This entry contains my summaries of the 2000-7 meetings of the Core Team, concerned with management and regulation on the Colorado along the reach of the border shared by Grand Canyon National Park (Park) and the Hualapai Tribe (HT), and on downstream into the area under the administration of Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LM).
Since this is a very long entry with considerable detail, I have further condensed it in a related entry on this date, labeled Part 2.
For each entry here, between sets of ====, I have entered the month, the location, and the host. The numbers of attendees are listed by agency. After June 2001, the Core Team consisted of the tribal Chair & Vice-Chair, and the two Sup'ts and Dep'y Sup'ts. The number of others attended varied from 10 to 27, often just under 20. The Core Team had a rule -- that only its members could speak -- which was usually waived. Following the attendee count, I summarize the content in order from the minutes, using various abbreviations and short-cuts. Any [comments in brackets like this] are mine. My own further condensation follows, all in upper case, giving my impressions of what was going on.
The source for this entry is the set of minutes furnished me under a FOIA request by Grand Canyon National Park.
The source for this entry is the set of minutes furnished me under a FOIA request by Grand Canyon National Park.
I have called this five-plus-year exercise an "experiment". Given the sensitivities of the participants and the issues, I believe it was a success. Its double terminations remain a mystery, but failing some fatal flaw, I should think the parties could do well in considering re-starting this collaboration. Of course, it could be even more effective if it were more public, even at one remove.
=================
2000
February
No details were presented in the summary of a"brainstorm discussion" on setting up an "agreement of purpose" for three-way meeting format.
=================
March, PS (Peach Springs), HT
Present:
"Core Team": HT Chair & Vice-chair; 2 Supts and dep'y supts.
Facilitator: M Orton She was present at all meetings.
16 others; usually, no titles were listed
Park 3 usually included Jan Balsom, long-time GCNP w/ responsibility for relations w/ tribes
LM 3 sup't was succeeded by dep'y later in year
HT 15 incl staff of natural & cultural resources dep'ts, GC resort Corp.
Content:
Park Sup't Arnberger explained he had halted river and backcountry mgt planning, but Park had resources for these 3-party negotiations.
Problem was a divided river, with increasing recreation spectrum. Zones:
National to Diamond
Diamond to Separation
Separation to Pearce
Disagreement only over uprunning which HT allows, but not Park. (no mention of where)
Discussion indicated this was a meeting on process.
Decided to work first on "safety and management" and then "trespass and permits with respect to Hualapai land".
NPS asked HT for moratoriums on 1. increase in tribal contracts with independent river companies, 2. pontoon operations, and 3. ramadas & helipads. All then agreed to share in planning discussions.
PARTIES WERE CHECKING EACH OTHER OUT AS TO SERIOUSNESS AND WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE. MORATORIUM REQUEST WOULD IMPLY THAT NPS WORRIED ABOUT HT ACTIVITY AND ITS IMPACT ON RIVER AND TRAFFIC WAS A DRIVER. BUT ALL HT PARTIES, INCLUDING GCRESORTCORP, SEEMED WILLING TO ENGAGE. POSITIONING WAS FOR DISCUSSION NOT CONTENTION.
===================================
May, BC (Boulder City), LM
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 5 HT
Also 11 others: 4 LM, 2 Park, 5 HT
Content:
A technical working team had developed drafts on commercial river running standards, helispots, and emergency response. The minutes indicated these were for HT operations, and were following the path of the Park. There was a detailed discussion of helispot operations, based on Interior Dep't standards. This again seems to imply that NPS had grown worried about regularizing HT operations using federal standards. The Hualapai apparently were happy to go along.
THIS GIVES THE PICTURE OF COOPERATION AS THE HUALAPAI LINE UP WITH NPS WAYS OF DOING THINGS. SUGGESTS THERE MIGHT BE CARROT/STICK.
=========================
June (2 days), Flagstaff , GC
Present:
Core Team: 1 Park, 2 LM, 5 HT
Also 7: 1 LM, 2 Park, 3 HT. DOI person from Asst Sec office had been showing up, too.
Content:
Worth noting, mtgs always opened with prayer, not always by HT.
An indication of the complications was that the drafts from the previous meeting were approved, corrected, so they could be submitted to the HT Council.
The three entities presented their permit & fee systems. Park said it issued few permits for the lower river, but couldnt talk about "confidential" commercial operations. When HT asked about permits for Hualapai for traditional purposes, facilitator said another time; this was on recreation.
LM permits various operations, but only boat retrieval (4 companies) goes into Park; a tour boat service only goes upriver to Park boundary.
HT permits various activities, but is referring to entire reservation. Helicopter transport was mentioned, as well as river tours.
Proposals were offered: LM had four zones, by adding a dividing point at Quartermaster, allowing for a jet boat tour to go there to connect with HT helicopter trip. This would help tribe while dealing with physical & social carrying capacity problems. The lower Canyon would be a heavy recreational use area, appropriate to an NRA, but not a Park.
HT agreed to the LM zones, with four different permits utilizing dual permitting. It called for cooperation on enforcement. Its presentation utilized a lawyerly assertion of sovereignty. [As I have discussed elsewhere, the HT stance towards its reservation models it as an anti-migration zone, reminiscent of China under the impact of Europeans during the decline of the Qing.] HT wanted free private trips by HT if starting on reservation. HT also wanted allocation of trips through entire Canyon.
Park agreed with LM zones, saying point of origin should control permit. Said solicitor would allow Park to provide % of fees to HT based on use. [This is turn-around from 1970's; did it ever happen?] Of course, should be reciprocal. BUT Park says no to upriver from Diamond because of safety, unless for adm purpose. Says commercials negotiate with each other as river trips go along, so cannot predict who will be on reservation bank. HT says some camp w/o permit. Park says maybe can be worked out. [Note that Superintendent not there, with Alaska in his near future, and river planning in an uproar.]
