Colorado River, Elves Chasm, Deer Ck., and Havasu Ck. increases to nearly 100%, with as many as 150 people.

iv. # campsite contacts: 10% probability of camping within sight or sound of another group.
1(a).
i. Voluntary Compliance with "no layovers" stipulations and suggested attraction site stop durations.

ii. Establish ceiling on trip launches per week.

iii. Equalize distribution of trip launches throughout the week.

iv. Launch Schedules - computerized, with no two groups of the same trip length / itinerary leaving on the same day.

v. Above with first day and mid-point designated checkpoints or campsites.

vi. Above with designated campsites for the entire river corridor.

vii. Reduction of number of trips per week allowed.
1(a).
i. Least restrictive / most freedom to public / concessionaire. Greatest likelihood of non-attainment of objective levels.

ii. Leveling of use through period.

iii. On-river freedoms preserved while some concessions lose preferred launch dates.

iv. On-river freedoms; greater manipulation of concession launch schedules.

v. Only two assigned camps but resultant rate of travel.

vi. Highly restrictive /  regulated rates of travel. No choice in camp selection. Likelihood of limiting social contacts.

vii. Limitation on the number of visitors or trips granted access, to assure attainment.
1(a).
1. Sociological Research Program. Results desired by December 1990.
1(a).
1. Monitor changes in experience preferences; perceptions of use levels. Monitor success at matching with visitor appropriate use period.
1(a).
1. Range / distribution of compatible experience preferences and perceptions of users during all use periods.
1(a).
1. Subjective evaluation as to whether conflicts (resulting from contact) commonly exist between groups and population subsets for a given use period.
1(a).
1. Planning action support.

2. Contacts /  crowding monitoring program: On-river (within and between parties); Destination sites; and, Campsites. Results desired prior to annual revision of Annual Operating Requirements. contacts.
2. Indicate whether contact levels on the river (within and between parties), at destination sites and at campsites, are within objective ranges for all use periods. Attraction sites Include: South Can., Redwall Cavern., Saddle Can., Nankoweap Ck., Little Col. River, Phantom Ranch, Lower Bass Camp / Shinumo Ck., Elves Chasm, Upper Elves Chasm, Tapeats Ck /  Thunder Riv., Deer Ck., Olo Can., Matkat. Can., Havasu Can., Silver Grotto, Blacktall Can., Fern Glen Can., National Can., and Nautiloid Can.
2. Value (with confidence) for contact levels on river (within and between parties), at destination sites, and at camp, including a mean value for # of destination sites used for that use period.
2. Sample means within + / - 10% of the mean, 80% confidence level.
2. Value outside satisfactory limits will initiate use of the next regulatory level for that use period.


A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program: 
H. Desired Form of Results:
I Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
1. Temporal "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum" (continued):
1(b). Primary Season (shoulder seasons--5/1- 6/1 and 8/15- 9/30): These use periods will be managed medium for density use; at levels which neither private nor commercial boaters make significant reduction in attraction sites visited. Optimum opportunity for up to 14 site visits over the trip.

-During this period, demand of the commercial sector on the whole is less, affording the opportunity for private boaters and commercial passengers who wish to avoid highest use levels to do so.
1(b). Medium density use.

1. launch limits: 166 people / day, up to 700 people in week.

ii. # river contacts / day:80% probability of 4 or less on-river contacts / day, with a daily mean of approx. 40 minutes or less within site of less than 65 people.

iii. # destination site contacts: 80% prob. that other groups will be encountered at 50% or less of the sites visited; but prob. at L.C., Elves Chasm, Deer Ck. increases to 65%, with as many as 70 people; at Havasu Ck.- 90% prob, with 50-100 people.

iv. campsite contacts: 10% or less probability of camping within sight or sound of other groups.
1(b).
i. Voluntary compliance with "no layovers" stipulation and suggested attraction stop durations.

ii. Establish ceiling on trip launches per week.

iii. Equalize distribution of trip launches throughout the week.

iv. Launch Schedules computerized, with no two groups of the same trip length / itinerary leaving on the same day.

v. Above with first-day and mid-point designated check points or campsites.

vi . Above, with designated campsites for the entire river corridor.

vii. Reduction of number of trips per week allowed.
1(b).
i. Least restrictive / most freedom to public / concessionaire. Greatest likelihood of non-attainment of objective levels.

ii. Leveling of use through period.

iii. On-river freedoms preserved while some concessions lose preferred launch dates.

iv. On-river freedoms; greater manipulation of concession launch schedules.

v. Only two assigned camps but resultant rate of travel effects.

vi. Highly restrictive / regulated rates of travel. No visitor choice in camp selection. Likelihood of limiting social contacts.

vii. Limitation on the number of visitors or trips granted access, to assure attainment.
1(b).
1. Sociological Research Program. Results desired prior December 1990.
1(b).
1.Monitor changes in experience preferences; perceptions of use levels. Monitor success at matching visitor with appropriate use period.
1(b).
1. Range / distribution of compatible experience preferences and perceptions of users during all use periods.
1(b).
1. Subjective evaluation as to whether conflicts (resulting from contact) commonly exist between groups and population subsets for a given period.
1(b).
1. Planning action support.

2. Contacts / crowding monitoring program: On-river (within and between parties); Destination sites; and Campsites. Results desired prior annual to revision of Annual Operating Plans for commercial and private users (October 1 of each year).
2. Indicate whether contact levels on the river (within and between parties), at destination sites and at campsites, are within objective for ranges all use periods.
2. Value (with confidence) for contact levels on river (within and between parties), at destination sites, and at camp, including a mean value for # of destination sites used for that use period.
2. Sample means within + / - 10% of the mean, 80% confidence level.
2. Value outside satisfactory limits will initiate use of the next regulatory level for that use period.

