Dear Friends and Volunteers,
As you
know American Whitewater is widely considered an expert on the nuts and bolts
of river permitting and how permits are viewed by recreationists. Our expertise
helps us to lend a unique perspective to discussions with river management
agencies that compliments the desire of river managers to control or monitor
use through permits. We have begun
recording our experiences in order to share our expertise with our volunteers
as well as river managers. Now, we would like your help.
Please
take some time to read our DRAFT white paper on river permits. We would like to hear your opinions, and to
share in your expertise as American Whitewater volunteers and river runners. This
draft version is current as of June 2002; we will be updating it with your
observations and comments this summer and plan to make a final version available
in September 2003 on www.AmericanWhitewater.org/access.
Please
send your comments to me via email at Jason@awa.org,
or call me at 866-BOAT-4-American Whitewater, or via snail mail at
Sincerely,
Jason
D. Robertson
Access
Director
American
Whitewater
301-589-9453
American Whitewater’s River Permit White
Paper (DRAFT- June 2002):
Table of Contents:
Chapters
III. Visitor Use and Logistics
B. Commercial Use Permits and the
Spectrum of Outfitter Trips and Services
1. Effects of Advertising and Marketing
D. Institutional Commercial Use
E. Fads: The “River Wild” Effect
O. Handicapped & Physically Disabled
Visitors
Q. Matters of Courtesy and Etiquette
IV. Distribution, Supply, Volume of Use, and Carrying Capacity
A. How to identify carrying capacity
B. Avoid unnecessary regulation of
access
D. Case Studies re Allocation and
Fairness
B. Standardization of Permits and
recommendations for new systems
I. Length of Wait for a Permit
J. Monitoring for “failed” permit
applications
K. Social Bypass Routes for Permits
L. Crafting a Private Permit System
VI. The effect of Wilderness Management on use
A. Opportunities for Solitude and the
Wilderness Character
B. Commercial Services Are Consistent
with Wilderness
VII. Resource Stewardship and Protection
B. Environmental Limits on River Access
for Environmental Protection.
D. Historic or Archaeological Sites
J. Creating an Advisory and Peer
Committee on River Issues
B. Search and Rescue: A Privilege for
the Saved or Public Burden?
2. The 1999 National Search and Rescue
Plan
3. The suitability and feasibility of
recovering river rescue costs.
4. Insurance Coverage Requirements
X. American Whitewater Consulting
The following discussion of river permits includes lessons that
American Whitewater has learned over the past 50 years regarding river
management. The suggestions that we have
made are simply guidelines. It will be up to individual recreationists and
river managers to identify whether permits are appropriate for their management
needs and what will work best for the public. We recognize that every river is
unique and that no single management scenario will work for every river.
American Whitewater’s staff is available to work with anyone who has an
applied interest in working on river access and river permitting.
I.
The Fundamentals
- Citizens seek access to
- Sometimes the level of use is so high that negative
resource or social impacts occur and that use or those impacts need to be
controlled or mitigated by river managers.
- River manager should first implement or test passive
control systems to manage use before instituting restrictive permit systems.
- If a permit system is required, then it should not
result in increased or accelerated physical resource degradation.
- A maximum carrying capacity exists for all rivers.
- There are pinch points, such as campsite availability
or parking which naturally limit use or lead to perceptions of crowding.
- Proactive management of the pinch points can
effectively address both negative resource and social impacts and mitigate
the presumed need for permits.
- Permits should meet the broadest needs of the river
running public.
- Commercial outfitter contracts should be crafted so
as not to unfairly limit the public’s self-guided access.
- A broad spectrum of outfitting services should be
encouraged.
- The local boating community and American Whitewater’s
affiliate clubs are excellent resources for evaluating permit designs.
- Permit designs should maximize management
flexibility.
- Unused primary season commercial use days should lead
to a re-evaluation and reallocation of use to the private boating
community for use if the number of permit applicants is greater than the
number of permits available.
II.
Introduction
Whitewater
river running has been a source of public fascination and interest for more
than a century. In recent decades, this
experience has gained much notoriety, particularly in the West, due to the
inaccessibility of many popular rivers, which offer citizens a paucity of
launch permits.
Since
the 1970’s, whitewater boating has joined the mainstream of public
consciousness and recreation as a viable, economically independent sport. The general public has learned how to guide
their own boats safely, buy their own gear, and take themselves down most Class
II-IV whitewater rivers in less than two years.
AW’s
ideas in this white paper are presented as a framework of ideas for
consideration in crafting river permit policies. We place great faith in the
river managers to take appropriate management actions representing the best
interests of the public and river resource that our members have such a deep
affection for. Our members expect these
managers to properly discharge their duties and represent the American
public. The issues tend to be about due
process, and putting the rules of the game in place and abiding by them. These rules are clearly defined in the
Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedures
Act. The non-outfitted public’s
interests should come before commercial interests, and experiential wilderness
protection objectives should be a priority.
In the
past decades, the whitewater rivers with permit systems in the West have become
a crucible for decisions and values regarding natural resource management. While there are many different views on how
to manage these rivers, what the problems are and how to solve them, everyone
who loves these places strongly believes, above everything else, in the
long-term preservation of the resource and wish to assure that these
outstanding areas, many of which are true wilderness, will not be deteriorated.
III.
Visitor Use and Logistics
“Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the
public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the
support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own
security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be
of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in
many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part
of his intention.”
-Adam Smith
Visitor
demand is different from visitor interest. Access to the river should be
managed to reflect visitor demand and the real desire to lead a trip down a
particular river. Access to the river should not be managed to encourage
marketing techniques that artificially translate mere visitor interest into
demand.
A. Private Use
“The soup shops, and every attempt to make a nourishing and palatable
food of what was before not in use among the common people, must evidently be
of great service in the present distress.”
-Thomas Malthus
Private
boaters are the public.
Private
boaters should not be treated as second-class citizens. Private boaters should
be given greater access during the summer season, and treated with the same
courtesy and respect as the concession outfitters and their clients.
As a
result of the evolution of whitewater recreation described later in these
comments, it is easier and cheaper than ever to learn how to lead and guide a
private trip. Thus private trips are now attainable for more people than ever
before, and certainly are far more attainable than in the 1970’s and 1980’s
when most permit systems and allocation divisions between commercial and
private were made.
A
non-commercial river trip is participatory in nature. Members of the group
share trip preparation responsibilities, including: logistics, food purchase,
equipment assembly, transportation, vehicle shuttle, and conduct of the trip
including food preparation and sanitation.
Collecting
a set fee in the form of monetary compensation payable to an individual, group,
or organization for conducting, leading, or guiding a non-commercial river trip
should not be allowed as this constitutes a commercial enterprise.
The
trip permittee should delegate responsibility (financial and otherwise) for
various aspects of trip preparation and conduct.
Trips
may be considered non-commercial even though a member of the trip, within their
normal scope of employment receives a salary from an educational institution or
non-profit organization to participate in the trip. This salary may not come
directly through fees contributed by members of the party.
No
person may be hired or paid to participate in a trip operating under the
non-commercial permit system. A possible exception that should be considered
under the CRMP are care givers such as nursing aides who are hired to accompany
an elderly or infirm guest on a trip for the sole purpose of providing solace.
B. Commercial Use Permits and the Spectrum of
Outfitter Trips and Services
The limited presence of
commercial outfitters provides a valuable service in assisting a
portion of the public in realizing recreational management objectives.
There
are many opportunities to raft throughout
Federal
legislation, not public demand, dictates proper federal agency policy to manage
a protected natural resource. Concessionaires exist to provide services for
visitors that are deemed to be proper for the sustainable use and enjoyment of
the resource. The federal agencies have
a responsibility to maintain a delicate balance between use and conservation
within the federal land management system, and often decisions must be made to
limit the use of a resource in order to secure its protection. Commercial outfitters are well aware of the
agencies’ power to limit access to a public resource: the 1979 Kleppe[1]
case upheld the right of the Park Service to make such decisions.
A more
recent case, Organized Fishermen v. Watt,
has again strengthened the power of the Park Service, but in a way that is
very frightening to river concessionaires.
This 1984 case was brought by commercial fishermen against the Park
Service for restricting commercial fishing in
The
Court also examined the role of the Organic Act in relation to concessionaires:
Commercial exploitation of the natural resources is not one of the
purposes for which Congress established the Park. The Secretary [of the Interior], as a matter
of policy, can implement measures such as those challenged herein, which, in
effect, eliminate one predator from the park and enhance the use of the park by
recreational users.[3]
While
this specific case would not bring judicial preference to a similar case
brought in a different circuit, this 1984 ruling is critical to the river
management within the national parks.
The Court expressly states that Organic Act did not establish national
parks for “commercial exploitation”, and that the NPS can restrict commercial
activities to “enhance the use of the park by recreational users.”[4]
1.
Effects of Advertising and Marketing
Commercial
operations advertise to fill their spots, and create an artificial demand for
access. Creative marketing includes: inviting media reporters on trips;
providing mailing solicitations to past clients; providing special sales and
other benefits packages; providing advertisements in magazines and newspapers,
and striving to increase hits on websites through services, promotional deals,
and other information.
When
access is limited and committed members of the public must wait for decades for
private permits, it seems ludicrous that others are coaxed to do the trip with
advertising. River managers should consider whether to manage advertising
opportunities, and whether to limit commercial use generated artificially
through proactive advertising efforts.
2.
Spectrum of use
Most
permitted rivers are legally navigable under state or federal law. As such they
are supposed to be dedicated to the citizenry for their enjoyment. The service
and perpetuation of concessionaires and vendors should not be a fundamental
goal of any river manager, particularly if that perpetuation diminishes the
normal rights of citizens to enjoy the river and its resources under the Public
Trust.
Concessions
are allowed and encouraged in situations where outside services are essential
for providing public access and necessary services.
If
demand is such that the citizens who completely capable and willing to navigate
themselves on leading their own trips are turned away or denied experience
opportunities, then that demonstrates the true lack of a "need" for
prefatory treatment to concessions on the rivers in regard to a permit
system. In this eventuality, the scope
and spectrum of use allocated to the commercial concessions needs to be
re-examined to determine whether it is either appropriate or necessary. The alternative, to increase commercial
access, is not an appropriate management of a river; in the end it prejudices
access towards moneyed interests and fundamentally makes "private
holdings" for the concessions out of what should be a very public
resource.
When
issuing commercial use permits, the spectrum of services should be completely
evaluated and preference should be given to the services that directly serve
the manager’s river management objectives.
One
example of a service that should be offered is a high participatory visitor
experience, such as was common prior to the 1980’s; however the last 20 years
have seen a virtually complete decline in passenger participation on trips.
In the
past, visitors on commercial rafting trips were expected to actively
participate in establishing campsites, cooking, cleaning, and other activities.
The decline in personal responsibility creates a paradigm in which visitors are
slightly more useful than cattle, and bring little “ownership” of a trip to or
from the experience. At present, the title “passenger” or “cargo” is most
accurate for describing these clients, as opposed to “participant”.
Conversely,
managers should examine whether there are situations where private boaters can
hire commercial guides for private trips or charter trips under the outfitters’
spectrum of services. There is an increasing demand within the private boating
community for the ability to simply hire guides, cooks, or entertainment (such
as musicians) to accompany quasi-private trips. It is possible to hire such
individuals to accompany groups on hiking and hunting trips on Park Service and
Forest Service lands. However, management practices on many rivers deter the
hiring of these guides.
Finally,
there is a real commercial opportunity that is not currently met by outfitters,
which would fit within the spectrum of revised necessary and appropriate
services. That opportunity is the commercial outfitting and logistical support
of private trips.
At
present, an increasing number of companies assist with providing gear and
shuttle services to private visitors. However, the commercial success of these
companies is impeded by the broad allocation of permits to commercial
outfitters. If the commercial allocation of use is dispersed or reduced and
private access is increased, then the commercial outfitting of private trips
would become substantially more profitable and would return revenue, often to
the local economy near the points where private groups stage their expeditions.
Some
services that managers could promote for private visitors via concession permit
include:
- Meal planning and packing
- Vehicle shuttles
- Raft packing and preparation
- Gear rental
- Passenger exchanges
- Resupply of perishables
- Waste disposal
3.
Cautions
In
2002, the
- No justification was made for the modification in the
EA or any prior documents;
- This change was made without opportunity for public
comment;
- The new language significantly altered the use
composition of the two groups using the resource; and
- Comments that were submitted regarding components of
this change were not acknowledged in the EA or the Decision Notice.