They broke into discussion groups, to look for common ground and sticking points. Depending on what the atmosphere was, this could have been a make-or-break point in indicating whether to go on. For instance, all agreed on no upriver traffic from Diamond, but the Park did not want any from Separation unless it was in rubber rafts and heavily regulated.
Nor did it want jet boats above Quartermaster or commercial trips upriver to Separation, although tribal tours could be considered. [In fact, Congress had given GCNP jurisdiction over the water surface down to Grand Wash Cliffs; but it had done little with that except mis-step by claiming to the historic high water line, and now, apparently worried about HT ambitions, was attempting to regain ceded ground.]
The list of agreed items included: sharing use information, carrying capacities for river and camps, making the anything-goes zone from Quartermaster (zone 4) down, attempting fee sharing, issuing permits for film, science & education, and protecting the resource, Hualapai culture, & visitors. The configuration of activities in zone 4 seemed the most likely to lead to some serious negotiation. The Park having asserted its rights down to Diamond, all consented to discussing a mandatory commercial take-out at Diamond, with only HT outfitters below that point. And down to Quartermaster, bigger, faster trips, and upriver traffic would be discussed. Moreover, zone 4 itself could be pushed upstream, to allow hard-hulled motorboats, jetboats, passenger pickup. The picture thus emerges of Park wilderness river management upstream from Diamond, and a recreation-area [or sacrifice] zone 4 above Quartermaster (r.m. 260), largely for HT profit.
GC Resort Corp reported working on ambitious multi-spectrum marketing plan, but it was not presented in minutes.
THIS MEETING THREW INTO SHARP FOCUS THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF THE THREE PARTICIPANTS. THE LAKE MEAD AND HUALAPAI PROPOSALS PUSHED FOR AN EXPANSION OF RECREATION-AREA TYPE ZONE. THE PARK RESPONDED WITH A RE-STATEMENT OF ITS INTEREST IN WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT (PART-YEAR COMMERCIAL MOTORS EXCEPTED) ABOVE DIAMOND. THE NEGOTIATING GROUND SEEMED TO BE SET BY NOT DISTURBING THE PARK'S RIVER ARRANGEMENTS, AND THE PARK WILLING TO DISCUSS AN UPRIVER MOVEMENT OF LAKE MEAD AND HUALAPAI ACTIVITIES.
=========================
September, PS, HT
Present:
Core Team: 1 Park, 2 LM, 4 HT
Also 9: 2 LM, 2 Park, 5 HT.
Content:
The subcommittee on permits and fees that had been set up in June reported in detail, followed by discussion. Fluctuating lake levels affect safety.
HT described its whitewater trip: fly from Las Vegas and drive to river. Boat to Quartermaster by 3 p.m., then fly back to Las Vegas. Boats take new passengers down to Pearce. HT worried about "boatmen fatigue". Foot traffic impact came up. There was discussion of how much traffic was generated by HT activities, with many being surprised that 50% of river trippers leave or enter by Whitmore heliicopter. HT plans to take 800 people in 2001 upriver about 8 miles to r.m. 217, about 5% of their passenger load. The Core Team agreed to hold use numbers at their current levels, e.g., no tours from Lake Mead, HT takes 80/day down from Diamond, three private parties launching from Diamond. Also it was reiterated that there would be no upriver running from Diamond after the 2000 season.
The Memorandum of Agreement was reviewed, to go to Interior, then the Hualapai Council for approval, in order to be signed by the two superintendents before their imminent departures.
The zones were revised: 1 starts just above Diamond; 2 goes down to just above Quartermaster (Separation no longer used); 3 to the Park boundary at 278; and 4 to Pearce Ferry. [This would seem to indicate that the suggestion to extend recreation-area activity above Quartermaster was dropped.]
THIS MEETING SEEMED FAR MORE SUBDUED THAN JUNE'S. IT SPENT ITS TIME ON DETAILS, AND AGAIN SEEMED TO BE RECOGNIZING THE PARK'S CONCERNS AS PARAMOUNT.
=========================
October, BC, LM
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 6 HT (only counting those attending)
Also 7: 1 LM, 4 Park, 2 HT.
Content:
The Agreement had been successfully approved and signed.
There was a presentation on proposed carrying capacity indicators and monitoring, and the committee on fees and permits was renamed the Carrying Capacity Committee. Capacities will be established for a certain flow from Glen Canyon. River user numbers were presented for the Park.
The zone proposal now called for 1 to r.m. 224 above Diamond; 2 to r.m. 257 at Triumphal Arch just above Quartermaster; 3 to Park boundary; 4 to Pearce. HT was not satisfied with zone 2 given the restriction on river uprunning; they want the option even though they have no such trips now. The Park stated its concern with safety. HT wanted to be the sole provider of trips, but this might be troublesome. HT will continue to discuss the issue.
With further discussion, a fees and permits subcommittee was (re-)established.
ALTHOUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME HUALAPAI OFFERINGS WAS ACTIVE, THE MEETING REFLECTED THE DOMINANCE OF THE PARK THROUGH THE INFORMATION IT COMMANDED, AND ITS GENERAL POSITION ON PROJECTING ITS VERSION OF RIVER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION.
=========================
2001
January, Flag, Park
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 8 HT
Also 11: 2 LM, 6 Park, 3 HT.
Content:
LM & Park both had new sup'ts, but LM had been there as dep'y and Park had come from GCNRA.
Started with bang--go into executive session to discuss an unauthorized dock built by a coptering company at r.m. 263. HT had ordered it removed--pontoon boat/gangplank structure. HT affirms commitment to no new structures. HT will report sanctions to core team in secret. HT will review its internal communications. [This just reinforces my developing sense that this exercise was NPS trying to bring HT into line on river activities.]
Comm. set up on joint law enforcement. Also HT will review its contracts and perhaps allow NPS to review them.
Zone discussion was put off, but possibility brought up of more HT activities in exchange for cutting down on uprunning. Park and LM agree boundary is at 277 [correct; right where the GWC comes down to river on the south side].