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
1. Temporal "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum" (continued): 
1(c).
1. Secondary Season (Low Use Period -10/1-4/30): Optimum opportunity for experience with low density use. Low prob. of either private or commercial boatmen reducing attraction site visits; opportunity for 16 or more site visits over the duration of the trip.

-Secondary season visitors will likely have the most defined expectations with respect to crowd in and general solitude. 10 / 1-12 / 15 is the quietest period with least prob. of conflicts due to the lack of motors and minimal on-river contacts with other groups.
1(c). Low Density Use

i. launch limits:  12 trips per week; 2 trips / day; 332 people / week.

ii. # river contacts / day: 80% probability of 2 or less contacts / day. Twenty minutes or less in sight of 40 or less people / day.

iii. # destination site contacts / day: 80% prob of contacts at 20% or less of the destination sites. Probability of meeting other groups at L.C., Deer Ck., Elves Chasm, and Havasu Ck. remains high (60%) but at lesser densities (less than 40 people).

iv. Campsite contacts: 10% or less probability of camping within sight or sound of other groups.
1(c).
i. Voluntary Compliance with "no layovers" stipulation and suggested attraction site stop durations.

ii. Establish ceiling on trip launches per week.

iii. Equalize distribution of trip launches throughout the week.

iv. Launch schedules computerized, with two no groups of the same trip length / itinerary leaving on the same day.

v. Above with first-day and mid-point designated checkpoints or campsites.

vi. Above, with designated campsites for the entire river corridor.

vii. Reduction of number of trips per week allowed.
1(c).
i. Least restrictive / most freedom to public / concessionaire. Greatest likelihood of non-attainment of objective levels.

ii. Leveling of use through period.

iii. On-river freedoms preserved while some concessions lose preferred launch dates.

iv. On-river freedoms; greater manipulation of concession launch schedules.

v. Only two assigned camps but resultant rate of travel effects.

vi. Highly restrictive / regulated rates of travel. No visitor choice in camp selection. Likelihood of limiting social contacts.

vii. Limitation on the number of visitors or trips granted access, to assure attainment.
1(c).
i. Sociological Research Program. Results desired by December 1990.
1(c).
1. Monitor changes in experience preferences; perceptions of use levels. Monitor success at matching visitor with appropriate use period.
1(c).
1. Range / distribution of compatible experience preferences and perceptions of users during all use periods.
1(c).
1. Subjective evaluation as to whether conflicts (resulting from contact) commonly exist between groups and population subsets for a given use period.
1(c).
1. Planning action support

2. Contacts /  crowding monitoring program: On-river (within and between parties); Destination sites; and Campsites. Results desired prior to annual revision of annual operating for plans commercial and private users (October 1 of each year).
2. Indicate whether contact levels on the river (within and between parties), at destination sites and at campsites, are within objective ranges for all use periods.
2. Value (with confidence) for contact levels on river (within and between parties), at destination sites, and at camp, including a value mean for # of destination sites used that for use period.
2. Sample means within + / - 10% of the mean, 80% confidence level.
2. Value outside satisfactory limits will initiate use of the next regulatory level for that use period.


A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
2. Influence of Recreational Use on the Natural Environment:
2. Identify and localize recreational impacts within plant communities.

ZONE DESCRIPTIONS:
3(a). New High Water Zone: This PIant community's development is characterized by rapidly proliferating species, such as Tamarix, Salix, Pluchea, Alhagi, Bromus, and Baccharis, as well as slow colonizing species such as acacia and mesquite. Tamarisk will invade the wetted perimeter, but under managed conditions may be replaced by native species, such as Salix (Stevens, 1988). Extent of Acacia and Prosopis in the NHWZ will depend on seedling establishment and survival (influenced by Glen Canyon Dam).
2. There should be no Iongterm modification of plant community development as a result of recreational use on areas outside campsites and trails.
Acceptable: Impacts that will recover in one growing season.
3(a). Acceptable Impacts: Localized exclusion of vegetation on camping beaches allowed, due to the dynamic nature of the plant community and the recruitment / survival strategy of plant species. Wood collection in this zone only.
Unacceptable Impacts: Visitor use-related encroachment of camping area into vegetated area by more than 10% surface area above baseline.
-Human waste deposition.
-Fire related impacts to beach sands.
 -Food waste accumulation.
-Rock scars.
2(a).
(i). Continue Regulations:
-Human waste carry-out requirements.
-Fire pan requirements and fire restrictions.
-Sanitation and food preparation requirements.

(ii). Education: Encourage use of core area of camping beaches.

(iii). Rehabilitation / re- vegetation of impacted sites, increasing cover of appropriate pant species.

(iv). Cyclic beach closure, to allow vegetation recovery and regrowth for scour-resistance.
2.(a).
(i). Regulated visitor activities, but resource Integrity retained.

(ii). Possibility of localized use, allowing perimeter growth / improvement.

(iii). Some altering of natural scene to protect plantings; plan for prescribed actions required.

(iv). Some vegetative recovery for stabilizing beaches, but increased impacts possible at other camping beaches.
2(a).
(i). Campsite area inventory and monitoring program; annual or cyclic assessment.
2(a). Baseline map for each site, including: location; slope and aspect; parent rock type; sand color in beach areas; amount and type of vegetational cover (recruitment and demography); flora and fauna of special importance (listed, endemic or exotic species); type of site (campsite, attraction site or other); and extent of impacts (trampling, trailing, rock movement and destruction, and litter and waste accumulation).
2(a). Measured change in site parameters, using repeated measures and statistical analysis.
2(a). Rated into condition class (high, medium, low) based on relative impacts within the population of campsites. This management objective will be revised upon completion of baseline surveys to adopt an acceptable limit on numbers within highly Impacted condition classes, by length of the river.
2(a). Regulatory, educational or rehabilitation / revegetation actions taken as indicated annually; cyclic closures only after evaluation of local camping opportunities and assessment of expected impacts.