Under
this language change, craft rented from commercially permitted outfitters will
be counted against the self-guided boater allocation, limiting the use of the
river by the actual non-commercial boating public. This is in essence what
takes place on the
C. Count every head
Since
all people have impacts on the environment and contribute to perceptions of
crowding, the river manager and researcher use on the river should be monitored
and incorporated in any analysis of the carrying capacity or the establishment
of use limits. When gauging and monitoring use, the agency should count
everyone on the river, since everyone has some impact on the resource or perceptions
of crowding. Counts and regulations should explicitly address guides, trainees,
trip leaders, passengers, researchers, administrators, rangers, and other
users.
D. Institutional Commercial Use
AW is
aware of a movement to establish a new use category on public lands
specifically for institutional commercial use, such as the Boy Scouts, NOLs,
Outwrad Bound, or college outdoor leadership curriculums.
When
the primary types of this use are education, research, and resource protection,
these activities meet a fundamentally administrative objective and we believe
that these uses should be incorporated under the commercial use or
administrative category.
A
secondary type of institutional use are the commercial services to schools,
wilderness education programs, and other institutions that charge their clients
more than simple cost sharing for the payment of guides, transport, and food.
These semi-commercial uses should be managed, counted, and allocated within the
commercial use sector.
E. Fads: The “River Wild” Effect
Fads
are generally marked by heightened interest and subsequent declines. New
recreation activities or new levels of use are typically described as fads
during the first three to five years, but after about 5 years are viewed as
stable industries and after 20 years as being entrenched in the
mainstream. Concern that whitewater
recreation may be a fad is misplaced, this activity has certainly entered the
mainstream.
However,
AW has observed fad phenomena within whitewater recreation, for instance the
introduction of the “HydroBronc®[5]”
in 1999 and its disappearance from the market in 2000. Yet some fads internal to the whitewater
industry are not as immediately noticeable.
While
commercial river running interest grew substantially from the 1970’s into the
1990’s, there were significant spikes in interest between 1995 and 1997 and in
the mid-70’s. The 1997 spike marked the greatest public interest in commercial
rafting, which has been on a slow decline ever since. The spike began in 1995,
following the November 1994 release of Meryl Streep’s “River Wild” movie. The
spike appears to be directly correlated with marketing-related interest from
the movie. There was a similar spike in interest through the mid-1970’s after
the release of Burt Reynold’s “Deliverance”.
The
release of a new movie featuring whitewater and a popular cast of movie stars
will likely fuel interest in whitewater river running in the future and the
Park should be aware of this cause and effect in managing current use or
predicting use in the future.
F. Growth in Kayaking
After
two decades of steady growth in the industry (greater than 5% annually since
1980), it is demonstrable that kayaking is firmly established as a mainstream
recreation activity in
G. New Technology
The
development, distribution, and use of new river running technologies has
created a broader non-commercial river running community than ever. The
technological advances in kayak designs from fiberglass to plastic, canoe
designs from aluminum to plastic composites, and rafts from rubber to Hypalon®
or other composites has created lighter more durable craft that are easier for
everyone to use.
Other
advances include: self-bailing rafts, safer lifejackets or personal flotation
devices (PFD’s), raft-righting devices, sanitary river toilets, specialized
clothing for every season and weather condition including PolarFleece® and
Capilene®, etc.
The
effect of these new technologies has been to empower the public and let more
people than ever lead their own trips on the nation’s rivers. This means that
fewer people require the assistance of commercial outfitters than in the mid to
late 1900’s.
H. Education
River
runner education and training has increased parallel to the development of new
technologies.
It is
now common for river runners to develop the skills and acquire the equipment
necessary to safely lead and run their own river trip in two years or less.
This means that more people can choose to learn how to kayak, canoe, or raft in
order to lead their own trip faster than ever. Likewise it means that the
public’s dependence on commercial outfitters is substantially reduced from the
1970’s and 1980’s. River managers should
reflect this change in use in their planning documents.
I. Drought Effects
Use and
visitor demand is partially dependent on the effects of regional droughts. For
example, the absence of water regionally in 2002 meant that private boaters
were most dependent on access to dam controlled rivers. So use was high on
these rivers and very low elsewhere. Also, the absence of water meant that
fewer commercial rafting companies were investing in advertising sine they did
not wish to promote a poor or limited whitewater experience. The effect was
that people were not thinking about running whitewater, and were not being
introduced to the sport for the first time on the smaller rivers that serve as
steps on a ladder to the ultimate achievement of running the infamous permitted
rivers.
J. Crowding on river
One of
the great attributes of boating is the social camaraderie and community that
develops on the river. Many boaters like
to interact with other groups to share stories, inspiration, and information
about the river. Additionally, one of
the best ways of finding new paddling partners is by meeting them on the
river.
American
Whitewater recognizes that one visitor management objective is providing for
primitive recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge, and inspiration.
However, occasionally encountering other groups is not inconsistent with this
goal. As long is use is managed to
optimize camping opportunities for groups, there will be both long and short
moments of solitude throughout the day.
Most interactions are likely to be brief and consistent with management
for wilderness experience objectives.
K. Upstream Travel
While
there may be some limited interest in upstream travel, that use and access
should be limited to the shoulder season when it is less likely to exacerbate
crowding or group encounters on the river. Allowing upstream travel
dramatically affects the number of group encounters visitors will have. For
example if 20 groups are floating downriver, they are only likely to interact
with a handful of groups ahead or behind them. However, the group moving
upriver will encounter all 20 groups.
L. Age Restrictions
No age
restrictions should be placed on visitation. The decision to float the river
should be made on a personal or family basis.
M. Trip Size
AW
supports managing commercial and private group sizes on different scales.
Group
size limits on the Middle Fork Salmon are the same for commercial and private
launches, and are capped at 24 people. This volume of people may be desirable
for commercial outfitters and acceptable to commercial passengers; however this
group size is far too large for most private groups. While some fraction of
visitors would desire the larger group size, most surveys agree that a 12
person maximum is appropriate. This size seems to offer good opportunities for
experiences that are desirable on private trips, including solitude, teamwork,
group cohesion and consensus building. If a manager chooses to increase group
size for the privates, then strong consideration should be given to
establishing large and small launches. In other words offering some launch
windows for “large” groups, and many more for “small” groups.
N. Repetitive Use Visitors
Trip
leaders and repetitive visitors should not have their access penalized; these
individuals bring a wealth of cultural, historic, logistic, and safety
information on any river visit. The fact
is that repetitive use is essential for transferring historical experience and
knowledge within the boating community. Thus rather than limiting this use, it
should be encouraged.
O. Handicapped & Physically Disabled
Visitors
Handicapped
and physically disabled visitors have an equal right to visit
Further,
biased access rules are not needed, for instance there is a long tradition of
handicapped access to the Canyon, and many inspirational stories related to
their experiences. The first person to explore the
Gregory
J. Lais, executive director of Wilderness Inquiry, Inc., explains that disabled
people do not need, or much less want, mechanical access to wilderness
areas. Wilderness Inquiry is a
non-profit organization that was founded to “advance the study of the
recreational and educational needs of people with disabilities, with particular
emphasis on accessibility to wilderness areas.”[6] Lais bases his argument on a 1992 study
conducted by Wilderness Inquiry on behalf of the National Council on
Disability, which found that “76 percent of the respondents with disabilities
do not believe that the restrictions on mechanized use stated by the Wilderness
Act diminish their ability to enjoy the wilderness.”[7]
P. Use Seasons
The
preferred visitor season in North American tends to span the late spring to
early autumn. This preference is based on weather, school vacation schedules,
and river level. Rather than maintaining a three or four season management
system, the agency should give consideration to managing for just two seasons:
peak and shoulder. This would help to regulate some of the interest in
accessing the river, as individuals will self-select for the different
experiences based on their seasonal preference.
Most
management plans and practices emphasize use during the summer. This crowding
creates unique tensions related to on-river crowding, virtual traffic jams at
some attraction sites, and possible resource impacts from expanded use to
secondary camps, access, or attraction points.
The
agency should also avoid treating the public or private boating community as
second class citizens and should plan to increase the availability of private
boater launch permits during the peak season, though this may mean dispersing
the number of commercial launch opportunities to the shoulder season.
Q. Matters of Courtesy and Etiquette
Positive,
cooperative relationships between river users are important to the future of
river running and to the future of rivers themselves. AW encourages our
membership to follow the guidelines below in an effort to establish or maintain
positive relationships with other river users; we encourage river managers to
do the same.
- At put-ins and take-outs behave in a friendly,
positive manner towards others and be helpful to those who might need
assistance. Be mindful of the time that you are spending occupying the
launch or take-out area so that you do not restrict opportunities for
others.
- Allow for spacing up and downstream of others,
particularly in a rapid, and seek to avoid collisions. Colliding boaters
should not leave the scene without checking with the other paddlers and
making sure that they are unhurt. Do not take any action that escalates
conflict.
- When entering a rapid, the upstream craft has the
right of way. Those entering the current should yield to those already in
it. Never cut in front of an oncoming boat.
- When exiting the current, avoid eddies that are full,
if possible, and take care when entering occupied eddies. Exit an eddy
when you see approaching boats, to facilitate your safe exit and entry,
respectively.
- When playing, avoid blocking navigation by yielding
to oncoming, upstream craft. Exit a play spot after a reasonable time to
allow someone else to use it.
- Always provide assistance to others who are in
trouble or who are injured. Provide whatever assistance you are qualified
to give or help them in obtaining assistance.
- When traveling on rivers and camping overnight,
consult with other groups on the water about their stopping and camping
intentions, and strive to cooperate by spreading out among desirable
locations. Do not invade another group’s campsite: if darkness, emergency,
or other factors require you to set a camp close to others, always explain
the situation and attempt to gain their understanding while respecting
their privacy.
IV.
Distribution, Supply, Volume of Use, and Carrying Capacity
“Visitor Capacity: A prescribed number and type of visitors that will
be accommodated in an area.”
-Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity
“Preserving wilderness means establishing limits.”
-Roderick Nash
“Establishing visitor capacities is one of the most controversial
topics in resource management today.”
-Keith Marshall Brown
“Do not worry about scarcity; rather worry about equal distribution.”
-Chinese proverb
AW
policy holds that mandatory limits on recreational river use should not be
adopted unless a clear need is demonstrated after less restrictive voluntary
alternatives have been attempted.
Two
basic principles should guide river access regulations for controlling carrying
capacity: (1) Recognition that rivers are public resources and public access
should be fair, and (2) Avoid unnecessary regulation of access. Further, the
river manager should focus on facilitating public access rather than commercial
profiteering within the Park boundaries.
The
belief that our national parks and forests have a limit to the number of
visitors that they can support is referred to as the “carrying capacity”.
The establishment of carrying capacities has been used to justify restrictive
visitor regulations through permit systems, entrance fees, and even wholesale
exclusion of certain members of the public from their public lands. Research in
the field has largely been focused on the principle of mutual exclusion and
finding a point that balances between managing for natural and cultural
resources, and facilitating recreation opportunities.
However,
carrying capacity is a decision, rather than a determination. There is no absolute right answer as to what
the carrying capacity is, since it is a decision made by an individual using
personal judgment[8]
and criteria that have been determined to be relevant by that individual. The final carrying capacity decision simply
needs to be defensible, reasonable, and based on clear statements of principles
and reasons for arriving at the number or range. According to a 2002 draft report of the
Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor Capacity on Public Lands, “the
decision is made within the context of a rationale public planning process and
sound professional judgment, and is framed by the desired future conditions for
an area’s resources, visitor experiences, and management program”.
In some
ways it is more useful to think of the carrying capacity as a supply of visitor
opportunities because the capacity is equal to the supply of opportunities that
will be accommodated. For instance, in
the
The
carrying capacity is rarely based on any quantitative criteria. The primary
exception to this rule are circumstances under which capacity is based on
availability of a limited and finite resource such as a list of campsites or
the number of parking spaces. Yet even these limits tend to be defined by the
decision maker and reflect that decision maker’s interests or values.
Keith
Marshall Brown, a student of Dr. Glenn Haas, completed a Master’s Thesis in
Spring 2001 on “Planning and Implementation of Visitor Capacities: A
Descriptive Profile”; this thesis explains:
Much has been written about the if and how of establishing visitor
capacities… In the 1970s, researchers tried unsuccessfully to link levels of
visitation with measures of resource impact. In the 1980s, the first indicator
and standard planning processes were developed, and many researchers felt this
signaled the end of the carrying capacity debate. However this study finds
management’s interest in, and desire for visitor capacities remains strong… The
diminished interest in visitor capacities observed in the research literature
does not reflect the increasing interest in visitor capacities expressed by
managers.[9]
While
many land managers have an intuitive professional grasp of how many visitors a
trail, road, or river can handle, they desire hard numbers defining caps on
appropriate use, which are scientifically defensible. Carrying capacity
calculations strive to fulfill the managers’ demand for better use and impact
information. However these numbers are fundamentally non-scientific.