HT had written EPA about water quality standards in Feb 2000. EPA had now written NPS asking whether HT had jurisdiction over river. [NPS feathers very ruffled, but HT had not mis-stepped.] Supts both pressed HT on how this could bring up boundary. Decided to work on reply together. Feathers settle down.
Use data presented fm Park, but HT didnt have. Discussion of how to measure use & impact.
HT insistent that cultural activities are like adm and not subject to regulation; core agrees.
Capacity & monitoring discussion; [la-la land].
THE ASPECT OF BIG BROTHER CHASTISING LITTLE BROTHER IS HARD TO ESCAPE. NPS HAD A GOTCHA ON THE HELICOPTER DOCK AND SPANKED. IT THEN MIS-STEPPED ON LEGITIMATE HT REQUEST TO EPA. OTHERWISE, NO ACTION.
=========================
April, PS, HT
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 7 HT
Also 10: 2 LM, 5 Park, 3 HT.
Content:
Feb mtg had been set, but not held. Good feeling expressed by Orton and HT chairwoman.
HT still unready on zones. HT had now approved 3 sets of standards, in line with NPS standards.
HT said contract not to be renewed w/ hel. company which built dock.
Hunting discussion: HT says not much by river--too inaccessible. Alston [is he a hard-head] says he cannot allow in "Area of Cooperation"; may end up in court. HT speaks of sovereignty. So Park-HT comm formed to seek fed legn to allow traditional hunting like Havasupai. Ban on AOC commercial hunting was agreed to, although hunters could be transported through AOC by HT. but not upriver.
LM says lake will drop; Pearce unavailable. HT says South Cove too far; may helicopter at 260 or jet boat.
Discussion of law enforcement leads Park to say it has l.e. jurisdiction in AOC and is considerate of HT. All other committees had nothing to report.
MARK-TIME MEETING, EXCEPT FOR PARK SUP'T ASSERTING JURISDICTION.
=========================
June (2 days), BC, LM
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Note: HT core now limited to chair & vice
Also 15: 1 LM, 5 Park, 9 HT.
Note: HT usually includes Dep'ts of Cultural and Natural Resources and GC Resort Corp
Content:
HT still working on zone boundaries, incl. river trip and attorney consultation.
Discussion of cultural resources brought out that the Colorado is one. Park & HT may try to specify sites to be avoided. Alston makes comment implying Park owns to HHWM.
HT working on mgt plan for lower Colorado [loose usage]. Sup'ts push for this to be a joint process. HT wants to move more quickly, and have it sovereign, not NPS, process, says [wf] tribal attorney. Later, HT agree to slow down. LM suggests more slowing by studying planning some more, and HT can learn from NPS. Att'y pushes air & water quality and jurisdictional statement. Alston has mystery DC fax for all to discuss. Much discussion and DC call.
THE INDICATIONS ARE THERE OF CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE ISSUES. PLANNING PROCESS BRINGS OUT NPS ANXIETY ABOUT HT WORKING ON ITS OWN. TRIBAL ATTORNEY SEEMS TO BE PUSHING HARDER THAN HT MEMBERS. MYSTERY ISSUE.
=========================
July, Wms, Park
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 1 HT
Also 15: 3 LM, 3 Park, 9 HT.
Content:
HT chair wants to share cost. Then an exec. session.
HT not ready to discuss zones; when Council approves, core team can try for consensus; if different, back to HT. HT att'y doesnt want to be stapled on legal opinions. Hunting comm re-org'ed. HT & Park will meet on overflight, Reid leg'n.
Discussion on permit issuance, if cooperation is goal. Would be difficult but comm. will work on it. Capacity and monitoring still in talking stage; more research needed. Law enforcement coop has to worry about jurisdiction. Joint planning, CRMP lawsuits also discussed.
Discussion of designating specific sites, e.g., hiking, camping, prohibited.
NPS says it wants to help find altrenative to Whitmore helis, so HT keeps income.
Most of fees and permits discussion put off because of zone.
Plan for Aug overnight river trip & mtg in Sep.
THIS COULD BE SIGN OF CONTINUING TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER, OR THE DIFFICULTY OF DOING SO. LITTLE SUBSTANTIVE ACTION.
=========================
Nov, BC, LM
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 1 HT
Also 10: 3 LM, 2 Park, 5 HT.
Content:
HT desires Interior rep, perhaps for First American liaison.
Noted Reid air route leg'n; will follow.
Sup't reports on suit settlement to re-start CRMP; done by 2004. Says Park may be "forced" into looking at entire river, so how to mix that with cooperation of this group. HT says they are fearful of a negative econ. impact from settlement. Park says it will formally consult w/ HT. Whitmore is discussed and consultation will be done. Question of open, transparent planning affecting core team work. LM wants core kept going for trust and relations. Park Sup't wants to know what HT CRMP concerns are, e.g., preservation of sacred sites, helicopters.
HT says EPA agreed to joint planning and extension to 2004. Park says coop could continue under NEPA. Park will hire planners, and HT could be in process. All agree on joint & coop for lower river. LM suggests a "task agreement". Park points to entire river, motors, private increase as big issues. Says has to give "equal attention" to all tribes.[!] HT keeps bringing up its draft lower river plan, but Park says worried about NEPA.
Zones set: 1 to r.m. 225, Diamond. 2 to east side of Q Canyon, r.m. 260. 3. to boundary buoy at 277. 4 to Pearce. LM says this has to go through NEPA [!!]. Activities: no upriver travel in 1. Pontoons go up at Q, but below r.m. 260. No more Diamond to Travertine round trips now. Helis at Q. HT offers Diamond to Pearce trips. NPS wants up only in 3 & 4. LM interested in HT economy, esp. if they agree to limits. NPS oversees lots of downriver trips. Also 1 jet boat to 277; no further pending discussions. Also jet boat to get passengers, depending on lake level. Individuals can go up to Separation.[??] LM & HT interested in jet boat scenic tours up to Q.
NPS says jet boats to Separation was in 1981 plan.