2. Influence of Recreational Use on the Natural Environment (continued) :
2(b). Old High water Zone (OHWZ): The acacia and mesquite which comprise much of this vegetation zone have declined in growth (Anderson, 1986) and cover (Pucherelli, 1987), although the community is rather stable. Numbers in mature age classes exceed those of seedlings and saplings; although recruitment into older age classes probable for mesquite in deep fine grained substrates such as sand and salty alluvium, and for acacia in talus and silty alluvium.
2(b). Acceptable Vegetative Loss: should occur only as a result of trail management and / or visitor use along one trail.
Unacceptable: site disturbance should not exceed 225 sq. ft. at any site; camping, fires and human waste deposition not allowed. No loss of trees due to human activity. Destruction of dead, standing vegetation.
Recruitment of Acacia and Mesquite: No less than a 20% decline in mature age classes between high activity areas & control sites.
2(b).
(i). Education - increased efforts to assure that the public concentrates its activities In lower zones.

(ii). Rehabilitation and reduction to one trail to localize impacts.

(iii). Trail definition to the extent that it will be used by the public, allowing some local erosional impacts but causing little or no change to vegetative patterns outside the trail tread.

(iv). Closure and revegetation, to encourage local native species; however, xeric conditions hinder such efforts.
2(b).
(i). Least impact on the public with possibility of attainment or continued impacts on the possibly senescent OHWZ.

(ii). Impacts accepted but localized and limited.

(iii). Same as above but level of trail development may have negative impacts on the primitive character of the area; human impacts localized.

(iv). Loss of freedom to the public and alteration of visitation patterns; local conditions may improve but impacts may shift in unknown ways.
2(b).
(ii). Photo documentation and monitoring of trailing and site disturbance.

(ii). Acacia and mesquite recruitment and age-class monitoring program (using methods and study areas established by Anderson and Ruffner, 1986)
2(b). Document levels of impact; rehabilitation efforts and success of rehabilitation efforts.

(ii). Determine whether human impacts have an influence above those levels exerted by flows induced by Glen Canyon Dam; determine whether a stable age class distribution exists to assure replacement of mesquite and acacia in the OHWZ.
2(b). Photos with descriptive narratives documenting impacts and rehab efforts and success.

(ii). For control sites and human use areas, numbers of acacia and mesquite by age class; change in of density mature age classes /  1000 sq. m on pre-established quadrats. Analysis through repeated measures and statistical design.
2(b). + / - change at rehab sites; prescribed mitigation for new impacts.

(ii). Hypothesis testing of management objectives: H o: Density of adult acacia and mesquite did not decrease significantly with human use; vs. H a: Density of adult acacia and mesquite decreased significantly with human use; chi-squared statistics for each site.
2(b). Education, rehab and revegetation used annually as indicated by monitoring; increased trail definition used only in sensitive areas or in areas of repeated failure of above; closures used only as indicated by data and review of management objectives.

3(c). Desert Zone: Glen Canyon Dam has had little or no influence on this zone. This ecological community is not resilient and human activities, especially trailing and fire, pose the greatest threats.
3(c). Acceptable: Trailing will be allowed only in the form of one trail to an attraction site; impacts that will re- cover in one growth season.
Unacceptable: Disturbance should not exceed 225 sq. ft. at any site. No Iong-term modification of natural plant succession; no campsites, fires, wood collecting or deposition of human wastes.
3(c). Same as above.
3(c). Same as above, except (iv).
3(c). Trailing and site disturbance photo-documentation and monitoring program, including xerophyte monitoring.
3(c). Document impacts and evaluate the success of rehabilitation efforts. Establish a record of recurring social trailing and other impacts. Determine if xerophytic vegetation is stable.
3(c). Black and white photos at established photo points with statistical descriptions of impacts and exotic vegetation. Evaluate survivorship of rehab plants.
3(c). + / - change at rehabilitated sites; prescribed mitigation for new impacts.
3(c). Same as above.

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
C. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program: 
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
1. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
3. Influence of Glen Canyon Dam on Natural Environmental Flow Regime:
3. Consistent with the 1992 agreement between the NPS and BOR, the position of the NPS with regard to BOR plans of operation and environmental review documents relating to Glen Canyon Dam operations will be to propose an integrated approach to management of all river resources so that one release scenario (that may include such provisions as seasonally fluctuating flows) is adopted that benefits all resources to the greatest extent possible. No one flow regime meets the needs for managing or minimizing impact on resources; this indicates the need for and value of research, as called for by the Sec. of the Interior in his extension of GCES. (The National Park Service will participate in GCES to affirm its mandates to manage and protect these resources since the primary responsibility for GIen Canyon Dam lies with the Bureau of Reclamation).
3. Key Values:
(a). Sediment deposits: Minimize the sediment loss in the riverine system.
(b). Riparian Vegetation: Minimize disruption of riparian zone to afford fluvial sediments protection from scouring; and manage conditions to allow replacement of riparian aliens w/native species. Minimize disruption to the establishing New High Water Zone; allow colonization by native components of the tributaries and Old High Water Zone in this unstable community.
(c). Invertebrate Populations: Conditions that sustain stable populations of invertebrates.
(d). Humpback Chub: Seasonally fluctuating flows, as verified by research, that meet the needs of the various life history stages of the Humpback Chub. Determine conflicts in backwater areas between aquatic and terrestrial life as result of flows.
(e). Visitor Safety: Flows that contribute to safety and primitive experience.
3. Because the does not NPS manage operations of Glen Canyon Dam, it is necessary for the NPS to cooperate in GCES and support research programs directed at development of an integrated approach to management of all Colorado River resources.
3. Consequences of continued Glen Canyon Dam operations without water release schedules adopted in an integrated approach to management of all river resources.