The
Park Service recently commissioned a task force chaired by Dr. Glenn Haas to
draft a report on the visitor carrying capacity on public lands. The task force
prepared a draft report titled “Visitor Capacity on
The
report explains that carrying capacity is not an actual measurement of impact,
or a physical measurement of how many people, animal, and trees can fit in an
area. Instead it is an estimate of use. This is significant because managers
have traditionally taken any number of actions to describe the supply of use;
actions include the deferred establishment of carrying capacity to the future,
subjective description of capacity limits, qualitative description of the
capacity limits, identification of impact proxies to indicate whether capacity
has been reached, or establishment of numeric capacity.
River
managers typically use capacity to: assure public safety, provide
predictability to permittees, allocate opportunities among public and private
uses, assist with planning, or assess the consequences of management actions.
Numeric
carrying capacities provide a supply measurement for: risk management, the
administrative or historic record, allocation decisions, private sector use,
visitor trip planning, regional recreation demand and supply planning, limiting
use, and triggers for actions and allocating management resources.
According
to a survey of public land managers[11]
land managers cited resource protection (71%), visitor quality of experience
(67%), public health and safety protection (28%),and acting proactively (28%)
as the primary reasons for establishing numeric visitor capacities.
In
summary, the basic truth is that carrying capacity reflects management or
visitor values. Thus there is no absolute right determination; instead there is
simply an informed value-laden decision. Yet, if the planning process is
defined and logical, the manager can arrive at a reasonable and therefore
defensible decision.
A. How to identify carrying capacity
Start
with the understanding that the carrying capacity establishes the recreation
opportunity for a class of visitors, boaters. The goal of identifying the
capacity is to create a value that goes beyond a simple calculation of visitors
but gets into the range of experiences that will be offered. These experiences
may affect such qualities as safety, solitude, wildlife or resource protection,
and tranquility.
Establish
a declaration of management objectives principles. Developing a clear list of management objectives that
defines the desired recreation opportunity will help to ensure that these
experiential qualities are not inadvertently compromised[12].
The declaration of principles should define the management objectives for a
river region. These might include defining areas as high use, wilderness,
overnight camping trips, wildlife management areas. Only after establishing a
declaration of principles, should the manager seek demonstrable evidence of
a desired or undesired effect.
The
river manager should then think creatively to flesh out the range of opportunity
that will be offered and create “real world”, measurable Limits of Acceptable
Change (LAC’s)[13]
that are flexible enough to allow for adaptive management over time, but will
give a real sense of crowding and other effects on the visitor experience and riparian
environment.
The
LAC’s are useful in establishing benchmarks or targets, at which point
management action will be taken; they are in essence action triggers. Thus, the
LAC’s used or referenced should be based on concrete measurable values related
to the resource, administrative, or sociological conditions. The LAC’s should
also reflect the capacity for change or alteration through management action,
and should be uniquely sensitive to changes arising specifically from
recreational use.
If a
management objective is stated, there should be a corresponding evaluation of
the alternative means to assure that it is attained, and defined triggers
resulting in predefined actions to meet the objective. The evaluation of
alternatives should identify those that are more favorable and therefore more
willingly adopted. The lowest level of management action and intervention
should be taken first in assuring that recreational use impacts are within the
"Limits of Acceptable Change". The LAC should clearly provide the
means of translating a management objective into a management action should it
be needed based on a monitored effect or impact.
Defining
the experience spectrum is vitally important. If there is demand for shorter,
or less remote trips, then the agency should work with state and federal land
managers in neighboring regions in developing visitor resources describing
where those opportunities are offered.
In the long term, the agency might consider engaging in developing a
comprehensive visitor use plan for the region that will coordinate uses and
distribute visitor opportunities.
American
Whitewater has found that one of the most effective means of establishing the
carrying capacity is to start by identifying the pinch points or most
restrictive aspects on use such as the number of campsites, launch sites,
attraction sites and destinations, or size of boats; these may be defined in
terms of a range of values.
The
reason for establishing a range of experiences is that ranges often provide a higher precision and
confidence than a set number and offer more management adaptability. The range
can also be used effectively to set triggers for later management responses and
allows for action on a timely and useful basis without substantial planning
revisions or review.
At its
best, the carrying capacity paradigm is a tool that can help managers resolve
objectives between protecting ecology and protecting recreation. However,
managers should be careful to avoid using carrying capacity to negatively
portray and quantify recreation. Instead use carrying capacity to ensure
that recreation and resource protection objectives are balanced.
Additionally,
it is important to acknowledge that some river segments are heavily used and
some are not, and that this dichotomy is healthy for comprehensively managing
the nation’s rivers and streams.
Management decisions need not always seek perfect balance; instead they
might promote high use areas in order to protect other low use areas. The
river manager’s objective should be creating sustainable recreation
opportunities throughout watershed regions.
Primary
inputs for determining capacity should include:
- An examination of existing conditions;
- Determination of recreation pinch points;
- Social conditions;
- Facility conditions; and
- Resource conditions;
The
primary metrics for calculating use might include an analysis of the number of:
- Launches
- People
- User days
- Trip days
- Trip length
- Trip size
- Trip contacts
- Daily use intensity
- Campsite availability
For
example, the river manager might consider the following in regard to launches:
- How many launches per day can occur before the
visitor experience is degraded?
- How many launches per day can occur before there are
unacceptable impacts to the environment or heritage sites?
- How many launches per day can occur before campsite
availability becomes a significant problem?
- How many launches per day can the put-in and take-out
handle before the crowding becomes unacceptably congested?
B. Avoid unnecessary regulation of access
A major
benefit of river recreation is that it allows individuals to escape from their
regulated, structured everyday lives and enjoy the freedom of the outdoors.
Excessive regulation undermines this benefit.
Information
and education are often sufficient for managing use and are more cost effective
and less controversial than complex and detailed regulatory controls. For
example, telephone hot lines or similar means of providing boaters with
information about crowded conditions, voluntary reservation systems, and other indirect
controls (such as those used in Wilderness areas) can be effective in reducing
peak use to acceptable levels and cheaper to implement. For these reasons, river
managers should always use less burdensome or passive management alternatives
before resorting to strict use limits.
C. Allocation Issues
As use
increases on popular whitewater streams, it becomes increasingly difficult to
protect the resource and to insure that the experience of the recreational
public is not degraded by overcrowded conditions. This is especially true of
rivers managed to protect wilderness values. When demand for river use exceeds
the carrying capacity supply, something has to give. This normally means that
river use must be rationed in some manner.
Rivers
are public resources. Therefore, if river use is to be limited and rationed
among potential users, the rationing scheme should allocate available river
use.
AW does
not endorse or oppose split allocation systems in principle. Nor are these
systems advocated or opposed by commercial boating interests. They are a
management technique adopted by government agencies for convenience of
administration.
Rationing
of limited access should be fair. When
separate quotas for commercial and self-guided groups are adopted by river
management agencies, they should provide both user groups with similar
opportunities to gain access to the river. Opportunities should be evaluated on
a seasonal basis, as well as by the number of people or launches being offered.
Fairness
does not necessarily mean parity in all manners of counting use. For instance,
access can be counted based on user days, launches, trip size, potential use
versus actual use, etc.
However, recognize that commercial use is inherently
different from public or private use since commercial use is largely
artificially generated via marketing devices. Thus a fair level of commercial
access should reflect not just demand, which is largely artificial, but an
appropriate spectrum of services that is not met or is not capable of being met
by the public. For comparison, the
current management of the
To
reduce disparities in river access opportunities, new methods of allocating use
between commercial and self-guided groups should be tried on a limited basis,
and if proved workable, adopted on a wider basis. However, new allocation
schemes that undermine the financial viability of commercial operations without
enhancing private or public access are not supportable.
Additionally,
on some extremely crowded rivers with commercial use limits and no private
boater use limits, the commercial use limit should not be set at such a high
level as to create safety hazards for the public due to congestion. These
hazards become a de facto limitation on access by self-guided boaters.
Traditional
approaches to limiting river use often involve designating commercial and
self-guided boaters as separate groups and establishing a separate quota for
each based on existing use patterns at the time the quotas are initially
established. Such a split allocation system was first adopted on the
The
relative balance between commercial demand and demand for self-guided trips may
dramatically change over time. Thus on regulated rivers, river management
quotas for separate groups can become increasingly unfair over time unless they
are periodically updated to reflect changes in demand levels among the
different user groups. The failure to adjust split allocation quotas to
changing demand levels can create large imbalances between river access
opportunities available to the different groups. The change can favor
commercial users or self-guided boaters. It is a two-edged sword. A system for
re-evaluating the allocation of use should be established in the planning
process.
For
example under a hypothetical split allocation system which sets both commercial
and self-guided use quotas at 50%, if demand for self-guided trips increases
more rapidly than commercial demand, it will become increasingly difficult for
self-guided boaters to obtain a river permit than for commercial boaters. On
the other hand, if commercial demand rises faster than demand for self-guided
trips, the system will eventually provide disproportionate access opportunities
for self-guided boaters. The first scenario is what the private boating
community has encountered in the
If
commercial and self-guided boaters are to be subject to rationing of river use
with separate quotas, river managers should devise methods to adjust the quotas
to keep supply and demand for both types of trips in reasonable balance over
time.
In
addition, split allocation systems should provide for the reallocation of
unused slots so that those slots are not wasted. Many self-guided trips cannot
use the full trip allocation (sometimes as high as 24 persons). The unused
slots should be reallocated, rather than forfeited.
In some
situations quotas set for regulated users may unfairly exclude unregulated
users. For example, if commercial use limits are set so high as to occupy the
entire physical carrying capacity of the river, then self-guided trips are
effectively denied access to the river. This has recently begun to occur on a
few popular rivers with exceptionally high levels of commercial use including
the
It is
unfair to require self-guided boaters to search for low-use time periods or to
go to other rivers because commercial use occupies the river's full physical
carrying capacity. Rivers are public resources that should be fairly shared
among all members of the public. Again, the primary role of commercial access
is to provide a spectrum of services that is not available to the general
public.
D. Case Studies re Allocation and Fairness
Although
some consider split allocations inherently unfair, a 30% self-guided and 70%
commercial split allocation on the
Over
the years the Park has grappled with the method of allocating "user
days" between the private visitors and commercial concession outfitters.
The Park's attempts have resulted in the present ratios which, depending on how
use is counted, range anywhere from 70-80% commercial use and 20-30% private use.
As a point of reference, in 1996, only 13% of the people who boated the
Middle
Fork of Salmon, and
The
supply and demand problem is exacerbated by agency rules that require the
forfeiture of unused slots unless a trip uses its full allocation (24 persons
on the Middle Fork). This results in large percentages of unused river slots.
In 1991, for example, 55% of the self-guided slots and 35% of the commercial
slots were unused on the Middle Fork. The failure to reallocate these slots
means that, on average, 12 slots are wasted on every self-guided trip on the
Middle Fork.
Gauley: On the Gauley River in West Virginia, commercial river
use levels during the 22 day autumn draw down from the dam have been increased
several times by the State legislature without any input from noncommercial
boaters and without any consideration of the effect on noncommercial boaters.
Although noncommercial boaters are not subject to a use limit, commercial raft
traffic is now so high at prime periods on the Gauley as to make it hazardous
for kayakers and canoeists to be on the river at the same time as commercial
raft trips. Collisions between rafts and kayaks are common, though a typical
commercial raft may weigh in excess of 2,000 pounds.
Although
kayakers and canoeists frequently seek out windows of lower than average use
(late in the day immediately prior to the time at which the water is turned
off), this is extremely inconvenient and often impossible due to the high
volume of commercial use throughout the day.
Brown’s
Canyon
Under
new regulations established in 2000, the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area
(AHRA) implemented limits on commercial use and established carrying capacity
triggers for implementing permits on private boaters. The private boater
triggers were met sooner than expected in 2001 prompting planning efforts for a
permit system. However, the AHRA river managers choose to delay implementation
of permits for one year, in essence seeking a second consecutive year of
capacity excess to ensure that the first year’s count were accurate and
demonstrated a real trend towards overuse. In 2002 the boater counts were far
below 2001 levels due to the regional drought voluntary dispersal of use during
the few moderate water level week that occurred during the Spring.
