1. an environmental probe
2. an act of measuring the depth of a body of water
3. [often pl.] an exploratory sampling, as of public opinions.

Robert Arnberger, Park Superintendent

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK MOVES IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION
WITH PLANNING EFFORTS FOR RIVER AND BACKCOUNTRY

Being superintendent of a large, well-known national park may seem to be an ideal profession to some. You live in a singularly beautiful area, in a house provided by the government, and supervise a cadre of enthusiastic, dedicated employees. People want to come to your park for a life-enriching experience, and most leave having fulfilled that expectation. On the other hand, that house may be equipped with appliances that were made sometime before the Depression and the rent comes due every month, just as it does for everyone else. Being a manager means that you have to make decisions. Those decisions are not always easy to make, especially if you are accountable to the millions of people that visit the park, to those who do not visit but hold your park as a national icon, to politicians on the local and national levels, to your employees, and to yourself.

Superintendent Robert Arnberger recently faced one of those major decisions. In 1995 the General Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park was approved. This provided management guidelines for the developed areas of the park. Few pages commented on backcountry and Colorado River use, but its directives were clear. "The park's 1988 Backcountry Management Plan will be updated to be consistent with the direction provided in the management objectives and other sections of this plan." And "The park's 1989 Colorado River Management Plan will be revised as needed to conform with the direction given in the management directives of this General Management Plan."

With this direction, work began on updating the 1988 Backcountry Management Plan. The result was the draft Wilderness Management Plan and Environmental Assessment that was released in 1998. Immediately there was confusion. Was this a revision of the 1993 Final Wilderness Recommendation? No. The Wilderness Recommendation was an update of the 1980 recommendation of areas in the park that were eligible for wilderness designation. These recommendations were required under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act. Has any area of the park been designated Wilderness? No. Although the recommendations for wilderness designation have been passed to the Department of the Interior, they have never been forwarded to the President for action by the congress as provided for in the Wilderness Act. Nor has congress acted on its own initiative in this matter.

Prior to the release of the draft Wilderness Management Plan, work was begun on updating the Colorado River Management Plan. Problems became apparent immediately. The two plans merged into a single issue in the view of some of the public, media, and members of congress. The use of the Colorado River involved much more controversial issues than did the backcountry away from the river. Obvious challenges included wilderness designation for the river corridor, use of motors on the river, user day allocation between commercial and noncommercial river users, appropriate administrative use, and the closures of roads in proposed wilderness areas. The polarization that developed around these issues made seeking compromise or consensus highly unlikely.

Consideration was given to merging the two plans into one. Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (nepa), an environmental impact statement (eis) would be needed for the combined management plan. Developing the EIS would involve several employees for approximately three years at an estimated expense of $850,000, resources that the park could not afford.

For all these reasons, Superintendent Arnberger decided to halt any further work to merge the planning process for the draft Wilderness Management Plan and Colorado River Management Plan on February 23, 2000. "Further effort will be deferred until such time as congress formally acts upon wilderness designation and/or until this organization has both the financial and human resources fully available to do proper and unconstrained planning and NEPA compliance," declared Arnberger.

The Superintendent and planners emphasize that the decision to halt the process is not a decision to stop progress on the resolution of key issues. The current Backcountry Management Plan and Colorado River Management Plan will continue to be the guiding documents for park operations and visitor use. By National Park Service management policies, areas recommended for wilderness or potential wilderness designation will continue to be managed as wilderness. No management actions will be allowed that would endanger the wilderness status of those areas.

Perhaps no issue is more contentious than the use of motors on the Colorado River. Motors have been used on the river for decades, allowing people to experience the canyon on shorter, less-expensive trips. However, they are noisy and polluting, disturbing the wilderness experience for others. The river concessionaires are to be commended for voluntarily pursuing quieter and cleaner four-cycle engines and for exploring the possibility of using electric motors.

Would motors be allowed on the river if it were declared wilderness? The Wilderness Act is somewhat ambivalent. Section 4(c) states "..., there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats,... ." Section 4(d)(1) makes an exception, "Within the wilderness areas designated by this act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable." Because of the specification of the "Secretary of Agriculture," does this exception apply only to wilderness areas on U.S. Forest Service lands? Most legislation establishing wilderness areas on National Park Service areas contains a provision stating that what applies to the Secretary of Agriculture also applies to the Secretary of the Interior. This emphasizes the need for action and clarification by congress.

Work continues in other areas as well. Recently a document was signed with the Hualapai Tribe agreeing to discuss the issues along our mutual boundary. This was a small but crucial step in resolving the boundary dispute and associated issues. Also in the western end of the canyon, Grand Canyon will continue to work with Lake Mead National Recreation Area in the development of their Lake Management Plan. This will cover issues along the river from Separation Canyon to the Lake Mead NRA boundary.

River concession contracts come up for renewal in three years. This may provide a window of opportunity to examine the river permits allocation issue. There are more noncommercial parties wishing to use the river today than in 1989 when the last Colorado River Management Plan was formulated, which keeps demand for noncommercial river use permits high. A computer model, Grand Canyon River Trip Simulator, has been developed through the cooperative effort of the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University that provides an increased ability to simulate river use and conflicts based on varying launch schedules. If testing proves successful, this program may be used to schedule launch dates to provide increased resource protection and improved visitor experience within the current allocation system.

The park is also examining administrative use of the river corridor and other backcountry areas. National Park Service Director's Order #41, Wilderness Preservation and Management, effective August 2, 1999, specifies that "The National Park Service will apply the minimum requirement concept to all administrative activities that affect the wilderness resource and character." The minimum requirement is a process for the determination of the appropriateness of all actions affecting the wilderness. It incorporates the concept of minimum tool, which refers to an activity that makes use of the least intrusive equipment, regulation, or practice that will achieve the wilderness management objective. Park staff is developing a decision flow-chart that incorporates these concepts in the project planning process.

The decision to halt the process of combining the two plans is clearly with the discretion of the Park Superintendent. "It is not without some level of trepidation that I make this decision particularly in light of the significant investment we've made in time, energy, funding, and public participation. It was not made in a vacuum and discussions with a number of parties were had confidentially surveying their thoughts and insights," stated Superintendent Arnberger. It should be emphasized that current management plans and policies remain in effect, that the park will take no actions that would compromise any of the proposed wilderness area, and that the park will continue to work on identified issues. The park waits congressional action on wilderness designation, which should provide direction for future management decisions.

We'd like to hear your comments on this decision, please forward comments to: Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, Attn: Linda Jalbert, Recreation Planner, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023.