Zones agreed to, only change to upstream side of Diamond to keep road in 2. [note that same over past year, after Separation removed, so 1 & 2 are Park recreation, and 3 & 4 HT/LM recreation.]
LM says planning now needs to look at activities, to get consensus when going public. Close coop would then be demonstrated. LM plans consistent with this, only leaving open is tours to Q.
CRMP DOMINATED AND SEEMED TO ENERGIZE DISCUSSION OF WORKING TOGETHER AND REACHING CONSENSUS. ZONES AGREED TO, WITH 3 & 4 BELOW QUARTERMASTER AS MULTI-USE SACRIFICE ZONE. PARK ALL FOR COOP & SHARING; QUESTION IS WHAT WILL CRMP PROCESS REQUIRE? MANY COMMITTEES HAVE TASKS; WILL WORK GET DONE? LEG'N (TRAD. HNTG.), LAW ENFORCEMENT, FEES AND PERMITS, MONITORING, CARRYING CAPACITY.
=========================
2002
March, Flag, Park
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 18: 3 LM, 6 Park, 9 HT.
Content:
Law enforcement discussed as joint and mutual effort.
Group agrees to oppose Reid bill to remove restrictions on air tours with "quiet technology".
HT reported on various little env. projects.
Park goes over plans for CRMP. Discussed how to involve HT, coop &/or consulting. LM pushes zones as part of scoping/alternatives.
Comm. presents zone activities: 1&2 are primitive; downriver; HT permit required to stop on left. 3 & 4: up tours, pontoons, jetboats, individuals, but not PWCs. Questions indicate skepticism about uses of 3. HT want tours to go up from Separation, and LM instead offering to bring visitors to Q. Dock at r.m. 262.
Permits Comm. recommends joint permits issued at point of origin. To continue working on consolidated permit, incl fee distribution.
Monitoring still talking.
HT BRING UP ITS LOWER RIVER MGT PLAN. CRMP MAJOR ORGANIZING FOCUS, E.G., ZONES. ACTIVITIES IN THEM ARE LAID OUT AND QUESTIONED. STEP FORWARD ON PERMITS BEING CONSOLIDATED.
=========================
May, PS
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 26: 4 LM, 4 Park, 18 HT (many River Runners, contractors)
Content:
Purpose of meeting is to figure out how to interface with CRMP. Comm to provide input, issues, and make comments. Discuss how to fund.
HT want to build stairway at r.m. 262 to get up bank to helipad and bathrooms, from Diamond- down day-trips. Park wants to consider.
HT presents its problems with 4-stroke engines hitting bottom at 232; want to use 2-stroke. Park will check.
THE PRESSURE IS ON TO USE THIS FORUM TO GET HT INFLUENCE IN CRMP. EXPECTATIONS ARE RAISED; PARK IS WILLING. ALSO OPERATIONAL MATTERS COME UP.
=========================
June, PS, HT
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 1 LM, 1 HT
Also 22: 2 LM, 5 Park, 15 HT.
Content:
Cross law-enforcement doubted by Park atty. HT flip at r.m. 232 reported. Discussion of 4 stroke w/ dealer. HT moved ahead on env. improvements.
CRMP Comm would deal with recreation, impacts, resources. Discussion on how to finance coop by HT. HT wanted scoping mtg and to give input on process. Park & Orton will do this. HT repeats it wants to be part of budget, and lobbies Park hard.
Discussion of dropping lake level; dredging suggested. LM mgt plan out for comment.
HT caucus on CRMP participation and then push for paid role. Park talks about considering.
HT PRESSING HARD AGAIN TO BE IN CRMP PROCESS, INCLUDING HONORARIA AND EXPENSES. GAP MAY BE APPEARING HERE DUE TO HT EXPECTATIONS. COULD HT BE PART OF CRMP PROCESS?
=========================
Aug, BC, LM
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 1 HT
Also 18: 3 LM, 7 Park, 8 HT.
Content:
Park Sup't says he will meet Sen. McCain to brief him on CRMP, and will bring up HT participation funding. HT chair had met w/ delegation to urge funding, too.
LM had taken Nevada delegation on tour and talked about take-out issues.
Park offers to build log steps at r.m. 262. Approvals will be sought.
LM talks of dropping lake and need to re-do facilities and plan better. HT Clay Bravo suggests temporary road over flats at Pearce for take-outs. LM opts for South Cove.
Discussion of removing trout at LCR. HT express concern, but say "extinction is a natural process". {Not, I hope, of human sub-groups.]
BLM wilderness in Nevada comes up; HT wanted to be consulted.
Park reports on scopings. Lower gorge issues not of major interest. HT reps attended, and their info enhanced the meetings. Heli use raised repeatedly. Many questions about HT river trips.
Park welcomes HT as cooperating agency. Scoping at PS in Sept. HT want to help review RFPs. Park will consider. HT presented its budget for participating in CRMP, doing analysis. $300K, with Park paying half. Park says it will look for it.
Discussion of cross-deputization and Park says probably not; each fed agency can enforce its laws only within its jurisdiction. Maybe a mutual aid agreement incl BIA.
HT CONTINUES PUSHING ITS ROLE IN CRMP, HAVING JOINED IN SCOPING, AND NOW WANTING $300K TO ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES. LM FALL WILL HAVE EFFECTS; HT SUGGESTS ROAD AT PEARCE. CROSS POLICING UNLIKELY.
=========================
Oct, Flag, Park
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 1 HT
Also 17: 4 LM, 5 Park, 8 HT.
Content:
Difficulty in cross policing leads to request to look for consistency in enforcement.
Discussion of FOIA applicability. Not everything, e.g., CRMP, but usual assumption is information is.
HT wants reference to their river company on Park website to be more friendly.
Mention Kyl proposal to pipe water out of Canyon for coal slurry.
McCain visit was on overflights, and funding for HT in CRMP didnt come up.
Log steps at r.m. 262 all set to be built.
LM reports leads HT to mention economic impact on their operations. LM has no extra resources to help right now. South Cove is focus.