E. Common Pool Allocation
A
"common pool" system fits the normal concession model for other
services offered on public lands. This
system is one in which all members of the public (commercial and non-commercial
alike) wait in the same line and apply for permits through the same
channels. This is an allocation system,
rather than a distribution system. The
common pool does not describe how permits are distributed; instead it describes
how permits that have been distributed will be tallied against the total use or
capacity.
A
common pool system was recently established on the
These plans
should be carefully evaluated for application on the
The
system requires visitors to first obtain a permit, then choose whether to hire
a guide service or not. Thus there is
no set allocation between use groups; there is merely a total capacity of use.
Advantages
of this system include:
- Providing for changes in public interests over time
for guided or unguided access; it is completely adaptable.
- Providing smaller outfitters a more level playing
field with which to compete with larger outfitters by allowing members of
the public to choose an outfitter based on better services, trips, and
lower prices, rather than solely based on whether the outfitter has
available trip space.
- Not requiring the managing agency to make the social
decision regarding how to allocate use between guided and unguided
visitors.
- Promoting commercial competition to deliver the best
service and prices possible for the public.
Disadvantages
include:
- Requiring guide services to market their services,
which may drive up demand through advertising.
- That guide services may not be able to obtain loans
if they cannot guarantee a specific percentage or level of use each
year. However, that is the nature
of any commercial enterprise and the company business plans should reflect
such flexibility.
V.
Permits
“No complaint ... is more common than that of a scarcity…”
-Adam Smith
“When any commodity is scarce, its natural price is necessarily
forgotten, and its actual price is regulated by the excess of the demand above
the supply.”
-Thomas Malthus
“The two shillings of a poor man are just as good as the two shillings
of a rich one; and, if we interfere to prevent the commodity from rising out of
the reach of the poorest ten, whoever they may be, we must toss up, draw lots,
raffle, or fight, to determine who are to be excluded…”
-Thomas Malthus
“Wherever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted;
and the superabundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of room and
nourishment.”
-Thomas Malthus
Distribution
is the primary problem encountered with crafting, implementing and managing a
river permit system.
The
primary utility of recreational permits is to ensure the integrity of the
natural resource and to maintain quality outdoor recreation experiences. The
decision to implement or continue a permit system must balance the objectives
of allowing significant use and protecting the resource, even though these may
be "divergent" goals that are difficult to reconcile.
American
Whitewater generally opposes the implementation of river permits as a first
step in river management. Permits should not be implemented unless passive
control measures have proven ineffective and a negative effect has been clearly
documented. In nearly 50 years of observation, review, and experience we have
learned that most management objectives related to visitor use can be achieved
through either passive or more active educational means, both of which tend to
be more effective, cheaper, and less personnel intensive than permit management.
Nevertheless,
American Whitewater is dedicated to improving river access on public lands, and
obtaining or maintaining access on private lands. On public lands, management’s
restraint on recreational freedoms via permits is sometimes the price the
public pays for preserving a world-class resource and experience, and citizens
will have to accept some restraint on civil liberties; such restraints are
similar to obeying traffic safety laws on public streets. AW is committed to
working with the permit managers to ensure that the permits are as unobtrusive
to the visitor, and as useful to the manager as possible.
Restrictive
private boater permit systems are used on about 30 rivers nationwide[18].
These systems are managed by many different state and federal agencies, and
serve a multitude of purposes. Some of the agencies that manage river permits
include the USDA Forest Service, Department of the Interior National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation.
The
permits are typically designed to accomplish economic, ecologic, or social
objectives; for instance, in the Middle Fork Salmon, visitor permits are used
to limit the number of people infiltrating remote wilderness areas of the Park.
These limits preserve “opportunities for solitude” first and the riparian or
riverside ecology second, and are secured under the visitor carrying capacity
(as described elsewhere in this document). Once the capacity decision has been
reached, then the river manager has a variety of tools to select from in
managing visitor use to either stay below the capacity threshold or otherwise
meet the management objectives. The first instinct of most river managers is to
immediately advocate for a permit system.
Permits
should not unreasonably restrict access. However, they should be designed to
protect a world-class niche that is unique to the river, and should accomplish
that objective as easily and unobtrusively as possible.
The
primary purposes cited for implementing permits, include:
- Monitoring or counting use
- Safety
- Funding
- Crowding and protection of solitude
- Landowner Concerns
- Riparian & Ecological Impacts
- Addressing post-9/11 threats security concerns
In
American Whitewater’s experience, well meaning river managers and politicians
often view visitor use permits as a panacea for addressing social crowding,
riparian impacts, landowner concerns, river safety, funding, or other river
management objectives. However in our experience, permits rarely accomplish
their primary objective without also creating substantial and negative
unintended consequences.
For
example, in 2002 when the Forest Service river manager on
This
realization of unintended consequences explains the proliferation of new
permits in the 1970’s as permits were viewed as a balm on use, the pause in the
1980’s as river managers encountered significant hurdles in managing permit
systems, and the retreat in the 1990’s from river permits as managers
determined that use on many rivers was self regulating and that permits were in
essence more trouble and costly than they were worth. Now, the new Millennium
and the post-9/11 restrictions on river access are bringing forth a second wave
of permits from
A. Social value of permits
Since
permits have been implemented on many rivers, they have taken on a new capacity
that no permit manager adequately anticipated or analyzed; the permits have
acquired social value. In one sense
there is a value, call it bragging rights, to holding a permit. In another, there is a value to having done
that which is limited. In either case,
the value is generated by the rarity of the opportunity and the social capital
associated with securing access via the permit.
For example, many people have applied for
Permits
can be considered as capital arising from the need to efficiently utilize
limited natural access opportunities. Generally when capital is limited, the
scarcity of the earth’s resources necessitates the creation of new materials
that can enhance or generate new products for society than was previously in
existence. Thus, new or expanded capital formation becomes one target of
permitting.
The
primary means of creating new capital is by increasing efficiency of use and
allocation, and reducing waste. For
river runners, this means fully utilizing the allocation, it also means that
more people can visit and take advantage of access opportunities if visitors
damage fewer resources and lessen their impacts on the resource. One way to
lessen these impacts is by practicing leave no trace visitor skills.
B. Standardization of Permits and recommendations for new systems
For
more than a decade, American Whitewater has advocated for greater
standardization of the nation’s river permitting system. Our studies have revealed that management of
most river permits can be simplified, unified, and streamlined to improve
access, improve the visitor experience, and protect the environment.
A quick
look at American Whitewater’s permit calendar or AW’s Permit Database[19]
reveals the problem; the great diversity between individual permit systems is
confusing, overwhelming, contentious, and daunting for visitors. The end result
of this confusion is an inadvertent lack of public access to
AW
created our online permit database as a means of reducing some of that
confusion and providing a one-stop shop for the paddlesports community. The
database is intended as a tool for our staff and volunteers to track permit
policy over time. As such, we are starting to ask whether the time is right for
a centralized national database and permit reservation system for all the
nation’s river permits, or at least all of the federally managed permits.
When
planning to implement permits, AW recommends that river managers:
- Provide equal opportunity for access. In other words, make the application
system fair, timely, and reasonable.
- Do not use restrictive permits simply to inventory
and monitor use. Permits should
be used to accomplish an objective that cannot be met through other more
passive means.
- Only implement permits after exhausting passive
controls efforts. First, demonstrate that passive approaches are
incapable of achieving management objectives before implementing permits.
- Explicitly define the purpose of the permit
upfront. Too often river
managers begin implementing or modifying a permit system without defining
in their own minds or for the public what they hope to accomplish, what
has changed to warrant a new system, or what is being damaged. For example:
- The river manager on
- The River Manager on
- Be flexible in design. River permits should be
capable of meeting changes in management objectives, changes in use, and
changes in visitor demand. For
example, include triggers for requiring permits, and include triggers for
terminating permits over time.
Consider only requiring permits for larger groups, or on
extraordinarily busy holiday weekends.
- Plan comprehensively, start small, and keep it
simple. For example:
- State river managers on
- The River Manager on
- Involve users in the permit creation process. Seek widespread public opinion, advice,
and comments on all stages of the permit development process.
- Limit the permit season only to peak use periods. For example, limit the permit season to
weekends and holidays such as Labor Day, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of
July, or by season such as summer, spring, or fall.
- If crowding is only a problem a few days a year
such as the aforementioned holidays, consider not regulating use on those
dates via permits, but educating visitors to expect crowds and diminished
opportunities for solitude or ease of access on those few dates.
- Limit the permit season to the peak use
season. If use disperses to edge
seasons and is higher than desired, then gradually expand the permit
system after negative effects are documented in the unregulated shoulder dates.
- Institute quantifiable use triggers for taking new
management actions. Establish
early the actions that will be taken if certain effects are noted.
- Establish appropriate permit allocation categories.
Accurately identify user groups and utilize consistent definitions of
users; for example:
- Public, private, non-commercial, or self-guided use
- Guided, commercial, concession, or outfitted use
- Rental equipment as a self-guided use under the
commercial allocation
- Institutional, educational, or research use
- Official or administrative use
- Explicitly define the permit application process
upfront. Establish the
application rules early in the process, and share those rules via
mailings, newsletters, and the web.
- Simplify the permitting process and administrative
mechanisms. Streamline
application procedures. Make permit application procedures convenient.
- Implement permits only after two consecutive years
in which visitor carrying capacity triggers are reached. For example,
river managers in Colorado’s Arkansas Headwater’s Recreation Area (AHRA)
established use triggers in 2000 under a new management plan; however the
triggers were hit the following year in 2001 because the water was at
optimal levels all season and, as a result, use was unusually high. 2002
though was a dry year and the carrying capacity use triggers, which were
defined in the management plan, were never approached. River managers
decided that the time and expense of implementing and managing a new
permit system, was best deferred until there was a consistent pattern of
use in which triggers were met in back-to-back years.
- Reward trip leaders. For example, river
managers should make the permits primarily accessible for the trip
leaders. The permit system on the
- Distinguish between “Day” and “Overnight” use.
For example, federal Forest Service river managers on
- Design the system to fully utilize the planned
carrying capacity on already crowded rivers; design the system to
accommodate future use on rivers that receive little visitation at
present.
- Consider the transfer of permits;
- Recapture and redistribute unused permits;
- Make permits or application forms readily
accessible and easy to submit: For example, Forest Service managers on
- Automate application procedures via the web. Make the system easy to use, and try to
establish the permit system to allow applications for real launch
dates.
- Ask for no more data than necessary to achieve
the permit purposes. Only seek enough visitor information on the
permit application as is essential for achieving management objectives.
- Hire a river runner to manage the permit system:
The easiest way to ensure that a permit is readily accessible, humanely
enforced, and generally accepted by the river running community is to hire
a manager that is a river runner who understands the resource, the
experience, and the visitors from a personal and professional standpoint;
this has the clear benefit of facilitating communication.
- Recognize that permits do not generate revenue:
River managers often cite an economic argument for permits. Their premise
is that while demands for recreational resources are increasing,
administrative budgets are diminishing. Thus river managers are placed in
a position of managing increased visitor service demands, while striving
to minimize visitor impacts through policies such as "Leave No
Trace". The hidden problem with this permit objective is that the
permit management requires increased staffing, enforcement, and
administrative processing costs, which in ALL known cases have exceeded or
minimized the amount of revenue generated.
Permit implementation is not effective at generating revenue.
- Allow for cancelled permits to be reissued: If a permittee cannot use the permit,
allow that permit or launch to go back in the applicant pool for
redistribution.
- Allow for permit transfers, or issue permits under
two names: The system should allow for the limited transfer of
permits, such as from a husband to a wife, or between close friends. One
idea to consider for preventing abuse of such a system is the
identification of a second permit holder with the initial permit
application. The transfer should be predicated on the unexpected or
unplanned inability of the permit holder to go on the trip for extenuating
reasons. A work conflict should not meet the standard for a transfer, whereas
the illness of a close family member should. For example:
- Former AW board member Ken Kyler has been on the
Grand Canyon Wait List for nearly a decade. Though his number on the Wait
List is rapidly approaching, he likely will not be able to attend due to
the declining health of his wife. However, he has been planning this trip
since he applied for the Wait List and has been gathering friends
together and building a team to go with him. The team has anticipated
going on the trip, and has been integral to planning meals and preferred
camping locations. In other words, the team has both dreamed of, and
planned for, the trip as much as the permit holder. Thus, the permit
holder should be able to transfer his permit to an alternate leader.