(a). Loss of sediment in the system through erosion, mass wasting (Graf and Schmidt, 1987).
(b). Significant disturbance to riparian ecosystem through periodic flooding (as much as 50% reduction of plants In NHWZ, Stevens and Waring, 1985).
(c). Potentially reduced populations of invertebrates, which are an important part of food chain for aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
(d). Potential lack of habitat needed to support various life stages of the humpback chub.
(e). Potential of increased accidents under some release levels.
(f). And other effects, known and unknown.
3. NPS will support GCES studies to research and monitor the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations, specifically GCES, Part II, and its study of socioeconomics and fisheries, including humpback chub. Other methods of notable worth:
(a). Sediment and beach profiles monitoring, methods as in: Dolan, 1974; Ferrari, 1987; Schmidt and Graf, 1987.
(b). Soil and vegetation monitoring methods, as in Stevens and Waring (1986), and Anderson and Ruffner (1986).
(c). Invertebrate population stability, as in Stevens and Waring.
(d). Fisheries, including Humpback Chub, as in Arizona Fish and Game, 1987
3. Define the effects of Glen Canyon Dam and develop and refine a release schedule that meets the management objective.

(a). Define change in beach profiles;
(b). Define levels of leaching and loss of base cations, nutrients and fire particle substrates;
(c).Asses plant survival;
(d). Assess vegetative community structure and diversity;
(e). Assess stability of native invertebrate populations.
(f). Assess humpback chub life stage requirements.
(g). Assess relation of flows to accident rates.
3. Results that satisfy concerns expressed in the review by the National Academy of Science.
3. Evaluation that supports management action and decision making, relative to the management objective.
3. Refined range of flows, contributive to management of Colorado River values, and attaining the management objective.

A. Topic:
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
4. Management Water Quality:
4. Maintain compliance with State of Arizona water quality criteria for designated protected uses on the Colorado River and its side streams (as per State of Arizona Official Compilation of Administrative Rules and Regulations Sec. R9-21- 208), as far as the influence of man on water quality is concerned. The public will be informed of situations where natural, ambient levels pose human health risks.
4(a). The following areas will be managed to be within "Full Body Contact Areas (FBCA's) standards": Colorado River, Little Col., Vasey's Paradise, Bright Angel, Hermit, Royal Arch, Clear, Stone, and Havasu Creeks. The following will be managed to be within "Partial Body Contact Areas (PBCA's) standards": Paria River, Nankoweap, Grapevine, Monument, Boucher, Shimumo, Tapeats, Deer, Kanab and Diamond Creeks. The following will be managed to be within Designated "Cold Water Fisheries (CWF's) standards": Colorado River, Bright Angel, Tapeats, Deer, & Diamond Creeks. ..."Warm Water Fisheries (WWF's) standards": Colorado River, Little Col., and Kanab Ck. The following will be managed to be within Designated "Domestc Water Sources (DWS's) standards": Colorado River and all others except Phantom, Horn, Kanab, Havasu, and Diamond.
4
(a). If limits exceeded by natural sources of contamination or ambient levels, educational efforts are prescribed to inform the public of the hazards, health risks and preventative measures, if any.
(b). If limits exceeded by human causation, such as levels of fecal coliform:
(i). Education: To effect changes in practices.
(ii). Closures: To prevent human access into non-compliance areas, and to allow time for levels to return to within state standards.
(iii). Change in use Regulations: To prohibit certain practices and make others mandatory.
4.
(a). The public will continue to be exposed to natural human health risks but will be informed so that they can alter activities.

(i). Change in human practices required.
(ii). Loss of opportunity for the public, but the need exists because of human health risks and Impacts on natural environment.
(iii). Control of human activities.
4.
(a). Chemical and physical properties monitoring program, completed annually.

(b). Microbiological Monitoring Program, completed on a 5-year cycle.

(c). Radionuclides Monitoring Program, completed in cooperation with the U.S.G.S., completed annually.
4.
(a). Monitor turbidity on an annual basis; Monitor river I seasonally at sites (Lees Ferry, Phantom Ranch and Diamond Cr.) during baseline period, thereafter seasonally at one site (Diamond Cr.). Toxic elements regulated by Slate of Arizona will be monitored on a 5-year cycle.

(b). Monitor levels of total and fecal coliforms, fecal streptococcus, Giardia and other aquatic disease organisms, including Shigella, for major and minor tributaries under flood and base flow conditions (sites and methods of Tunnicliff and Brickler, 1981).

(c). Monitor levels of combined radium 226 and 228, gross alpha particle activity, tritium, and uranium.
4.
(a). Range of values or level of concentration for each constituent, as appropriate.

(b). Range of level values or of concentration for each constituent, as appropriate. Densities in colony forming units / 100 ml.

(c). Levels in (pCi / ml).
4.
(a). Compared to past results for percent change; Evaluated against State of Arizona criteria.

(b). Compared to baseline results of Tunnicliff and Brickler evaluated against State of Arizona criteria. Multivariate repeated measures; statistical approach with univariate analysis.

(c). Evaluated against State of Arizona criteria for recreation contact waters.
4. In the event of non-compliance levels of toxic elements, fecal coliforms resulting from natural contaminates, and radionuclides, the public will be informed in an educational process.

In the event of non-compliance levels of fecal coliforms resulting from human contamination, areas may be closed to comply with State of Arizona criteria and allow site recovery; site specific education measures may implemented. 

A. Topic
B Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relation of Monitoring to Item C:
5. Influence of Man on Cultural Resources:
5. Maintain compliance with National Historic Preservation Act, to mitigate impacts and consider effects of NPS undertakings, including management actions.
5. Any actual or anticipated impacts to cultural resources will initiate management action, as mandated.
5. Step up Plan
(a). Monitoring and prescribed restabilization, rerouting of use, etc.

(b). Collection, excavation, or stabilization to prevent loss of resources.