CRMP scoping at Peach brought different perspective. HT now a cooperating agency. They had attended scoping in Calif & Md. HT budget to analyze CRMP being worked on by Park. HT wants Alston to tell Parks Advisory Board about their issues.
Mutual aid in policing agreement ok'ed.
A MEETING THAT COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS SHOWING THE PROCESS HAD REACHED THE STATE OF BUSINESS AS USUAL. VARIOUS MATTERS WERE BROUGHT UP AND HANDLED. A POSSIBLE COMPARISON COULD BE MADE WITH THE FIRST MEETINGS WHERE NPS SEEMED TO BE TRYING TO BRING HT INTO LINE ON RIVER POLICIES; MORE RECENTLY, HT HAS BEEN PUSHING PARK ON CRMP PARTICIPATION.
=========================
2003
Feb, Lake Mead Lodge
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 18: 3 LM, 6 Park, 9 HT.
Content:
Park says solicitor believes passenger numbers may be exempt from FOIA. [This could make a nonsense of monitoring and planning.] FOIA may apply to this group. [What is the concern?]
Discussed fire management and tamarisk encroachment.
LM thinks South Cove will continue to be usable. Worry about possible waterfall. Road to Pearce discussed, maybe on old Mormon roadbed. LM not encouraging about a road. HT not prepared to have all trips exit at Diamond, and worried about impact of depending on South Cove. LM suggests trip with Park to look for roadbed. HT want to go. Group criticized private parties monopolizing take-out. HT did not attend LM meeting on low water. HT will report on Diamond factors, following a field trip.
LM mgt plan complete; complications with PWC rules.
Park website no longer has language objectionable to HT.
HT met with elders on river plans; "many do not have first-hand knowledge of the river".
Work on HT as cooperating agency with budget nearly complete. Park wants HT on inter-disciplinary team.
Park had asked NPS Advisory Board to meet with stakeholders, including HT, on a "citizen's alternative" dealing with motors and use allocation. Board has to take initiative.
On CRMP processs, 21,367 comments in database being analyzed in bulk for trends. Inter-disciplinary team formed to look at sites and impacts, to be used with computer models of launch schedules. Expert and stakeholder panels had been held, with HT participation.
Mutual aid in policing being worked on; Park asks that is solicitor be contacted.
FOIA CONCERNS VOICED. RESOURCE ISSUES DISCUSSED. LM IMPACTS NOW WORRYING HT; PUSHING PEARCE ROAD. HT IN TIGHTER ON CRMP. MEETING WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTENT.
=========================
May, PS, HT
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 1 HT
Also 18: 1 LM, 7 Park, 10 HT.
Content:
Bus trip to the River down Diamond; paper distributed on HT views on CRMP, Diamond, Whitmore. HT may re-route away from residences, and Pumphouse. Many side canyons on lower end lead to flooding, and need for 4-5 gradings a year. There is a dam with a recreational reservoir, also First Ramada near Diamond junction. HT worried about ElderHostel hikes impact; may take action. Crowding at beach discussed; will increase due to lake level. HT may reserve times for their trip put-ins, and may set up staging areas for other trips. Because Diamond is culturally sensitive, there will be no helicopter use there, although it will continue at Whitmore and Quartermaster. River runners can schedule to avoid copter noise. Road will not be upgraded due to cost. Elders do not like heavy use, but economic development is important. So HT is looking for balance between economics and protection.
Discussion of HT exclusive beach use in morning brought Park objections on behalf of river trips. HT may re-institute its shuttle monopoly, discontinued in mid-1980's. Also, may try to share expenses and installing scat machine. Private trips blamed for breaking down or not paying, although commercials sometimes dispute amounts. HT is ready to use motorboat or copter to regulate for fees, campsites, and hiking, and may want to collect in advance.
Meeting discussed Diamond issues. HT repeated no road up-grade or helicopters. Wants some kind of fee sharing for left bank use. HT emphasized need for river runner respect, regulation, and enforcement. Discussion of cooperative steps to increase awareness of HT concerns. HT pressed on exclusive morning put-in for its trips. Scheduling will be key for Diamond use. Park suggested HT make these points, so that NPS can alert public through CRMP of HT concerns and powers. HT was appreciative, but stressed lack of information for decisions.
LM noted there were both operational and CRMP issues.
When asked by HT about EA on number of river trips, Park said no [! weird], but CRMP EIS would do that. HT wants its traditional sites kept pristine. Park was looking for balance between river trips using Diamond and HT needs. HT wanted to take proper care of Mother Earth. HT businesses had been started without knowing of negative impact on cultural sites which need to be respected.
LM suggested river runners would understand if tribe reserved time at Diamond, and HT asked Park to help alert outfitters for this season. Park demurred; outfitters already set for year. More notice needed, and HT can always close road. HT says Council not yet decided, but also area is managed for Hualapai, and may get out of control. So HT will continue to discuss internally and make a decisions. Meanwhile Park and HT will send letter to all trip leaders explaining crowding, lake level, and negative impacts at Diamond; they will only request that certain hours be avoided.
The Multi-Species Conservation Program may restrict use of Spencer Canyon, to protect the southwestern willow flycatcher.
Park said HT input subject to FOIA, just like NPS. Request had been received on traditional hunting discussion, but plan to say no decision made, so exempt as deliberative.
LM reported that after investigation, road at Pearce is not feasible and there is no take-out, but South Cove will be ok for a year or two.
HT presented plan for new Quartermaster dock to replace old, smaller, less-safe dock. Dimensions would be 34' into river and 75' along it for 5 pontoons. Pylons into riverbed would stabilize it. It would be aluminum and stairway would go up bank, replacing one Core Team approved. Ready to go, although HT have not approved. NPS worried about length and reflectivity. Also it looks like a pre-decisional action not integrated into CRMP.
An incident had occurred of research on reservation at Mohawk without previous notice or approval. Park was apologetic; HT should always be involved in AOC and reservation.