- An AW member received a permit to launch on
- Facilitate program
administration: This can be accomplished by:
- Automating
the application process;
- Telling the
registrant their responsibilities as a permit holder upfront when they
register, and making the information readily available before they apply
for their permit;
- Allowing
permit registrations year-round.; and
- Letting
nature’s filters, such as seasonal weather patterns, control
applications. For example, only
requiring permits during the peak use season.
- Review the
permits on a regular basis and revise where appropriate.
C. Permit varieties
The
primary permit types are “Open Access” such as a simple registration form, and
“Access Limited” such as a waiting list, lottery, or reservation.
The
"Open Access" entry point registration is designed to collect
information for monitoring amount and type of use; for example: date, number of
people, expected duration of visit, or "category" of user. This type of system is used on the day use
Wild and
The
"Access Limited" permitting process is designed to control the amount
and type of use. Under this scenario,
the service providers, rafting companies, or outfitters must be permitted;
however, non-outfitted or private use need not be permitted except to meet
secondary management objectives. This
type of system is used extensively in the west.
D. Wait List
A Wait
List permit system is used on the
The
system works well when the number of applications is equal to or less than the
number of permits. However, as soon as
the number of applications begins to exceed the number of permits, then the
system begins a negative feedback and the list grows longer and longer and
longer.
This
negative feedback has occurred in the
In
2002, AW’s advice to the Park regarding modifications to the wait list included
consideration of the following:
- Opening the registration window for permits on a year
round basis to eliminate the rush to sign up during the current one month
window.
- Opening the cancellations to all, including those not
on the list to prevent padding of the list by those who simply want to
pick up a cancellation launch permit. Or, change the cancellation policy
so it is open only to people who are not on the list.
- Automating the system and handle all applications and
cancellations online.
- Requiring permit holders to supply a (partial) list
of participants in advance of their trip.
- Offering people willing to go at less popular times
(Winter, Spring and Fall) a different wait list than those wanting to go
at more popular times (Summer), by accepting registrations based on
preferences for different seasons.
- Make a provision for one or more alternate trip leaders
to be identified.
- Allow people on the list to participate in more than
one private river trip before removing their name from the list. By taking
private trips one can increase one’s knowledge and skill level thus
becoming better prepared to be a permit holder and trip leader on their
own.
E. Lottery Systems
A
lottery system is one in which all the permit applications are placed together,
and one applicant is randomly selected for each available permit. Each application is a gamble.
True
Lottery: A true lottery system is one in
which an applicant drops their name in a bowl with all other applicants and
then one name is drawn for a permit. On
the plus side, this system is randomly fair. The system is also easy to automate
and could be easily administrated via the Web. On the negative side, many
people feel that they are not lucky and will never win a permit. Thus these
people feel excluded from the application process before it begins. This effect
was observed on
Dated
or Seasonal Lottery: A Dated or Seasonal
lottery is one in which applicants submit their name for one or more launch
dates in a pool with other applications for the same date(s). This type of
system is used on the Middle Fork of the Salmon, Main Salmon, Selway,
It also
rewards applicants based on demand. Lottery is performed for launch days on
every day of the year. The Trip Leader requests a specific launch date and is
only cast in a pool with the other groups that have also requested that launch
date. This system would be inherently demand-based for peak seasons and allow
for greater odds of getting trips during “edge” seasons. It has the benefit of
promoting competition for the most popular launch dates while reducing
competition for the least popular dates. The premise is that more people will
apply for the popular dates and the odds of winning will be lower, but that
people who apply for less popular dates will have better odds of winning
because there is less competition.
Weighted
Lottery: A Weighted Lottery is one in
which applicants who apply time and time again have an increased chance of
winning a permit. For instance, if a person applies one year and loses and
applies a second year, then in the second year their name would be entered
twice and dropped in the pool with other applicants. This system has the same
pros and cons of a True Lottery.
Group
Size Lottery: Multiply the a trip leader
factor times the number of applications to get the number of times a Trip
Leader’s name is added to the pool. Randomly select names from the pool. This
system rewards smaller groups, with trip leaders that have led fewer trips and
been on the waiting list the longest.
Longer
or Shorter Trip Lottery: Rewards applicants
applying for longer or shorter trips depending on the management objectives in
the planning process. This would reward permits based on extended wilderness
experience or abbreviated user days.
F. Reservations
A
reservation system is one in which permit applicants apply for a reservation
for a specific date to launch; this is the type of system airlines use to sell
flights.
Simple
Reservation System: A simple permit
reservation system is one in which payment costs are capped, and the only limit
on access is being the first to successfully register for a launch opportunity.
This system is very effective when demand is low relative to access
opportunities, or when capacity can be increased to meet demand. However, this system is not very effective
when demand far exceeds available capacity.
A
simple reservation system is used on
Reservation-Based
System Reflecting Travel Industry Procedures:
A reservation system based on the travel industry is one in which commercial
interests predominate. In other words,
with excess demand, a financial mode of distribution is used; the greater
ability to pay, equates to greater access.
Commercial outfitters on most rivers use this system.
G. First Come, First Serve
A
first-come first serve application system is one in which visitors are given a
permit in person at the launch point or some other appropriate location
immediately prior to the launch time.
For
example, hikers on
If a
river manager is considering such a system, then we recommend evaluation of the
following:
- Allow permits to be picked up at multiple convenient
points.
- Provide materials on alternate local river or visitor
opportunities.
H. Cancellations
Permit
systems should have an efficient, automated system for redistributing unused
private and commercial launch permits.
Cancellations create an opportunity for a person to pick up a permit
without going through the primary application system; the manager should
consider handling and processing cancellations via an automated system on the
web, and making cancellations available to anybody on a first-come first-serve
basis.
Cancellations
should be open to anyone regardless of whether they are pre-registered on the
permit application system. The result of this policy is that it would reduce
the applicant pool of individuals who are registered on the primary system on a
speculative basis that they would be able to pick up a cancellation permit..
The
system should include positive incentives for people to cancel in time for
their launch permit to be picked up and used by another.
The
system should make allowances for cancellations that result from uncontrollable
acts of God, illness, or family emergency. Rather than making the Park Rangers
responsible for determining whether an excuse is valid or not, a private boater
advisory group should be established to evaluate claims.[20]
I. Length of Wait for a Permit
In
general, AW advocates for a quick turnaround on the time it takes to choose to
go on a trip, to apply for and receive a permit, and to launch. In the case of the
J.
Monitoring
for “failed” permit applications
"Demand
studies" are a long-term activity that requires the long-term dedication
of resources, Nevertheless the utility of studying demand should be examined
for future planning purposes.
K. Social Bypass Routes for Permits
They
follow the rules. They won’t take money. They just want to go on a trip. What
are the secrets to bypassing permit bureaucracy and getting on permitted
rivers? Here are AW’s observations:
- Apply en masse. Throw a permit party. Invite your
boating buddies over to the house, bring your calendars, print the permit
applications, pick a launch day (or period) and start practicing your
penmanship.
- Promote your culinary skills. Develop a reputation
for cooking 5 star meals on the river and invitations will seek you out. Even
if you’re not a great cook, offer to plan and pack the meals.
- Promote your gearheadedness. Gather all the gear that
a group will need for a successful multi-day trip. Offer to share your
gear for a spot on a trip. Fireboxes, toilet systems, hot shower setups,
fast and efficient water filters, and standing kitchens make good
investments.
- Offer to safety boat a raft trip, or raft support a
kayak trip.
- Join the local river club and become an active
member.
- Call the local outfitters or paddling stores and ask
for the inside scoop on how to get around the permit system.
- Be flexible. Go before or after the permit season.
- Learn how to get a launch permit cancellation.
- Become an expert. Learn all about the lore of a river
or the history of a place. Learn how to run each rapid. Keep notes on
where the great and not-so-great camping spots are, and how to find them.
Also learn where the
- Promote your willingness for team play. Offer to run
shuttle in advance, especially really long shuttles.
- Hang out. Make your wonderful personality and
interest in a trip known at the put-in or take-out, introduce yourself to
groups that are going out and ask to go with.
- Promote your being a cute and/or super fun-to-travel
with paddler.
- Get yourself around. Spend lots of time with lots of
people in the boating community.
- Work for a rafting company on the river.
- Obtain Wilderness EMT training.
L. Crafting a Private Permit System
Rather than recommending a
preferred private boater permit application system, we have consolidated some
of our ideas below and hope that they may spark an
idea among the Park’s planners or otherwise inspire a solution to improving
public access to
First,
seek to implement a system that awards launch permits to experienced, proactive
trip leaders while providing multiple opportunities for people to visit the
river as invitees or guests of trip leaders. The objective should be to ensure
that the permit holder is the trip leader by title, by virtue of holding the
launch permit, and by fact.
Many
application systems for permits quickly get overwhelmed by assorted individuals
who are not true trip leaders. These
individuals generally consist of “tag-alongs”, “pad-ons”, “non-committals”, and
“desperation registrants”. Tag-alongs are the people who don’t really want to “lead”
their own trip, but simply want to be “invited“ on a trip, whether by their
spouse, family, or friend. The pad-ons are the folks who apply for a permit at
the direction of a trip leader to secure a launch date for the actual trip
leader in the future in which the leader guides the pad-on along. The
non-committals are the individuals who apply for a trip because they had a
great time rafting once, then found that leading their own trip was overly
daunting, but remained in the application pool to the bitter end. Whereas the
desperation registrants are the ones who fear not registering and losing any
future hope of getting a launch permit.
While
these tag-alongs and others represent real interest in a trip, they handicap
the efficacy of the permit systems unduly and represent a significant portion
of the individual applicants on many rivers.
The
question is how to help the people that know how to put trips together, and to
give them every opportunity to obtain a permit without reducing visitor
opportunities for non-trip leaders? The
goal of a new permit system or application paradigm becomes amicably
persuading, without controversy, some of the potential applicant pool not to
apply. If the true applicant trip leaders have a fair system that they trust to
get them on the river in a timely fashion, and if the others can be amicably
deterred from applying for launch permits, then the pool of permit applicants
would likely thin out.
Under
this paradigm, the tag-alongs, pad-on’s, non-committals, and desperation
registrants would lose their primary motivation for entering the permit
distribution system. However, that is not to say that these individuals would
not be able to go. In fact, they would ultimately have an enhanced ability to
go on a trip as a guest, because the true leaders would provide experience,
knowledge, and safety, and would be more open to inviting a diversity of
guests. Leaders would be able to more readily get permits and would not
jealously guard theirs.
How,
then, to address the fears of the current non-trip leader permit holders, and
create a system that meets the needs of the true leaders?
First
and foremost, no matter how special a place is, avoid couching the visit as a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Second, ensure through social and structural programs
that applicants do not feel that they will never be able to get a permit.
Third, avoid bureaucratic barriers that penalize and dissuade trip leaders from
applying for permits. Fourth, the implement a system that addresses the
underlying interests of the trip leaders and:
- Generally allow trip leaders to register when they
want, for the type of experience they want, in order to take pressure off
the system by not encouraging them to encourage others to register for
permits. If the trip leaders are happy, then the others will for the most
part fall into step behind;
- Ensures that trip leaders understand that some
efforts to register for launch permits will fail, but that there is also
an alternate guaranteed means of getting a launch permit;
- Create an easy avenue to apply for permits so they
are not “wasted” due to cancellations;
- Filter launch permit applications via methods that
are neither unreasonable, nor overly burdensome;
- Transition from the present system to the future
system painlessly and quickly;
- Provide a forum for trip leaders to raise grievances
or appeal rule violations among their peers;
- Meet the broad objective guidelines set forth earlier
in our comments;
Most
trip leaders take certain actions far in advance of their launch on any
overnight river trip anywhere. Formalizing these prerequisites as trip leader
filters for the application process will reduce the pool of tag-alongs and desperation
registrants; some of these filters include, establishing the applicant’s:
- Desire to go;
- Desire to lead a trip;
- Group or participant identification;
- Desire for a specific seasonal experience or launch
date;
- Trip duration;
- Party size;
- Number and/or type of boats;
- Ultimate willingness and ability to pay applicable
fees;
- Safety considerations such as First aid and CPR
certification;
- Narrow definition of “private boater” or “trip
leader”;
- Ability to get a permit;
- Establishing vacation availability;
- Early notification of requirements (similar to the
shareware use acceptance agreements for software);
- Advising applicants upfront of experience
requirements;
- Knowledge of whitewater;
- Ready access to supplies and equipment
If the
trip leader is registering for a permit under a timely system, then they can
likely predict with a high level of confidence who will be on the trip, when
they want to go, how long they will be on the water, what it will cost, and so
forth. While a minority may find these types of planning components burdensome,
most will not.