(c). Closure of site following impacts due to public access; or, closure to prevent exacerbation of erosional processes.
5.
(a). Visitor freedom but continued susceptibility / degradation of the resource.

(b). Manipulation of resource by NPS; protection but lost value of site context. Visitor freedom at site while also obtaining some site data.

(c). Lost visitor freedom to site assure protection and preservation.
5. Photo documentation of resource status, conducted annually or cyclically, as indicated by site trends. Site mapping and remapping, as needed.
5. Indicate evidence of change / loss of cultural resources.
5. Photos with description narratives on current condition / change / impacts. Site maps.
5. Site-specific prescribed action. Non- parametric statistical analysis of data.
5. Detected impacts initiate management action. Subsequent evaluation indicates which level management intervention.

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
6. Trailing Development:
6. Localize the impacts of social trailing to minimize the influence of humans on the natural scene, especially in the Old High Water and Desert Zones.
6. No more than one primary trail from a mooring location to a destination site, through the Old High Water and Desert Zone.
6.
(a). Confine human use to one defined, evident, primary trail; eliminate other social trails.

(b). Education effort and programs discussing human impacts and the person-hours required for rehab.

(c). Close the area and allow rehabilitation.
6.
(a). Defined visitor traffic in an area; localized and limited impacts.

(b). Understanding that will contribute to compliance, lesser amounts of trailing, and resource improvement.

(c). Loss of access to the public for many years.
6. Photo documentation of impacts and before and after photos of sites where mitigation / rehab work was conducted.
6. Provide documentation of impacts. Provide basis for evaluating the success of rehabilitation efforts. Establish record for recurring social trailing.
6. Black and White photos at established photo-points with descriptive narratives of impacts.
6. + / - change at rehabed sites; prescribed mitigation for new impacts. Non-parametric statistical analysis of impacts.
6. Initiates action prescribed in C(a). Documentation required for C(b).

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
7. Fisheries:
7(a). Humpback Chub: For conservation of the Humpback Chub, the NPS will cooperate in an Interagency effort (with USFWS as lead agency) to protect the Chub and plan for its management, recognizing that the Chub can be effected by far reaching activities within the watershed. Much is unknown about the requirements of the Chub, and impacts of other recreational activities are unknown.

(b). Sport Fisheries: The status of trout as a resource will be defined to allow the NPS and AZ Fish and Game to cooperate in whatever management is deemed appropriate; including evaluation of concession-guided fishing trips and their impacts.
7(a).
(i). Activities will be restricted in known Humpback Chub habitat.

(ii). All Humpback Chub caught by sport fishermen must be released; educational efforts for the release program will be continued.

(iii). To assist management agencies, the educational effort will be expanded to encourage the public to call in tag numbers and colors and location for each tagged Humpback Chub caught.

(iv). As a management agency, the NPS will support further studies of Humpback Chub.

(b). A definition will be developed, within NPS policy and guidelines, as to the status of trout as a resource; potential impacts of commercial fishing trips will be evaluated.
7(a).
(i). Fishing and activity restrictions at the confluence of the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers

(ii). Regulatory means and patrol action.

(iii). Educational materials and bulletin boards revised to request public to call in information on tagged chub.

(iv). As a result, NPS will implement recommendations resulting from studies.

(b) Initiate consultation with Arizona Game and Fish to identify appropriate levels of sport fishery use.
7.
(a). Current restrictions at confluence of Little Colorado seem to be working. Occasional chub catches at other locations may not indicate a need for new closures, but they support the need for continued educational efforts for releases of the chub.

(iii). Request for information on caught tagged chub will provide information that may benefit in the future management of the species.

(iv). Benefit to humpback chub through improved management.

(b). This may result in limits on fishermen. following consultation and research.
7.
(a). Patrol function, conducted on a frequent basis.

(b). Review of educational materials; likely when new data available or new program initiated.

(c). Coordination with Glen Canyon Environmental Studies.
7.
(a). Detect violations of species protection closures.

(b). Improved educational effort.

(c). Ensure survival of Humpback Chub.
7.
(a). Violations of area closures and species release laws.

(b). N / A
7.
(a). Data on incident occurrence for use by management agencies.

(b). N / A
7. Closures and educational efforts evaluated and refined.

A. Topic
B. Management Objective:
C. Level of Change / Influence at which action is taken:
D. Means of Assuring Attainment of Mgt. Objective:
E. Consequences of Such Action:
F. Monitoring Program:
G. Objectives of Monitoring Program:
H. Desired Form of Results:
I. Evaluation of Results:
J. Relationship of Monitoring to Item C:
8. Aircraft Use:
8. Offer, to the extent possible, a primitive river experience without intrusion from aircraft. Limit, to the extent possible, activities and amounts of aircraft use that would preclude the experiences afforded and managed for under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.

Note: Public Law 100-91, Sec. 3 (c)., allows for helicopter flights for river runners "... between a point on the north rim outside of the Grand Canyon National Park and locations on the Hualapai Indian Reservation (as designated by the Tribe)" and for the "... sole purpose of transporting individuals from boat trips on the Colorado River and any guide of such a trip."
8.
(a). NPS Operations: Aircraft use below rim level limited to administrative and emergency uses only; Probability of contact highest at Phantom Ranch Ranger Station, where ranger contact available for seeking help.

(b). Concession Takeouts: Concession takeouts outside the route described in Public Law 100-91 are unacceptable. Landings may not be made in the park, and any landings made on the Hualapai Reservation cannot be made without permission of the Hualapai Tribe. Probability of contact highest at Whitmore Wash.

(c) Concession Use of Shuttles: Shuttles of commercial river company passengers and employees must observe flight ceilings and avoid flight-free zones, as per P.L. 100-91.
8.
(a). Emergency use, helicopter use may be necessary in life-or-death situations.