The HT CRMP cooperating agency agreement had been signed. An FAA suit is mentioned giving HT authority over "Whitmore Wash". Park anxious to set up meeting to receive HT recommendations. [This is odd; hadnt this already been done?] Park reported on CRMP progress. Alston reported "the most difficult and embarrassing" experience in trying to get Parks Advisory involved.
Mutual aid on policing moving along, and question is now on developing protocols for cooperation in law enforcement.
A MEETING HEAVY WITH SUBSTANCE, ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS MORE OF POSITIONING THAN RESOLUTION. FIELD TRIP DOWN DIAMOND TO RIVER. THE SITUATIONS AT DIAMOND, QUARTERMASTER, AND LAKE MEAD LANDING SPOTS ARE SEPARATE, BUT INFLUENCE EACH OTHER. THE APPEARANCE NOW IS OF THE HUALAPAI PUSHING THEIR AGENDA, WHILE THE PARK IS TIED UP IN THE CRMP. LM, FOCUSSED ON DEALING WITH DROPPING LAKE LEVELS, AND THE PARK ARE RECEPTIVE TO HT WORRIES ABOUT ECONOMIC IMPACTS. NO INDICATION OF BASIC DIFFICULTY, THE DISCUSSIONS AS REPORTED INDICATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF LISTENING AND TRYING TO WORK ON PROBLEMS. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY THE SITUATION AT WHITMORE HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN THE CRMP PROCESS. HOWEVER, THE FIELD TRIP DOWN DIAMOND AND SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION INDICATE THAT, INDEED, NPS IS NOT AWARE OF THESE SITUATIONS' DETAILS. RESEARCH PERMIT INCIDENT AND DOCK REPLACEMENT ALSO INDICATE THAT GOOD INTENTIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY LEAD PEOPLE TO AVOID UNILATERAL ACTIONS. ALL OF THIS MAY INDICATE THE NEED FOR SUCH MEETINGS IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE'S ATTENTION.
=========================
July, Flag, Park
Present:
Core Team: 1 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 19: 2 LM, 9 Park, 8 HT.
Content:
Park wanted to ease process on research permits, wishing to notify and coordinate, not always have to obtain HT permits if work is not done on Hualapai shore/reservation. Procedures for notification will be strengthened. LM raises question about take-out coordination; discussion with Park later.
Park notes attempt by pro-motor outfitters to get administration to send Congress a Grand Canyon Wilderness proposal without river, which was then opposed by wilderness advocates. Ten letters for no-motor plan; 15 opposed.
HT raised question about wilderness in GC-Parashant NM and impact on Bar 10 ranch. LM says situation has left BLM in confusion. LM sup't says 95% of that monument was found wilderness-suitable, but the word is not to be used, by Interior order. In any case, the road to the Bar 10 is cut out of the suitability map. There remain questions about the road and traffic.
Park reports on having done legwork on HT complaint about a private website. [Query: why HT not do its own checking? Is this a grievance arena rather than an operational?]
HT brings up lack of Park response on dock. Park says it is too big and wants it as an alternative in the CRMP. HT say it is on their side of the river; want it resolved. Alston says Park could be sued if not NEPA compliant. HT reply they did EA, and do not have to go outside reservation. Park says it did not receive an EA. So item is continued. [This is cutting close; dock is clearly in/on the Park. HT clearly want it badly. Can this format resolve such an issue? Or…]
Entry of Mohawk in AOC for lion monitoring re-brought up. Park says it has obtained permits from HT only outside AOC. HT: Was NHPA observed? Park: NHPA is property, not animals. HT: entire Canyon is Register-eligible, and worried about archeology. HT chair: researchers used to get permission; proud of her staff; glad for discussion; appreciates all work. Upshot is that Park will notify HT for its research.
Previous incident about private party cutting tamarisk had been checked by Park & HT. Found to be slander.
Diamond: commercial leader taking out yelled at HT staff. So, HT asked Park to notify all that 7-10 is HT time. Money lost by HT unimportant compared to need for respect. Park tried to shift problem to non-commercial. HT reiterated; abuser was commercial co-owner. Park continues to take outfitters' side, saying HT has control over road, but beach "problematic". So HT could say road was closed, and so trips could schedule arrivals. Park continues to push concerns of commercial parties. HT reply is that they have tried individual approaches and it is time to say who is in charge. HT will work with outfitters, if he can. Decided that trips arriving before 7 have to be done by 7. HT insists beach be clear for their trips. Supt continues to protect outfitter. HT declines to meet with outfitter political group. HT says effective date is Aug 1; letter will be sent; Park will notify trips at Lees.
LM remains "unenthused" about any Pearce road. Too much money for a temporary road; also, current too strong, army requirements, flycatcher. South Cove good enough for two years, even though HT economic hurt. Water then at end of S.C. ramp.
LM to work on air tour mgt. plan soon.
During report on CRMP, HT asserted right to be involved in any action that affects their resources all along river. Park says it needs info on closures etc. now.
HT & Park had met on Whitmore, and come up with alternatives. Not in minutes.
LOOKS LIKE THE OUTFITTERS BROUGHT THE DIAMOND EXCLUSION PERIOD ON THEMSELVES. GCNP'S DEFENSE OF THEM WAS INAPPROPRIATE. STILL, THERE ARE MIXED INDICATIONS AS TO WHETHER HT JUST WANT TO COMPLAIN OR ARE ABLE TO ACT ON THEIR OWN. THE QUARTERMASTER DOCK IS A CRUCIAL MATTER; THE PARK DOESNT LIKE IT, AND THE HT WANT IT. WILL THE PARK GO ALONG? PARK DID PUSH ON RESEARCH, BUT CONVERSATION AMELIORATED STANCE. HT SEEMS TOUGHER. LM TAKE-OUT A GROWING ISSUE.
ALL IN ALL, A SIGNIFICANT MEETING FOR WHETHER THIS FORUM CAN SUCCEED IN THE FACE OF DEEPLY FELT NEEDS OR PREROGATIVES.