However,
the ability to pay should not be a primary determining factor for who gets to
go when. The opportunity to access any publicly owned natural wonder is an
American privilege[21].
When
the applicant pool becomes so large that the odds are that an applicant will
not be able to receive a permit, the manager should consider creating a system
that issues permits on a different basis between the shoulder and peak seasons.
One example of such a system would be to:
- Institute a Simple Reservation System for all permits
issued in the shoulder season.
- Maintain a wait list or lottery for all permits
issued in the peak summer season.
- Establish a cancellation application system that is
open to all and available year-round.
VI.
The effect of Wilderness Management on use
“In Wildness is the preservation of the World.”
- Henry David Thoreau (1893)
"It was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered
in so stringent a manner as to needlessly restrict their customary public use
and enjoyment. Quite the contrary. Congress fully intended that wilderness
should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans."
- Senator Frank Church
Protection of the
wilderness character of
The
preservation of wilderness character is the paramount directive of the
Wilderness Act. The use of the word “character” in the Act, indicates the
authors’ intent to protect more than the tangible qualities of the landscape.
“Character” transcends the physical aspects of the landscape, and emphasizes
the experiential values for visitors; these values include exposure to the land
and river, as well as the inherent risks of visitation.
National
Park Service Wilderness Policy directs park superintendents to manage as
wilderness all categories of wilderness – designated, recommended, proposed,
study, suitable, and “potential” as a subcategory of any of the preceding. In
the case of proposed potential wilderness, policy directs superintendents to
“seek to remove” the non-conforming use that prevents its designation. The
Wilderness Act and NPS Wilderness Policy provide the framework for the many
river planning and permitting processes. The Wilderness Act is clear that
wilderness areas are to be managed to preserve natural conditions and
wilderness character:
…these [areas] shall be administered for use and enjoyment of the
American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use
as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of those areas, the
preservation of the wilderness character…[23]
Further,
the Act defines future desired conditions:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man… retaining its primeval character and
influence… which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions… where the imprint of man is substantially unnoticeable[24]
The Act
then specifies the actions required to preserve these conditions; wilderness
areas shall be:
…devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation and historical use…, and except as necessary to meet
minimum requirements for the administration of the area… there shall be no
temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no
landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or
installation within and such area[25]
The
Wilderness Act created a system that is meant to manage proposed wilderness
areas “until Congress has determined otherwise.”[26]
A. Opportunities for Solitude and the Wilderness
Character
“How great are the advantages of solitude! –How sublime is the silence
of nature’s ever-active energies! There is something in the very name of
wilderness, which charms the ear, and soothes the spirit of man. There is
religion in it.” -Estwick Evans (1818)
“Good company, lively conversation, and the
endearments of friendship, fill the mind with great pleasure; a temporary
solitude, on the other hand, is itself agreeable. This may perhaps prove that
we are creatures designed for contemplation as well as action; since solitude
as well as society has its pleasures...” - Edmund Burke
Some
places have greater opportunities for solitude in the wilderness than
others. This is true on the
In some
ways there seems to be a cultural ochlophobia or abnormal fear of crowds on
western rivers. River management in the
West seems driven to excess, as in excessively tight visitor limits on the
Middle Fork Salmon, or excessively loose visitor limits as in the Lower
Salt. One of the great challenges facing
western river managers in the coming generation is comprehensive planning for
the public to enjoy being able to recreate on the region’s waterways.
While
solitude is a desirable ideal, it may not be necessary for river managers to
regulate every river, or even every wilderness river, for the absence of people
or 24-hour windows of solitude.
Wilderness
conveys solitude, yet it also fosters a social experience value. People like to
be in the company of groups, and data on the
B. Commercial Services Are Consistent with
Wilderness
NPS
Wilderness Policy affirms that commercial services are consistent with
wilderness designation. The policy states:
Wilderness oriented commercial services that contribute to public
education and visitor enjoyment of wilderness values or provide opportunities
for primitive and unconfined types of recreation may be authorized if they meet
the “necessary and appropriate” tests of the National Park Service Concession Management
Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391), Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act, and if they
are consistent with the management objectives contained in the park’s
wilderness management plan, including the application of the minimum
requirement.[27]
The NPS
Commercial Visitor Services Policy adds[28]:
Any concession facilities improvement program, or any service
authorized in a concession contract, will be in conformance with the
appropriate approved plan(s) for the area being considered. A decision to
authorize a park concession will be based on a determination that the facility
or service:
Is necessary and appropriate for the public use and enjoyment of the
park in which it is located, and identified needs are not, nor can they be, met
outside park boundaries.
Will be provided in a manner that furthers the protection,
conservation, and preservation of the environment, and park resources and
values.
Will enhance visitor use and enjoyment of the park without causing
unacceptable impacts to park resources and values.
Though
commercial outfitting meets the Park Service’s permitting standard, the NPS
rarely provides adequate justification for permitted level of concessions use
in a meaningful way. Traditionally permits and contracts have simply allowed
these businesses to operate the type of river tour that have primarily
encouraged profiteering rather than meeting the public’s interest in access to
necessary and appropriate services.
VII.
Resource Stewardship and Protection
"Do nothing to mar its grandeur for the ages
have been at work upon it and man cannot
improve it. Keep it for your children,
your children's children, and all
who come after you."
~President Theodore Roosevelt
AW has
observed that people will generally do the right thing and avoid sensitive
areas, if they have been educated as to what to expect or look out for. Rather
than implementing regulated closures, the Park should first try to manage use
through education and other less intrusive means. An effective tool that has
worked on the
A.
Leave No
Trace
American
Whitewater educates our members that their actions on and off the river affect
how much impact they have on the ecosystem. Practicing simple preventive
actions will protect the resource and experience for the next group of paddlers
on the river, and may even prevent river managers from initiating new permits
on rivers in the future.
XXX-Insert
overarching themes from NOLs
- Dispose of waste properly (trash and human waste).
- Use existing trails.
- Remain on bedrock when portaging or scouting.
- Use firepans to prevent ground scars.
- Park in designated areas.
- Protect natural quiet.
- Pack it in – pack it out.
American
Whitewater also advised the
B. Environmental Limits on River Access for
Environmental Protection.
BEAUTY crowds me till I die,
Beauty, mercy have on me!
But if I expire today,
Let it be in sight of thee.
- Emily Dickinson
AW
supports reasonable government rules and regulation when they are clearly
needed to protect rivers and their environment. However, whitewater boating is
a low impact, non-consumptive activity with few major adverse environmental
consequences. Therefore, environmental protection regulations temporarily
barring (or otherwise restricting) whitewater boating access should be imposed
only after full public review; should be clearly demonstrated to be necessary based
on valid scientific data; and should impose only the minimum restrictions
necessary to protect the resource. Permanent bans are unlikely to ever be
necessary.
1. Explanation:
AW is
committed to educating the public, particularly the boating public, about
environmental issues associated with rivers and fostering environmentally sound
use of rivers and streamside lands. AW also seeks to preserve the wilderness
and scenic qualities of remote wild rivers, including those designated for
Federal or State protection under various programs such as the Wilderness Act
and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
In
furtherance of these objectives, AW supports reasonable government rules which
are clearly needed to protect the ecological health of rivers or to protect
fisheries, sensitive wildlife, endangered species, or other critical
environmental resources, including, under some circumstances mandatory limits
on use.
Non-consumptive
human powered recreational river use, especially day trips, rarely causes
significant environmental harm. Even overnight trips, as in the
Government
regulation of boating, especially prohibitions on access, on the basis of
environmental concerns should only be used as a last resort and adopted after
full public review. Even temporary bans on access should be adopted only when
clearly demonstrated to be necessary based on scientific knowledge and valid
concerns related to serious adverse environmental consequences.
Permanent
river closures for resource protection reasons are unlikely to ever be
necessary since whitewater use can be controlled in less severe ways to avoid
unacceptable impacts such as limits on numbers, camping restrictions, or
seasonal closures. Land managers should not need to permanently close areas to
boating because closing use is easier than managing use. Instead, government
land managers should be willing to work with the boating public to make sure
that environmental rules accomplish their stated objective without excessive
and unnecessary restrictions on public access.
2.
Case Studies
Little
River,
C. Education
River
managers should focus resource protection objectives via education rather than
enforcement or issuing of new regulations. For instance, the camping
restrictions at the Nankoweap Special Use Area in the
D. Historic or Archaeological Sites
Visitor
impacts to historic and archaeological sites seem to be best managed through
increased education efforts. The Forest Service found a creative way to protect
sensitive archaeological sites on the Middle Fork Salmon. The agency invited
the local Indian tribes to send representatives to the launch point for a
15-minute mandatory lesson for all launch groups. This strikes some visitors as
corny, but provides a valuable benchmark for guides and visitors to learn about
the history and sensitive sites for the tribe.
E. Trail Maintenance
River
managers should consider giving visiting groups the option of meeting a
resource or trails specialist on their trip and doing focused volunteer work on
the river. One idea would be to offer a refund of the permit application fee to
groups that contribute a certain number of man-hours of volunteer labor during
their trip. If the trails expert is on site and has the essential equipment for
a trails project, many groups would gladly assist with maintenance and resource
protection efforts. In some ways the sacrifice of a few hours on the river
would be well worth the opportunity to work with a backcountry ranger or
interpreter, and it would also enhance the public’s sense of ownership and
protection of sensitive areas. The
F. Campsites & Beaches
In
general, campsites should not be closed.
We suggest examining the Forest Service’s Frissell standards for
monitoring campsite impacts, and suggest only closing campsites that reach the
USFS Class V Frissell conditions for repair and regeneration.
Research[31]
indicates that it is typically most effective to manage campsites by
concentrating use in areas where impacts have already been made. The premise is that it is better to
concentrate use in certain areas with moderate impacts and thereby reduce
impacts in low use areas. Whether a
couple groups or many camp in a site on back to back occasions, research
indicates that the impacts are similar and the regeneration period is
comparable. The public should be educated and informed to expect campsites in a
range of Frissell Class conditions. Camping should be concentrated in specific,
known areas.
The
USFS should only close severely degraded sites.
American Whitewater does not generally support closing existing
campsites; such sites are already impacted, and it is scientifically proven
that there will be lower overall resource impacts if camping use is concentrated in known, previously impacted
areas. Site closures should only be
predicated on severe resource impacts that are in violation of management
principles.
G. Waste
By all
accounts, the disposal of trash and human waste via a carry out system has been
very effective and places such as the
H. Firepits
By all
accounts, the required use of fire pans has been effective in preventing beach
scarring on many rivers. River managers should consider whether it is necessary
to require all launch groups to carry fire pans in all circumstances. For
instance, if a group is not going to build a fire, does the group need to carry
a fire pan? Consider the fact that some
craft such as kayaks and canoes are too small to carry heavy-duty fire pans in
addition to their gear. However, these
small craft are capable of carrying small gas-powered stoves and rolls of heavy
gauge aluminum that will shield the earth from the heat of their flames. A
secondary problem of carrying a fire pan in a kayak or canoe is that it can
take a long time to cool down, and the plastic in these boats is particularly
sensitive to heat stresses.
I. Endangered Species
Endangered
species and their preferred habitats should be strongly and rigorously
protected. However, if visitor use limits are required to manage impacts on
these species, then the limits should be through narrowly defined seasonal or
spatial closures. AW has observed that people will generally do the right thing
and avoid sensitive areas, if they have been educated as to what to expect or
look out for. Rather than implementing regulated closures, river managers
should first try to manage use through education and other less intrusive
means.
J. Creating an Advisory and Peer Committee on
River Issues
River
managers should consider establishing a citizen advisory panel to discuss river
management issues: The panel should consist of private boaters, commercial
outfitters, gateway communities, environmental advocates, and representatives
of the park. Such a group could serve as a primary forum for engaging the
public in addressing management concerns. All segments of the boating public
should be represented fairly on any advisory committees appointed to address
river management issues. In making management decisions, including decisions to
control river traffic, river managing agencies should solicit and respond to
public comments and justify their decisions in writing.
VIII.
Fees
“The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as
poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities
imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor
are not pitied ... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer
economy has produced the first culture for which a beggar is a reminder of
nothing.”
