INTRODUCTION

The Colorado River has been called “the heart of the southwest” by many a writer. Edward Abbey stated, “The canyonlands did have a heart… the flowing, golden Colorado River.” Well, thanks to many dams along the route of the Colorado, the river itself is no longer golden, but the point remains: in the desert there is an ecosystem like none other, and ecosystem within the harsh desert, and ecosystem of water, birds, plants, canyons, rock and earth. The river has helped generation after generation of people survive, it has carved countless canyon, including one that is considered to be one of the most beautiful things that mother nature has to offer: the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon was “discovered” by white man in the 1500’s, by Cortes. It lay forgotten in Northern Arizona, with only Native Americans to live with it. Finally, fur trappers came along. President Benjamin Harrison declared the canyon a national forest reserve in 1893. Due to transportation difficulties, the rim was not easily reached until 1901, when the Santa Fe railroad company built a railroad line right to the rim. Santa Fe’s partner, Fred Harvey and the Harvey Company added a few hotels, and business boomed. On January 11, 1908 the Grand Canyon was made into a National Monument, and finally on February 26, 1919, the Grand Canyon became Grand Canyon National Park.
Despite the Grand Canyon having specific dates of when white man first discovered it, and important dates of federal creation, the Colorado River is timeless. It has existed for no less than six million years, carving canyons and building what the American Southwest is today. Yet, problems remain, and that is what the focus of this paper is. As of the last count, 25,615 people rafted the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon and countless people camped on its backcountry beaches. This provides a problem: people are messy, and it is really hard to pack a lot of trash and wastes out of the backcountry, especially when you look at the numbers. Strict rules are in place, of course, but sometimes people just don’t follow them. The National Park Service keeps a fairly strict “pack it in, pack it out” policy, but that is not enough in some cases. In 1979, to keep up with the increasing usage, and the damage that the Glen Canyon Dam upriver was doing to the fragile Inner Gorge ecosystem, the National Park Service ordered an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be drafted, and again 10 years later, in 1989.
Well, again usage has greatly increased, and the management of the river itself needs to be reevaluated, hence the Colorado River Management plan of 2004. Due to be completed in its entirety at the end of this year, this document deals with how best to manage the 277 miles of river that flow through Grand Canyon National Park. As the National Park Service states it: “The purpose of the CRMP is to provide direction for resource preservation and visitor experience as they relate to visitor use of the Colorado River corridor.” Several things are to be considered/included in this EIS:

• Appropriate levels of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and preservation mandates;
• Allocation of use between commercial and non-commercial groups;
• The permitting system for non-commercial users;
• The level of motorized versus non-motorized raft use;
• The range of services and opportunities provided to the public; and
• The continued use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the Colorado River near Whitmore Wash (in consultation with the Hualapai Tribe and other appropriate parties.

SCIENTIFIC BASIS

Scientifically, there are many problems presented by the use, any use of the Colorado River. A desert wetland environment, like the one the Colorado River creates in the Grand Canyon is fragile. The rafters and hikers that use the river corridor impact the ground, killing plants, increasing erosion along the banks, etc. (Just a note here: I could go into the damage that the Glen Canyon dam has created for the Colorado River, but that would another 5 pages, so I am going to leave that out.) Erosion is a large problem. The impacts created by humans can be very to similar to the impacts created by cows, as discussed in class. New washes can open, washing sediment away from the canyon walls. This is a problem, as it can destroy the already-jeopardized beaches, take out plant growth which doubles as animal habitat, and can cause more flooding.

Habitat destruction is also a problem. With tens of thousands of visitors and administrators using the river, plant life becomes destroyed. Humans encroach upon the caves and bushes that anything from snakes, Gila monsters, and other reptiles to the bighorn sheep found scrambling on the canyon walls, and the highly endangered California condor which now makes its home inside the canyon as well.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONCERNS

The Colorado River Management Plan was actually supposed to be completed in 2001, but legal actions of rafting companies who feared that motorized raft trips would become even more restricted caused then-park superintendent Robert Arnberger to halt it. Another suit brought on by more rafting companies and environmental lobbyists was brought upon Grand Canyon National Park, and in 2002, plans to restart the EIS were drafted, and by December of this year, the EIS will be completed Legal issues and policy concerns include two obvious federal acts: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan. The Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan was set up by Congress, the National Park Service, and employees of Grand Canyon National Park to provide for the growing needs of visitors (more than 4 million people visit Grand Canyon National Park each year) yet maintain the environmental standards one would expect in a National Park site.

In the first paragraph of this section, I mentioned about the usage of motorized rafts along the river. The reason that I have included it in this section instead of the scientific section is because the motors on the rafts are generally environmentally friendly, do not generate as much noise as some people would have you fear and are a great economic importance to the river industry that exists, which I will discuss later in the paper. The reason it is in the legal section is because it was made into something legal. The first attempt at making a new EIS was blocked by the motorized rafters who were afraid that their usage would become restricted. However, that was not the case.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

If you look at the situation economically, you might notice that the rafting business and guiding business actually makes up for a very little portion of Arizona’s economy. So little, in fact, that I could not find any hard facts supporting what would happen if they took away rafting. That, however, is not the point that Grand Canyon National Park and the Department of the Interior is trying to make. The government is trying to allow both fun and be environmentally friendly. Economy issues are not the factor here.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Are there any ethical considerations? The Colorado River corridor through the Grand Canyon is largely wilderness, so access by the general public or the “casual” visitor is generally from the rim of the canyon itself. From the viewpoints to the river itself, it is 3 miles out and 1 mile down. We’re not talking about all 4 million people using the river extensively, just 20 thousand or so. I honestly cannot find any ethical considerations that would stand on their own for this issue.

However, I think that we must take CULTURAL considerations under this section. I say this because outdoor adventure in general and rafting have been a big part of Grand Canyon’s history. People come from all over the world; waiting lists are 10 years long for private trips or 2 years long for commercial trips. Backcountry permits in the spring and fall can have long waiting lists as well. The canyon is part of a culture, and the management plan is trying to make that culture, which can be destructive to the environment, work with the environment.

POLITICAL COMPONENT

Amazingly enough, politics have been largely left out of the management of the Colorado River. Despite the two suits brought on by different entities, politics is not the case with this. This is a government environmental issue, so budgeting in Congress is an issue, but not one that I feel should be dealt with directly in this paper.

CONCLUSIONS
The management plan in itself is a solution to the problems. This EIS should give a clear view of what should happen inside the Colorado River corridor of Grand Canyon National Park. Hopefully, the best economic and environmental answer should come out of this EIS, providing a decent answer to care for the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, the wildlife, and the people that spend so much time inside of it.