=========================
Sept, LMLodge, LM
Present:
Core Team: 1 Park, 1 LM, 2 HT Alston absent
Also 19: 4 LM, 6 Park, 9 HT.
Content:
GCMRC told to obtain permits for all work on HT land. Park now sends outside requests to HT. HT & Park to reciprocally notify.
Park says no reaction to letter about Diamond hours. Ranger says it is working. HT grateful. HT invited to concessionaire meeting.
HT flip not reported, and Park says it should be notified.
HT has endangered fish pond in Lost Creek, and Park worries about an escape.
Park states it would like to make dock upgrade part of CRMP. HT says it is 4 years old and new one would meet safety standards. Also log trail caving in, and they cannot wait. Park repeats stand, and would like all HT development ideas in EIS to take care of compliance. HT repeats need to make safer, even if not NEPA compliant. Wants categorical exemption. Park notes that pylons would require Army (C of E) permit. Park notes new boat, and HT asks if there is a cap.
LM reports on air tour mgt; basic disagreements with FAA. LM says 400 flights/day; FAA 100. Most are to HT facility or to GC. LM wants to regulate paths to protect wilderness and resources. FAA says it does not have to consult HT.
South Cove ok for take-out. LM still doesnt like Pearce road.
Most of the rest is progress reports, not action.
On law enforcement, HT wanted all parties to be enforcing each other's permits in AOC, but Park said it cannot.
HT AHEAD ON RESEARCH PERMITS AND DIAMOND. ASIDE FROM THE ON-GOING EYE-BALLING OVER THE DOCK, THIS WAS A MARK-TIME MEETING, INDICATING WHAT COULD BE EXPECTED AS TO HOW SUCH A PROCESS WOULD WORK IF IT WERE PERMANENT.
=========================
2004
January, Flag, GC
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 21: 3 LM, 11 Park, 7 HT.
Content:
Park recounts effort by outfitters to get river-less Wilderness proposal introduced. McCain asked for process to run its course. No action by NPS.
In response to request, facilitator reported on accomplishments. She thought good relations and collaborative problem-solving had been accomplished, also 3 rule-sets for HT operations and zones, et al. HT noted change in June of tribal chairs. She was proud of staff, now positive about Park relations, believing they respect HT. LM reinforced this view; trust established is building block for future. [This quote would be good to use in letter asking why not resume?]
Research requests will now go to HT for review and all launches except patrols are posted online. GCMRC is now also in line on notification & permit procedures. LM asks to be included, since nobody knows what goes on now.
Discussion about HT endangered species facility.
Fire planning discussed.
HT now up to 7 boats, and wants to increase operations, so when will moratorium end? Business has grown for 3 years.
Need to discuss Diamond closure further, so meeting with outfitters needed. Also on South Cove, as area shrinks.
CRMP team working hard. Diamond down alternatives to be discussed with HT soon. HT asked about allocation from Lees. Park will check with attorneys, and HT should, too.
AN EVEN SMOOTHER MEETING, WITH POSITIVE REFLECTION FROM HT & LM. BUSINESS AS USUAL FORMAT.
=========================
March, PS, HT
Present:
Core Team: 1 Park, 2 LM, 2 HT
Also 22: 5 LM, 8 Park, 9 HT.
Content:
Discuss research up from the lake.
HT says it had denied permit to UNM group, which had been doing research for 5 years. Discussion comes down to researchers who think they can go on HT land if they want. LM steps in, issue is complex, with various parts, and core group has only started on them. Comm on research permitting set up.
HT reports on its endangered fish facility, looking to help in H.chub recovery.
LM & Park working on fire mgt plans. LM has 3 prescribed burns on Shivwits.
In discussion of lake level, HT again worries about cost of going to South Cove.
LM working with FAA on air mgt; trying to get HT & Park added.
Park said solicitor said no to negotiating HT full-canyon trips. HT presents counter-paper justifying such a negotiation and allocation. Park's only concern is legality. HT claims priority over other tribes, and wants to be isolated case.
Good will in presentation to out-going HT core members.
Park brings up traditional hunting to repeat it is only willing to see about leg'n in AOC, since group is making FOIA request.
Discussion of towing pontoon out.
Park brought up problem at Diamond involving $385 to "disembark temporarily for take-out assist". HT will check.
HT wanted another letter from Park to outfitters on Diamond. Also suggested alternatives for CRMP if South Cove closed. Want to be able to change CRMP in that case.
Discussion leads to decision that use moratorium ends with CRMP adoption.
ALTHOUGH THIS TOO SEEMS A BUSINESS-AS-USUAL MEETING, THE HT ARE CERTAINLY USING THIS AS A PLACE TO PUSH ITS AGENDA. EVEN ASKED ABOUT HUALAPAI WHO ARE GRANTED TRIP PERMIT BY HT.
=========================
June, Flag, GC
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, 1 LM, 2 HT HT new chairs
Also 27: 2 LM, 12 Park, 13 HT.
Content:
Park reports on fuel cell bill to get around any change in motor use.
HT has lawyer reading a May 7 letter from previous chair to Park, laying out HT issues:
1. no response to request to look at concession contracts.
2. asked Secretary for an allocation
3. no discussion of copter use at Whitmore in CRMP
4. Lower Gorge alt. 5 must be selected in CRMP as Park's preferred, to protect land and water rights of HT.
5. Wants Park to help enforce 7-10 a.m. ban on take-outs, to regulate road problems.
6. There should be cross-permits for HT land. Park should collect permits and fees, and move this forward.
Park response is just as stiff: Alston notes presentation by HT counsel changes nature and tone of meeting. [How is this not sandbagging? What led the HT to ambush this meeting if they had already sent the letter?] He cannot answer w/o consulting solicitor. HT says he did this because he was new, but wanted to participate in spirit of cooperation. [Note there were 4-5 more HT than usual. This is either HT's clumsiness, lack of diplomacy, or something deeper. Was Louise Benson just summing up? A bad move. And note that Dickinson was not there.]