-John Berger
The
essence of Value is desirability and scarcity. The total value of a good
depends on the desirability of the last unit acquired, in essence the ability
to more than previous purchaser. The labor theory of value holds that the value
of a good stems from the effort of production, as access is not being newly
manufactured the capacity is fundamentally limited by supply rather than
production. The marginal theory of value holds that there is an exchange value,
but there is also a use value, which signifies the utility of a given commodity
for satisfying a human desire. The problem for river managers is that their
parent agencies are not generally designed to meet commercial or market
standards. Instead, the they are tasked with offering a service to citizens and
fostering the long-term enjoyment and resource protection of the river and riparian
environment.
AW
supports fees only if they are an accurate monetary measure of the impact a
particular user has on the forest, water, or land in question, AND IF the money
turns full circle upon receipt by the agency and is used to restore and mitigate
the impact of the use, AND IF all Park visitors are charged on the same basis.
Use of Discriminatory Economic
Disincentives: Fees should never be used to
discriminate against visitors, and should not be used as a disincentive to
visitation. Agencies should accept payment by commonly used credit cards,
check, or money order. The method of payment should not be overly difficult or
time consuming and should not be used as a disincentive to control visitation.
Agency
use of fees: The fees that are collected
from the private and commercial boating community should benefit the river
resource. Fees should be collected only for projects that are identified
upfront prior to fee collection. The manner in which fees are spent should be
documented and reported via the Internet and correspondence with river runners.
A. AWA Fee Policy:
AW’s
fee policy is that no fees should be imposed on kayakers, canoeists, or rafters
merely to travel on a river or stream.
Fees
imposed on boaters for the use of public lands including use to gain access to
a river should be identical to the fees paid by all other users of the public
land area, unless these fees offset costs of unique river access facilities and
services needed solely by boaters to obtain safe access to the river. Any such
special access fees should be project-oriented and adopted only after notice
to, and input from, the boating public.
1.
Explanation
Federal,
State, and local fees on river travel by small private human-powered boats are
unnecessary and unjustified by any public policy. State and local fees on
travel by water on rivers navigable under Federal law may even be
unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on commerce, a violation of the
Federal navigational servitude[32]
a violation of the right to travel protected by the privileges and immunities
clause[33]
or a combination of two or more of these three theories.
Fees
and other restrictions on the public recreational right to travel on waterways
may also be invalid even on streams which have the physical capacity to float
small craft but which are not navigable as a matter of federal, state, or local
law[34].
The use
of public lands, including river access points, may be subject to the payment
of general entrance or user fees, but it is discriminatory to impose fees on boaters
using public lands if lesser fees, or no fees, are charged to other users of
those lands. Both groups benefit from the same or similar facilities and
services and have similar impacts on the area's natural resources.
If
special facilities or services are needed for boater access or for some other
legitimate purpose uniquely related to recreational boating use, special fees
on boaters might be reasonable. Safe parking needed exclusively for boaters at
a heavily used river may, for example, be such a situation. Boaters do not
generally object to fees offsetting the costs of minimal facilities and
services needed and used only by them. However, these situations are rare, for
instance Lee’s Ferry on the
Self-guided
boaters and the local and national groups that represent them should be
included in the planning and implementation of special fees imposed for boater
access. Public comment should be solicited and these user groups should be specifically
notified.
The
reasons for the fee and the costs of any facilities funded by the fee should be
fully articulated to the affected public before the fee is adopted.
Self-guided
boaters typically need and desire only the most minimal river access
facilities. Extensive or elaborate facilities for river access (especially
those in the ecologically sensitive riparian zone) are not typically justified
and should not be constructed for the benefit of, and at the expense of, a user
group that does not need or desire them.
Unnecessary
access services are also objectionable, especially if funded by fees.
Reservations,
for example, together with reservation fees, would be acceptable only if all of
the following conditions are met:
- The river is so heavily used that reservations are
necessary to provide boaters who drive long distances with a reasonable
assurance of finding slots available.
- A reasonable portion of the total self-guided river
use is not subject to prior reservation so that slots remain available for
"standby" users without payment of reservation fees. (This is
necessary to provide a balance between frequent or local users and more
distant "planned" users).
- All unused reservation slots are available to standby
users on a first come-first served basis without payment of reservation
fees.
Annual
permits are more cost effective for the regulatory authority, less burdensome
for the boater, and do not discriminate against local users as much as do
single visit access fees. Single visit fees are more appropriate for occasional
infrequent visitors. Both single visit permits and annual permits should be
readily available on site at convenient times; annual permits should also be
available by mail and the Internet.
2.
Case Studies
This
fee is essentially an access fee, despite the name "reservation" fee.
Boaters must pay regardless of whether they call ahead to reserve a launch time
or simply show up to paddle the river on a "stand-by" basis. Boaters
must pay for reservations even during low use periods. Local boaters who want
only to paddle a mile of river as a morning workout must pay the same fee as
people boating the entire river on a weekend trip. No fees are imposed on other
park users who use the same facilities (changing rooms, restrooms, trails,
parking) as do the boaters.
The
This
permit/fee is subject to all of the same problems as the permit/fees at the
B. Search and Rescue: A Privilege for the Saved
or Public Burden?
“Stretch forth thy hand from above;
Rescue me, and deliver me out of great waters”
-Book of Psalms
The
following article details AW’s position on requiring individuals to pay for
their evacuation and life saving rescue, it was adapted from an article
published in the November 2002 American Whitewater Journal. This article
details the legal and social arguments for not requiring visitors to pay for
rescue in the
- Mountain-West Insurance Agency 1-800-826-1300 $44 in 1998
- Divers Insurance
Company 1-800-288-4810 $25 in 1998
- Diver Alert Network
(DAN) 1-800-446-2671 $25 in 1998
- Personal insurance
1.
Introduction
Federal,
State, and other government agencies have a moral and legal responsibility to
conduct and bear the cost of search and rescue efforts for everyone in need of
their assistance. This is both a privilege and a right, and is protected by
international treaties, which effectively ensure your rescue regardless of your
ability to pay for the service.
The
issues surrounding equity, legal liability, and financial responsibility must
be explored so that policy makers appreciate what actions are likely to help
and harm the public’s interests. Our examination begins with a story from the
Haw River, from which we move into an analysis of the 1999 National Search and
Rescue Plan, and a discussion of the suitability of recovering costs for
rescues as well as the propriety of requiring boaters to provide proof of
rescue insurance prior to receiving a launch permit.
2.
The 1999 National Search and Rescue Plan
“The Participants agree that SAR services that they provide to persons
in danger or distress will be without subsequent cost-recovery from the
person(s) assisted.” – 1999 NSAR
In 1999
the United States Coast Guard issued the United States National Search and
Rescue Plan (NSAR). The NSAR Plan, which was amended in 2000, establishes
the national protocol “for coordinating civil search and rescue (SAR) services
to meet domestic needs and international commitments.”
The
Plan affirms that the
Civil
search and rescue operations on whitewater and flatwater are explicitly covered
under the “maritime” and “land” operations directives. Maritime operations are
defined as rescue from a water environment; and land operations are defined as
rescue operations associated with environments such as wilderness areas, swift
water, caves, and mountains.
The
signing federal agencies include the Interior and Coast Guard, as well as the
Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Commerce, and Federal
Communications Commission and National Air and Space Association. Each agency
assumes varying degrees of responsibility for preventative measures to protect
the visiting public. Ultimately though, NSAR promises “the effective use of all
available facilities in all types of SAR missions”, and affirms that the
rescued person(s) shall not be responsible for payment associated with their
rescue. This component applies equally on land and water to all federal
signatories including the Department of the Interior (DOI) and adjacent
jurisdictions, including the National Parks and Forest Services.
3.
The suitability and feasibility of recovering river rescue costs.
Despite
its recognition of international treaties, NSAR does not compel state or local
agencies to conform or participate. Instead it encourages cooperative agreements
that allow these entities to direct and control their own responses within
their boundaries. It is this loophole that some politicians and agency
personnel, particularly at the state level, point to as they revive arguments
to seek cost recovery payments from rescued victims.
American
Whitewater is opposed to charging boaters for these rescues and recoveries. It
is our long established policy position that charging for river rescues,
whether after the fact or beforehand in the form of a rescue fee or rescue
bond, is bad public policy. We offer this as a truth for several reasons.
Fees
can create delays that can increase risks.
From a practical level, charging for rescues often delays the initial request
for help, which increases the risks for rescuers and subjects alike.
By the
time a lost, capsized, or injured boater (or good Samaritan or witness) calls
for a rescue, that boater may be in worse condition or in a less accessible
location, and the weather or daylight may have deteriorated. All of these
factors can increase the complexity and cost of performing rescue services.
Because of these concerns, American Whitewater agrees with the Mountain Rescue
Association, an organization representing 80 volunteer rescue teams from
throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which is on
record opposing charges for rescues because “no one should ever be made to feel
they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue
incident out of fear of possible charges.” NSAR recognizes this and affirms
that the agencies “will not allow a matter of reimbursement of cost among
themselves to delay response to any person in danger or distress.”
Fees
proposals tend to be discriminatory:
Charging one highly visible and readily identifiable user group – in this case,
boaters – for rescue services that are provided free of charge to all other
National Park visitors is blatantly discriminatory.
According
to 2000 NPS data, 35.3 percent of all National Park search and rescue missions
were for “other” causes, which generally are not recreation related and cannot
easily be categorized. Hikers, boaters, swimmers, and climbers accounted for
24.4%, 10.3%, 9.8%, and 3.6% of rescues respectively; 9% of rescues were for
“mutual aid” in which NPS officials responded to outside organizations on
adjacent lands, such as a state park or Forest Service property.
No
correlation to cost: There is no direct
correlation between the type of visitor activity and the cost of a rescue.
Searches for lost hikers and downed aircraft can be exponentially more
expensive than locating and transporting an injured boater from a known
location in a river valley.
Cumulative
rescue costs are relatively low: In 1999,
the total cost per visitor of performing all search and rescue activities was a
mere 1.2 cents – a small fraction of the total cost of $6.90 per visitor for
all NPS functions.
Though most of the search and rescue money in Alaska is spent on
looking for missing planes, lost hikers and hunters, and disabled boats, that’s
not what stirs the debate. It’s the rescues – often highly publicized rescues –
of climbers on
-
Debate
driven by prejudice of risk rather than reality: Neither boaters nor climbers should be singled out to pay
for services that are free to other Park visitors simply because they are
highly visible, participants are few in number, or their recreational pursuit
is perceived as dangerous by some.
Rescues
are an inherent management duty: Search
and rescue is one of many public safety functions performed by land managers
nationwide, as are attending to fires, motor vehicle accidents, and responding
to criminal acts. All park visitors may at some point get lost or hurt while in
our National Parks, whether it be a climber involved in a mountaineering
accident, a rafter who is stranded in a rapid, or a tourist who succumbs to a
heart attack while strolling on a paved nature trail. Similarly, all visitors
may at some point be the victim of a crime or be involved in an automobile
accident, and would customarily expect to have rescue services provided free of
charge.
Fees
increase liability risks: While charging
for rescues may solve an immediate budgetary problem, it may create a bigger
fiscal headache by reducing or removing the discretionary shield (see below)
that protects the National Park Service from liability regarding if, when, and
how the agency performs rescue services.
In 1991
the American Alpine Club (AAC) helped the NPS prevail in Johnson vs.
Department of the Interior before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit [949 F.2d 332; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26805]. This case established
rescues as a discretionary function:
…the rangers’ decision if, when or how to rescue inherently involves
the balancing of safety objectives against such practical considerations as
staffing, funding and minimizing government intrusion. As such, these decisions
are grounded in social and economic policy, and thus are shielded from
liability under the FTCA discretionary function exception.
The
Park Service retains the ability to recover costs from individuals if they
believe an individual’s actions rose to the level of creating a hazard.
However, charging for all rescues limits the agency’s flexibility and may open
the agency to multi-million dollar lawsuits based on a person’s injury and
ability to pay.
Fees
increase “standard of care” expectations:
Beyond removing the discretionary shield regarding when a rescue is launched,
charging for rescues may force rescue agencies to provide a certain standard of
care. One large legal settlement would wipe out many years of revenue brought
in from charging boaters for rescues on a remote river such as the
Fees
violate the legally binding 1999 US National Search and Rescue Plan: As described earlier, charging for rescues is
inconsistent with the National Search and Rescue Plan, a document that
establishes policies and responsibilities for all U.S. government agencies
providing rescue services to fulfill domestic and international obligations,
which then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed on May 3, 1999 on behalf of the
Department of the Interior. Based on NSAR, charging climbers or boaters for
mountaineering or swiftwater rescues would violate national policies the
Department of the Interior has pledged to uphold.