(b). Administrative Use, alternatives to helicopter use may exist.

(b) (i). Mitigate impacts by assuring regulations promulgated under Public Law 100-91 are adhered to.

(ii). Mitigate impacts by routinely maintaining (to Threshold Zone "Stock" Standards) the Whitmore Wash Trail to assure that options to helicopter takeouts exist (stock and hike takeouts for passenger exchanges).

(c). Mitigate impacts by assuring regulations promulgated under Public Law 100-91 are adhered to by concessioners.
8.
(a). N / A

(b). Some impacts possible, but only to carry out the administrative and emergency missions of the NPS.

(b) (i). Liabilities, as per FAA.

(ii). Unknown potential for reduction in helicopters due to opportunity for concessions and private trips to hike out or use stock at Whitmore Wash as opposed to incurring the expense of helicopter takeout.

(c). Liabilities, as per FAA.
8.
(a).N / A

(b). Review process for programmed flights.

(b) (i). Patrols and visitor sightings.

(ii). Cyclic trail survey and maintenance to Threshold Zone standards.

(c). Patrols and visitor sightings.
8.
(a). N / A

(b). To limit the use of NPS administrative flights and find alternate means of achieving the same purpose.

(b) (i). Detect violations of P.L. 100-91.

(ii). Determine trail conditions and work needs.

(c). Detect violations of P.L. 100-91. 
8.
(a). N / A

(b). Flight purpose.

(b) (i). FAA issued "N" numbers, location of incident, date and time.

(ii). Trail conditions, erosion and washouts, etc.

(c). FAA issued "N" numbers
8.
(a). N / A

(b). Committee approval of programmed flights.

(b) (i). Report to FAA.

(ii). Programmed trail work: generated work orders.

(c). Report to FAA.
8.
(a). N / A

(b). Alternatives to helicopter flight may be chosen.

(b) (i). FAA initiates action.

(ii). Work is conducted to assure that takeout Options exist.

(c). FAA initiates contact of punitive action.



References:

Anderson, L.S., and G.S. Ruffner. 1987. Growth and demography of western honey mesquite and catclaw acacia in the old high water line riparian zone of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Brian, N.J., and J.R. Thomas. 1984. 1983 Colorado River Beach Campsite Inventory, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Unpubl. report. Division of Resource Management and Planning, Grand Canyon, AZ

Carothers, S.W., and S.W. Aitchison, eds. 1976. An ecological survey of the riparian zone of the Colorado River between Lee's Ferry and the Grand Wash Cliffs, AZ. Colorado River Res. Ser. Contrib. No. 38, Tech. Report No. 10. Grand Canyon National Park, AZ

Ferrari, R. 1987. Sandy Beach area survey along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Pucherelli, M.J. 1987. Evaluation of riparian vegetation trends in the Grand Canyon using multitemporal remote sensing techniques. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Schmidt, J.C., and J.B. Graf. 1987. Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ. USGS Open-File report 87-555. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Shelby, B. and J.M. Nielson, 1976. Use Levels and crowding in the Grand Canyon; Part III, river contract study. Colorado River Technical Report #3, Grand Canyon National Park. 51 pp.

Stevens, L.E., and G.L. Waring. 1987. Effects of post-dam flooding on riparian substrates, vegetation, and invertebrate populations in the Colorado River corridor in Grand Canyon, AZ. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT.

Tunnicliff, B., and S. K. Brickler. 1981. Water Quality Monitoring in the Colorado River Corridor, Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek. Contracted study; Grand Canyon National Park, AZ.

Underhill, A.H., R.E. Borkan and A.B. Xaba. 1986. "The Wilderness Simulation Model applied to Colorado River Boating in Grand Canyon National Park, USA". Environmental Management Vo1.10, No. 3, pp.367-374.

U.S.D.A., Forest Service. 1985. General Technical Report INT-176. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

U.S.D.A., Forest Service. FSM 4/87 R-6 SUPP 81, Title 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management. Wilderness Planning Supplement.

U.S.D.A., Forest Service. 1982. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum User Guide.

U.S.D.I.., National Park Service. 1978. NPS Management Policies.

U.S.D.I.., National Park Service. 1985. Water Resources Management Plan Grand Canyon National Park.



APPENDIX C
COMMERCIAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS


I.	Watercraft and Capacities
II.	Emergency Equipment and Procedures
III.	Trip Leader and Guide Requirements
IV.	Environmental Protection and Sanitation
V.	Restricted Areas
VI.	User Day Pool
VII.	Launch Limitations
VIII.	Trip Limitations
IX.	Secondary Season
X.	User Day Allocations per Company
XI.	Training Trips
XII.	Subletting of User Days
XIII.	Other Conditions
XIV.	Lees Ferry Launching Procedures
XV.	Backcountry or Off-river Camping

	Supplements
	A.	Commercial Sanitation and Food Preparation
	B.	Human Waste Carry-out Method
	C.	First Aid
	D.	Orientation Talks
	E.	Helicopter Evacuation
	F.	Nankoweap Special Use Area
	G.	Training Trip Request Form
	H.	River Incident Report


I. 	WATERCRAFT AND CAPACITIES

A. Those types of watercraft listed below are acceptable. While most current designs have offered a reasonable degree of safety, additional improvements that afford increased safety and comfort of passengers and crew will be strongly recommended. Changes must be approved by the Superintendent.

B. Capacities - Specific capacities have been set for each company and the particular boats it operates. All capacities are for total numbers of persons on any watercraft, crew included. The capacities are outlined below:

Company	Boat	Capacity
Adventures West, Inc.	S-Rig - 33 ft or 37 ft	17
	G-Rig	20

Arizona Raft Adventures	Maravia Santana 17 ft	6
Inc.	Snout - 22 ft	8
	Havasu - 17 ft	6
	Avon Spirit - 18 ft	6
	C-Craft - 32 ft	18
	Paddle boat (Santana)	7
	Paddle boat (Domar)	7

Arizona River Runners,	S-Rig - 33 ft or 37 ft	17
Inc.