Answers:
1. Concession contracts are public, w/o financial information. CRMP administrative record is available, though staffer said the files were just delivered by contractor, and will take a couple of months to organize. Park has also furnished all core team meeting notes, email, & data transfers to new chair.
2. HT lawyer repeats that Whitmore coptering should not be treated in CRMP. Park replies noise impact is of concern, and lawsuit settlement requires Park to address coptering. Attorney replies that settlement says nothing will affect HT rights, and they may have to pursue this in legal challenge. [More and more bizarre.][Exchanges were considered in alternatives, but of course, decision was status quo.]
3. Group discussed attempting to have a core team preferred alternative. Park asked for HT comments on ch. 1 & 2. HT said it was better; more changes need to be made. HT said Park has been very open to HT changes. Park asks for HT preferred language. [Result was agreement except HT wanted more pontoon passengers, and fewer upriver.]
4. Park said Region will set up meeting soon with HT on full-river concession. No permits now open. Secretary can negotiate in exceptional circumstances, so Park asks for HT to furnish legal arguments. HT says no other tribe interested. New chair talks about always trading to east , and always having access to Canyon corridor. Says permitting process biased since most outfitters live in Flagstaff; HT would be first outfitter outside immediate area, so process discriminates against HT. [Bee-zar-er and Bee-zar-er. This guy is a mouth-foamer.] Another HT says if other tribes had wanted contract, they would have asked. [Navajo part of Fort Lees operation in 1970's. Have Tribal Park, which Hualapai dont.] She adds she found no references to other tribes in the Grand Canyon " in the literature". [Was everybody too dumbfounded to speak? Or were they laughing too hard?][This has not come to pass, but it and Navajo interest in Lees-LCR trips probably remain. If such a process were reconstituted, they would have to be accommodated, yes?]
5. On Diamond, Park says it cannot close beach, but willing to help manage and working on voluntary compliance. However, some outfitters seem to be misinformed. [That is not a credible statement, given the length of time since 7-10 started, including a concessionaire meeting.] In practice, HT gets there early and rigs, then move to side to let others take out, even giving them a signal. So trips do wait upstream, but says HT, it still gets congested. [If its THEIR beach, why dont they manage it better?] Private more problematic [of course]. If HT has consistent policy, it can be posted on GC website. After CRMP adopted, new launch schedule will reduce congestion. HT will draft letter on take-out policy, and sent it to outfitters, while Park will send it to all private and other users. [HT still trying to reserve 7-10.]
6. Discussion of Park issuing permits for use of HT land and sending fees to tribe. [This should have been started in the 1970's, if only as a sign of good will and desire to cooperate and respect HT rights. That damn Merle Stitt!] So Fees & Permits committee revived. [Could this have gone anywhere?]
LM reports, surplus allocations of river eliminated < 1125, and long-term projections call for 1111. South Cove still ok, but future unclear. Now talking to Fed Highway Adm on Pearce. Air tour mgt making slow progress. Zebra mussels of concern.
HT continue work on endangered fish facility.
Five working pontoons, with one more as gangplank. HT wants more. Jetboat wake damaging boats at r.m.262.
Park staff now writing draft EIS, and distributed confidential summary of alternatives; goal is September. Report of Research Permits Comm. will be emailed.
Meetings set for 8 Oct 2004 (LM), and 5 Jan 2005 (HT). The first was held, but minutes not furnished. The second was not held. CRMP ROD was Feb 2006. Alston was sup't until 2007.
THIS MEETING IS ONLY EXPLICABLE BY INTERNAL POLITICS OF HT. THE PRESENTATION AND CONTENT WERE COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE WITH PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS OF WORK. SO WERE THERE HT FACTIONS? WHY DID LOUISE BENSON WRITE THE LETTER? WHAT DID VAUGHN INTEND HERE BY HIDING BEHIND LAWYER'S SKIRT? AND TO THE POINT, DID THIS SABOTAGE PROCESS SO THAT IT WAS JUNKED BY PARK, OR …? SO WE HAVE TO END WITH A MYSTERY.
=========================
=========================
BUT IN 2007-8, THERE WAS A REVIVAL, AND THREE MEETINGS HELD; MINUTES ONLY FOR FIRST, THEN SILENCE.
2007
Sept, Scottsdale, GC
Present:
Core Team: 2 Park, supt (Martin) & depy.
2 LM, same as in 2004
2 HT vice chair & CEO GCResort
Also 9: 0 LM, 3 Park, 6 HT GC previously attended; some HT, too.
Content:
Asked to say why they re-convened:
LM: Had been productive; appreciation of others' concerns; friendships & trust by addresssing river mgt issues. Excited to build on earlier. Work for mutual progress.
HT: Address common concerns. Back because there were new players & perspectives at NPS. Cannot ignore river, and must arrive at joint solutions.
GC: Agreement essential on econ, protection, visitors; Looking for fresh ideas to move collaboration.
Agenda calls for review & next steps.
Facilitator: progress on mutual mgt, collaboration, sharing info, consultation forum, model of govt-govt work.
Specifics: zones, explore collaborative permitting, no upriver from Diamond, no commercial hunting in AOC, seek legn on trad. hunting, share info on projects and activities, joint FOIA.
Robust committees.
Discussion of previous documents led to: need to go from Pearce to South Cove for AOC. Update to CRMP, and discuss its issues, although MOU and AOP good framework. Decided to keep.
Listed 2 dozen issues. Decided to prioritize for next meeting.
"CONSENSUS: The group agreed that:
...
The October 2004 minutes did not need to be approved." (p. 5 Core Team Minutes, September 21, 2007)
Meet 10 Dec & 29 Jan 2008.
THE QUESTION HERE IS WHO INITIATED; WHAT THERE ANY URGENCY? THEN, DID THE TWO MEETINGS SHOW IT WASNT IMPORTANT OR WORKABLE? FINALLY, WHY DID IT QUIT FOR GOOD?
No comments:
Post a Comment