If
fees are charged, fees should be limited:
Rather than look only to recoup existing rescue costs, the agencies must
evaluate more fully what costs legitimately should and should not be assigned
to mountaineering and boating rescues.
Given
costs often include the hourly rate for rescue or military personnel and
helicopter flight hours, which can be substantial. For example, in 1992, the
year with the highest mountaineering rescue costs on
If
actions must be taken to pay for search and rescue costs, we recommend that the
National Park Service establish a national search and rescue fund. A small
surcharge on all Park visitors would be the most equitable
and defensible solution given that climbers and boaters account for such a
small proportion of search and rescue operations system wide, and the potential
need for search and rescue services exists for all Park visitors regardless of
activity. As described later in this article, a mere two-cent surcharge on all
NPS visitors for a national search and rescue fund would cover search and
rescue activities system wide and would not discriminate against any specific
user group
Rescue
costs can be driven by new technologies:
American Whitewater has learned anecdotally from the Park Service of an
increase in the search and rescue costs along the
NOTAR
stands for “no tail rotor”, as in a helicopter without a tail rotor. On
Likewise,
according to an American Alpine Club analysis of NPS data, the largest single
factor in escalating search and rescue costs in
Rescue
costs can be driven by new infrastructure and use of trained volunteers: Trained volunteer rescue groups perform most search and
rescue activities on public lands nationwide. The agencies should seriously
consider scaling back their rescue service infrastructure and explore how
volunteer rescue groups could be better utilized to reduce rescue costs on both
whitewater and flatwater rivers.
‘Tis well! from this day forward
we shall know
That in ourselves our safety must be sought;
That by our own right hands it must be wrought;
That we must stand unpropped, or be laid low.
-Wordsworth, November 1806
Returning
the backcountry to a more natural condition typical of American wilderness,
will emphasize greater self-reliance:
Beyond saving money, reducing the rescue infrastructure in the National Parks
sends a powerful message to boaters and other visitors, that rescue services
are no longer near at hand.
American
Whitewater is somewhat concerned that the advent of new rescue technologies
leads to new psychological crutches, which can in some ways have the opposite
effect of improving safety. We caution the whitewater community to be wary of
the purchase of excessive safety equipment by rangers for use on the rivers
they paddle.
The
mountaineers’ experience in
Rescue of injured or ill climbers, if possible at all, may be
exceedingly slow and uncertain if weather conditions are not ideal. You should
be prepared and equipped to perform self-rescue. Each party must rely on its
own resources and cannot count on the aid of other climbers or rescue
personnel.
Nevertheless,
the highly visible ranger presence on
The D2K party was adamant that Lev Sarkisov be flown off from the
17,200-foot high camp without delay, regardless of the weather conditions. They
learned very quickly that the Park Service doesn't provide a European-style
helicopter rescue service and that
Reducing
the rescue infrastructure in backcountry areas of our national parks is
controversial; but it would send a clear message that the government intends to
return these lands to a more natural condition typical of American wilderness,
and that this change will require greater self-reliance by all visitors.
Identification and removal of many psychological crutches, including cell
phones, would encourage people to take greater responsibility for their
actions, and to avoid pushing on when they should turn back. The removal of
psychological crutches could lead to a decrease in emergency responses for
frivolous purposes.
4.
Insurance Coverage
Requirements
Some
river managers have suggested requiring boaters provide proof of insurance
before receiving a launch permit. The climbing community has addressed this
issue in recent years, and American Whitewater holds that their arguments also
hold true for the boating community.
This
issue came to a head in 1999 when Sen. Murkowski suggested that injured
climbers were causing financial problems for local medical care providers by
not paying bills following treatment. When he introduced a bill authorizing a
study into this field, Sen. Murkowski said,
I want the Secretary to evaluate requiring climbers to show proof of
medical insurance so that hospitals in Alaska and elsewhere are not left
holding the bag as they sometimes are under present circumstances. It is a good
neighbor policy that should be put into effect at the earliest opportunity.
Substitute
the word “boaters” for “climbers” and the threat is apparent to our community.
While the lack of health insurance is a widespread, serious, and longstanding
problem facing many Americans, we question whether there is any information
available showing boaters or climbers to be less insured than the population as
a whole. We also assert that having health insurance coverage has no bearing
upon whether a person should be allowed to visit our public lands and that a
requirement that recreationists demonstrate proof of health insurance coverage
before being issued a visitor permit would be discriminatory. Absent any
compelling information from the Park Service or hospitals, this is an issue
based more upon groundless speculation than fact.
More
fundamental is the question of whether it is relevant or appropriate for the
Park Service to ask any Park visitor about health insurance coverage. We think
not and the Park Service appears to agree. The National Park Service’s Organic
Act established National Parks:
…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner
and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.
The Act
makes no mention of limiting access due to lack of health insurance, ability to
pay, or any other factor. Given that the agencies incurs little to no expense
for direct health care of injured visitors, we believe there is no legitimate
reason for the government to force anyone to divulge whether they have health
insurance coverage.
The
working poor of this country, such as many raft guides, are the most likely
segment of our society to lack health insurance, yet they pay taxes that support
our public lands. They already face significant obstacles in paying entrance
fees to enjoy their public lands without forcing them to show proof of medical
insurance, which most simply cannot afford.
Significantly,
the Department of the Interior is on record opposing requirements that climbers
show proof of medical insurance before being issued a climbing permit. On
With regard to considering the question of whether to require climbers
to have medical insurance, we do not believe a study is warranted. We believe
the issue of payment for medical treatment at a hospital or other medical
facility should remain beyond the authority of the National Park Service or
Department of the Interior. This is an issue between the private citizen, his
family and his doctors. The National Park Service is responsible for the care
of patients during a rescue and for their transportation to an appropriate
medical facility, but should not be involved in assessing the adequacy of
medical insurance for care that can extend for years beyond a person’s initial
injury.
This is
a fundamental question of fairness regarding access to public lands and
discrimination of one highly visible user group. Unless all visitors are
required to show proof of medical insurance (and by logical extension force all
motorists entering the Parks to show proof of automobile insurance), we believe
this is a blatantly discriminatory and unlawful requirement. Requiring proof of
rescue insurance coverage (and billing policies after rescues have been
completed) involves many of the same legal and practical pitfalls as charging
subjects for rescues.
Another
factor that must be addressed when considering the requirement of carrying
rescue insurance is the impact claims will have on current rescue insurance
policies. Former South District Ranger J.D. Swed, quoted in a Boulder Daily
Camera news story, highlighted a major problem.
When someone pays for a service in advance, they expect to get it. If
someone pays for an insurance policy and they get to the 14,000-foot mark and
decide they need to come down, who is to say they don’t have to be taken down.
Consider
the case of a boater on day 12 of a
Up
until the mid-nineties, Europeans could readily get rescue insurance for climbing
and other activities; however, the abuse of this system led to the collapse of
the underwriter’s market in this field and the insurance has become much more
difficult to obtain. The experience in Europe shows conclusively that when
people have rescue insurance they can and will call for rescues in situations
the NPS today would not view as worthy of launching a rescue. If boaters can
call for a rescue whenever they feel like it, the increased utilization of
rescue services could have a disastrous impact on the number and cost of river
rescues and evacuations, as well as drying up what market there is for rescue
insurance underwriters.
American
Whitewater is opposed to singling out boaters to provide rescue insurance
coverage when other Park visitors are not asked to be financially responsible
for their rescues. If rescue insurance proves to be a viable concept, it should
be applied broadly among all visitors. Alternately, a mere two-cent surcharge
on all Park Service visitors for a national search and rescue fund would cover
search and rescue activities system wide and would not discriminate against any
specific user group. Such a fund would rectify the current situation in which
individual Park units must pay for rescue costs under $500 and regional NPS offices
must pay for rescues above $500, both of which require diverting money from
existing projects since there is no dedicated rescue fund.
5.
Conclusion
Boaters
want to be responsible, largely self-reliant visitors to
The
misunderstandings that separate boaters from the rest of society are wide but
not insurmountable; through education and political action we can bridge the
gap. Write an opinion article for your local newspaper about a boating-related
topic in your area. Write to local, state, or national elected officials about
local boating access or policy issues. Organize a clean up effort at a local
river. Then publicize your actions, share them with American Whitewater and
your local governments. The more you do at an individual or group level to show
that boaters are a positive force in your community, the harder it will be for
policy-makers to treat us as jokers.
IX.
Safety
Permits
can help to improve river safety by:
- Providing inexperienced users the opportunity to
associate with experienced boaters.
- Explicitly identifying the need for all visitors to
wear Coast Guard approved Type III lifejackets in, on, and around the
river.
- Educating visitors about the likely visitor risks on
a daily and seasonal basis.
However,
AW’s river Access Policy holds that limits on river access to protect
whitewater boaters from hazards are generally unwise and unnecessary. It is the
responsibility of the individual to guard against reckless behavior.
Signs,
warnings, and other educational efforts are almost always more effective than
river access closures in reducing the exposure of inexperienced individuals to
whitewater for which they are unqualified.
An
exception to the policies stated above exists on some extremely crowded rivers
with very high commercial use limits. On those rivers the commercial use limit
has been set at such a high level as to create safety hazards due to
congestion. AW strives to address such dangerous overcrowding when we learn it
is occurring.
A.
Explanation
Unregulated
whitewater boating has been remarkably free of fatal injuries in comparison to
other sports. Paddlesports are one of the quickest growing sports in the
nation, with a total 33% growth from 1983-1987, and 5% annual growth ever
since. Many of these paddlesport participants are engaged in whitewater
paddling.
Despite
this remarkable track record, whitewater boating is generally acknowledged to
be a sport with some degree of inherent risk, like skiing, rock climbing, etc.
Participants in the sport accept this level of risk, and those participating in
the sport assume the liability for injury.
Under a
number of legal doctrines (sovereign immunity, assumption of risk, etc.[36]),
whitewater boaters are barred from holding the government liable for injuries
they sustain while participating in the sport. Their safety in whitewater- and
at access points- is their own responsibility.
However, any government agency that assumes
the responsibility of judging the qualification of persons participating in
sports such as whitewater boating could also assume legal liability for boater
injuries. Therefore, it is unwise for government agencies to assume this
responsibility. Decisions about what to run and when to run it are best made by
those who will experience the consequences of their decisions.
Agencies
which have not attempted to assume these responsibilities have avoided being
held liable for injuries to boaters on rivers under their management authority.
For example, in Harmon v
Warnings by sign or brochure and other
educational efforts means are the most effective tool government agencies have
to reduce improve the safety of inexperienced individuals who encounter
whitewater. Police-style restrictions normally require more manpower than is
usually available, and inexperienced government employees are seldom able to
distinguish between people who are capable of handling whitewater and those who
are not. Agency attempts to restrict all access to challenging whitewater often
penalize experienced paddlers without improving safety for the general public.
AWA remains committed to educational efforts
to improve whitewater boating safety.
B.
Case
Studies
The
National Park Service initially banned all whitewater boating at
The AW
worked out an agreement with the National Park Service (which controls both
banks of the Falls), and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (which
controls the waters in the river) allowing whitewater access to
In
addition, the agreement required boaters to submit a simple once-in-a-lifetime
Falls-running registration with the State of
AWA
also strongly encouraged the NPS to post large warning signs at strategic
locations with artistic dramatization of the hazards to "rock
hoppers". Eventually, after initial resistance, the NPS agreed to install
signs (although the text and illustrations were prepared without consultation
with boater groups) and did not emphasize the utility of life jackets.
The
approach used at
Notably,
in 2001, the registration requirements were dropped as the State found they
were no longer useful for addressing liability or increasing safety.
In
1987, AW efforts opened the door to legal boating for one fall season, and
several runs took place. In more than 50 canoe and kayak descents of the
Niagara Gorge, not one boater was killed or seriously injured. Nevertheless, on
These
regulations, conceived in fear of liability and implemented in ignorance of the
potential impacts of whitewater recreation, remain in effect, resulting in the
loss of legal access to one of the world's most exciting whitewater
recreational opportunities with no discernable public benefit.
Similar
concerns led to imposition of a high water boating prohibition by the same
agency on the Letchworth Gorge on the
X.
American Whitewater Consulting
American
Whitewater has considerable experience working on, interpreting, and drafting
river management plans and policies. We also have firsthand account managing
river recreation on numerous rivers around the country where we own, lease, and
otherwise secure access. Please contact us, if you think our board and staff
may be of assistance.