Canyoneers, Inc.	C-Craft - 37 ft	23
	C-Craft - 32 ft to 34 ft	20
	Maravia Santana - 22 ft	8

Canyon Explorations, Inc.	Havasu - 17 ft	6
	Riken Aztek - 18 ft	6
	Paddle Boat (Riken)	7

Colorado River & Trail	S-Rig - 33 ft	17
Expeditions, Inc.	Havasu - 17 ft	6
	Leyland - 17 ft	6
	Green River - 17 ft	6

Diamond River Adventures,	S-Rig - 33 ft or 37 ft	17
Inc.	Havasu - 17 ft	6
	Snout - 22 ft	8

Expeditions, Inc.	Tandem Oar Snout - 22 ft	9
	Rogue River - 18 ft	6
	Rogue River - 20 ft	8

Company	Boat	Capacity

	Paddle Boat (Rogue River)	7
	16-18 ft

Georgie's Royal River	G-Rig	28
Rats	Green River Triple Rig	16
	10 man raft	5
	10 man triple-rigged raft	15
	S-Rig - 35 ft	17

Grand Canyon Dories	Dory	6
	Maravia Chubasco - 22 ft	8
	Avon Spirit - 18 ft	6
Grand Canyon Expeditions	S-Rig - 37 ft	17
Company

Hatch River Expeditions,	S-Rig - 33 ft	17
Inc.

Mark Sleight Expeditions,	S-Rig - 39 ft	18
Inc.	S-Rig - 33 ft or 37 ft	17
	Snout - 22 ft	8
	Rogue River - 18 ft	6

Moki Mac River	S-Rig - 33 ft	17
Expeditions, Inc.	Snout - 22 ft	8
	Rubber Crafters - 18 ft	7

OARS, Inc.	Domar Zambezi - 17 ft	6
	Caligari - 17 ft	6

Outdoors Unlimited	Maravia Chubasco - 22 ft	8
	Avon Spirit - 18 ft	6

Tour West, Inc.	S-Rig - 33 ft	17
	S-Rig - 37 ft	18
	Domar Zambezi - 17 ft	7

Western River	J-Rig - 37 ft	20
Expeditions, Inc.	J-Rig - 27 ft	10
	Rogue River - 18 ft	6
SOBEK'S White Water River	Modified S-Rig - 37 ft	20
Expeditions

Wilderness River	S-Rig - 33 ft or 37 ft	17
Adventures	Havasu - 17 ft	6
	Snout - 22 ft	8

C. Registration - All watercraft operating on the Colorado River within Grand Canyon National Park will be registered in accordance with the Arizona Boating and Water Sports Law (AGF, Article 5, R12-4-501 through R12-4-505).



II.	EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES

A. Life Preservers
1. One U.S. Coast Guard approved personal flotation device (PFD) Type I or V for each passenger. Each passenger's PFD will have an identifying mark and will be fitted for that particular passenger and worn only by that passenger for the entire trip. One extra PFD for every 10 passengers or 1 extra PFD per passenger-carrying, oar-powered boat to be carried on the boat (excluding kayaks, canoes, and sportyaks) whichever number is greater. Life jackets must be worn at all times while on the river and kept properly fastened and adjusted to fit. Boatmen and crew may use U.S. Coast Guard approved Type I, III, or V PFDs. Each PFD will be inspected at Lees Ferry for serviceability in compliance with U.S. Coast Guard standards. Unserviceable jackets will not be used. Passengers on kayak support trips may wear Type III PFDs while kayaking.
2. Each boat 16 ft. or greater in length must carry and have available a U.S. Coast Guard approved Type IV throwable PFD.
3. Rafts and boats operating on Lake Mead at night must comply with U.S. Coast Guard running light requirements.
4. A rescue rope throw bag is recommended for each boat.

B. First Aid

A major first aid kit, as suggested in the attached First Aid Supplement, shall be carried on each trip, with a smaller kit on each additional boat.

C. Communications and Signaling

1. Emergency signaling equipment will include a signal mirror of the U.S. Air Force type, and a set of orange signal panels, 3 ft. by 10 ft.
2. Additional recommended equipment is a ground-to-air radio transceiver on frequency 122.75 east of Supai, 122.85 east of Whitmore Wash, 124.85 and 134.95 for contacting commercial airliners, and 121.5 EMERGENCY.

D. Other Emergency Items

1. One extra set of oars must be carried on each oar-powered raft. Two extra paddles are acceptable for inflatable paddle craft. Kayaks and whitewater canoes must have a spare paddle which can be carried on the support boat or on individual boats.
2. One extra motor must be carried for each motorized raft used. Also to be carried are spare parts of the types most commonly found to break and need replacement under river-running conditions, i.e., propellers, water pumps, shafts, etc.
3. When inflatable rafts or pontoons are used, each river trip will carry an air pump.
4. Every river trip will carry a boat patching and repair kit.
5. All motorized craft are required to carry two B-I or one B-II fire extinguishers.
6. A supply of ropes and, canteens should be carried.
7. Each trip will carry one or more accurate maps or guides of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park.

E. Incident Reports

Any incidents resulting in evacuation from the canyon, personal in-jury requiring a physician's attention, or property damage over $100 must be reported to Grand Canyon National Park. Incident forms should be given to a National Park Service ranger at the time of evacuation, to the ranger at Phantom Ranch or Lake Mead, or mailed to the River Subdistrict Office within 7 days of the end of the trip. Incident forms will be supplied by Grand Canyon National Park and carried on each trip (see Supplement H).

F. Helicopter Evacuation (See Supplement E for evacuation procedures)

In the event of an emergency requiring helicopter evacuation and rescue, arrangements will be made for the rescue only by Grand Canyon National Park personnel. The outfitter will be responsible for the cost of the rescue, but may in turn bill the rescued passengers) for such rescue costs.

Requests by someone not on the river trip (relative or friend, etc., for family death or other emergency) for helicopter evacuation of a trip passenger will be made through Grand Canyon National Park. The outfitter and/or the person requesting the evacuation is responsible for costs of such evacuations, as indicated above.



III.	TRIP LEADER AND GUIDE REQUIREMENTS

A. Certification

The following qualification requirements must be met before guiding or leading a trip on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park.

1. Guide - An individual who meets the following qualifications:
a. Must be age 18 or older.
b. Must have made at least 6 trips through Grand Canyon National Park on the Colorado River as a boat operator or as an apprentice under a qualified guide, at least 3 of which must be in the type of craft to be operated with passengers on board. With the approval of the Superintendent, comparable experience on other rivers may be substituted for not more than 3 of the 6 trips. Any exceptions must be approved by the Superintendent on a case-by-case basis. The Superintendent in his sole discretion will determine what constitutes comparable experience.
c. Must be able to navigate the river.
d. Must be able to operate the emergency communications equipment carried by the outfitter and know the evacuation procedures.
e. Must have knowledge of State, U.S. Coast Guard, and National Park Service regulations applicable to boats carrying passengers for hire.
f. Must have a knowledge of Grand Canyon natural and human history, points of interest encountered, and the ability and willingness to impart this knowledge to passengers.
g. Must have a working knowledge of the safety aspects and equipment repair procedures for each craft operated.
h. Must possess a valid first aid certificate equivalent to the "American Red Cross Advanced First Aid and Personal Safety" or current Emergency Medical Technician credential. Current certification in CPR is required.
i. Must possess a valid Commercial Operating Requirement Certification for guide status.
j. Must have a working knowledge of all environmental protection equipment and sanitation procedures for river trips in Grand Canyon National Park.

2. Trip Leader - A person whose character, personality, and capabilities qualify him as a responsible leader shall be in charge of each river trip. In addition to meeting the guide qualifications specified above, the trip leader:
a. Must have made at least 10 total trips through Grand Canyon National Park on the Colorado River as a guide, in addition to the 6 trips required to achieve guide status.
b. Must be knowledgeable and capable of giving a suitable orientation talk to all passengers throughout the trip. This required orientation will cover life preservers, boating safety, swimming. hiking safety, drinking water, sanitation, and cultural and natural history of the Grand Canyon.
c. Must hold a valid Commercial Operating Requirements Certification for trip leader status.

B. Resumes

All guides must file updated resume forms (available from the River Subdistrict Office or Lees Ferry) with the River Subdistrict, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023. Photocopies of current advance first aid (or equivalent) and CPR credentials must also be submitted with resumes. Resumes will be accepted after sufficient river experience and required first aid training for guide status are completed. Resumes must be updated for trip leader status. Grand Canyon National Park river concessioners will be responsible for verification of resume information prior to hiring an individual as a guide.

C. Commercial Operating Requirements Certification

All guides and trip leaders must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of the Commercial Operating Requirements by passing the Commercial Operating Requirements Certification examination. Only individuals with valid resumes and current CPR and first aid credentials will be permitted to take the examination. Passing score for guide status is 75 percent. Passing score for trip leader status is 85 percent. Those failing to achieve the required score may be granted a 30-day probationary period during which they may retake the examination. Upon successful completion of the examination, a Guide or Trip Leader Commercial Operating Requirements Certification card will be issued. This card must be available upon request of the Lees Ferry Ranger during the pre-launch checkout. A copy of the Commercial Operating Requirements, to be used as a study guide for the examination, is available at Lees Ferry and the River Subdistrict Office at the South Rim. The test can be administered at either location. The certification card will be valid for three (3) years from the date of issue.

Concessioners are responsible for hiring and operating with qualified guides and trip leaders. Any deficiencies will be documented in concessioner evaluations. Nothing shall prohibit a concessioner from establishing requirements more stringent than those established by the NPS.



IV.	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SANITATION

A. Refuse

Cans, rubbish, and other refuse MAY NOT BE DISCARDED IN THE WATER OR ALONG THE SHORE OF THE RIVER, in side canyons, trails, escape routes, or any other portions of the canyon. All refuse material must be carried out. Deposits may not be made at Phantom Ranch, Diamond Creek, Pearce Ferry, or South Cove. Liquid garbage will be strained through a fine mesh screen into the river, and the solids then placed in garbage bags. The trip leader must ensure that all trip members properly dispose of refuse. Crushing food and beverage cans must be done in a way which leaves the beach free of liquids, food, and paper particles.

B. Soap

The use of soap is restricted to the mainstream of the Colorado River only. Use of soap in side streams or within 100 yards of the confluence of any side stream and the main river is prohibited.

C. Portable Toilets

Each boat party must carry a toilet system capable of containing and removing solid human waste from the canyon. The carry-out .system described in Supplement B is the minimum allowable. Upon arrival at camp, these facilities will be set up in an area affording reasonable privacy. For groups larger than 26, 2 toilets will be provided (the day-use toilet may be considered a second facility provided it is available at a convenient on-shore location such as near the hand wash containers). The toilet will remain set up until the party breaks camp. Toilet paper must be deposited with human waste. A day-use toilet, as described in Supplement B, MUST be available when the portable toilet is not set up. Urination should occur in the wet sand below the high water line.

D. Fires

Gas stoves (propane, white gas, etc.) with sufficient fuel for cooking are required on all trips. Manufactured charcoal briquettes may be used for cooking. Wood fires may be used for warmth or aesthetics, but not for cooking. From May 1 through September 30, all wood for fires must be carried into the canyon from an outside source. From October 1 through April 30, driftwood from beaches may be used for warm