You are here

Updated: Budgeting At Grand Canyon National Park Is Not Always As Simple As You Might Think

Share

In a park with many uses -- mule rides, backpacking, river running -- budgeting to meet needs at Grand Canyon National Park is not always easy or simple. Top photo by Cecil Stoughton, National Park Service Historic Photograph Collection; middle photo NPS; bottom photo, Mark Lellouch, NPS.

Editor's note: This rewords the 15th paragraph to reflect that park officials did not say most comments received on the environmental assessment spoke in favor of above-the-rim rides over Inner Gorge rides.

The recent debate over mule rides in Grand Canyon National Park has left park officials, who say they have to live within their budgets and the public's desires, strongly criticized by mule backers, who say trail impacts might be less of an issue if park managers were smarter with how they spend their money.

Unfortunately for outsiders, fully understanding National Park Service budgeting is not always an easy task. There are funds dedicated to specific aspects of a park's operations, overlapping assignments that can make it difficult to tease out how much is spent on a specific area, and, among other things, funds that must be spent within a specific time-frame.

These challenges can be found in just about every one of the 394 units of the National Park System, which makes the following a helpful primer for those trying to understand how spending decisions sometimes are made in their favorite parks.

When Grand Canyon officials in March 2010 embarked on an environmental assessment to help chart the future of livestock use in the park, they pointed out that "an annual budget of approximately $3 million is needed to adequately maintain the park’s corridor trails; however, the park only receives between $1.5 and $2 million annually through entrance fees, concessions franchise fees and other sources for trail maintenance and repair."

"Additionally," they continued, "deferred maintenance costs on inner canyon corridor trails currently exceeds $24 million (GRCA PAMP 2006) – unless management actions are taken in the near future, trails will continue to fall into disrepair and deferred maintenance costs will continue to increase."

The uproar over the park's eventual decision to restrict public mule rides down to Phantom Range in the park's Inner Gorge to 10 mules per day along the Bright Angel Trail, and 10 a day from Phantom Ranch to the South Rim via the South Kaibab Trail, got me wondering about the trail maintenance funding woes, and how easily it might be to move money from another area to help meet those needs.

Since river trips down the Colorado River are a main attraction of the Grand Canyon and require more than a little attention from the park to manage, I figured that'd be a good place to look into the funding quagmire. What I found out is that nothing is entirely cut-and-dried when it comes to park funding.

For starters, Grand Canyon National Park currently spends about $1.4 million a year on river operations -- the permitting office, river patrols, concessions program, rangers staffing the put-in and takeout, environmental audits, and fee collections from river trips, just to name the most obvious tasks.

To cover that $1.4 million, the park receives a little more than $200,000 for river operations in its base funding from Congress, according to park spokeswoman Maureen Oltrogge. Another $600,000 or so comes from private user fees, she added, and the balance -- some $500,000 -- comes from concession fees.

“That pays for us to administer that operation," she said, "and that, too, pays for a ranger at Lee’s Ferry (the put-in), it pays for a ranger at Meadview (the takeout), it pays for river patrol operations."

And often those river patrols are multi-purpose, Ms. Oltrogge continued, explaining that while there might be a river ranger on the boat, there often might be someone working on Inner Gorge trail maintenance, vegetation studies, or archaeological or fisheries research. As a result, here can be a mingling of park funds traveling in that boat.

"It’s not as clean as you can take it from here without affecting something else. As nice as that would be, you just can’t do that," said Ms. Oltrogge.

Indeed, added Barclay Trimble, the Grand Canyon's deputy superintendent for business services, the money generated by river trips has to be spent on river management.

“All the stuff that comes from cost recovery from the privates (trips), that has to be spent on the resources that are being used to generate those fees. So that really can’t be reallocated at all," he said.

As to the furor over just 10 mule rides a day, park officials pointed out that current use patterns overwhelmingly show there are more hikers in the canyon than mule trips. Nearly 200 comments were received on the draft EA, they said in their synopsis, and "a wide variety of comments were received and a majority supported retention of at least some level of stock use in the park." By making more above-the-rim mule rides available, the park was responding to public demand, the officials said.

"I would say we're providing an opportunity for a bigger population, a bigger visitation base, to have that experience" of a mule ride atop the South or North rims, rather than in canyon's Inner Gorge, Mr. Trimble said during an earlier conversation. "We have had several comments over many, many, many years ... about a need for some above the rim. Not everybody wants to spend a full day going down into the canyon, baking in the sun, and coming back out.”

“The opportunity is still there, we are still providing mules down into Phantom Ranch and the North Rim is providing a ride down into the canyon," he added.

In an editorial endorsing the park's preferred livestock plan, the Arizona Daily Sun pointed to the disparity between the numbers of hikers and mule riders in the canyon.

In truth, it hasn't been the mule rides that have increased dramatically but the number of hikers -- hundreds of thousands now use the Bright Angel and South Kaibab trails each year. The two groups have combined to wear out the trails much faster than they can be repaired, resulting in a $20 million backlog of repairs.

But because there are no other viable trail corridors into Phantom Ranch, something had to give, and it was clear that the visitor experiences of 300,000 annual hikers were going to outweigh those of 10,000 mule riders. Deeply rutted trails filled with mule dung and urine, combined with rules of the road that give mule trains priority -- even when they step on a hiker's foot -- made it a foregone conclusion that some of the mules would have to go.

The move to fewer mules in the Grand Canyon is a changing of the recreational guard. While mules long have been associated with the canyon -- Brighty, anyone? -- the demand for mule rides into the canyon at a minimum seems to be slackening, while the influx of hikers determined to hoof it with their gear on their back is climbing.

Under today's budgeting scenario, something had to give, and park officials went into their deliberations with one certainty, as Ms. Oltrogge pointed out during our conversation.

“No matter what decision you make, you’re going to have people happy with it and people who are not," she said.

Featured Article

Comments

“I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.” - John Wayne


I was told by NPS that the cost of the 250 hiker search, rescue evacuations comes from a different pot than the trails budget. The question was not asked about the estimated 500,000 hiking sticks poking holes in the trail every three feet.


Hey Jim, those clumps of snow and ICE that are broken up in the winter are because the mules wear shoes with Tungsten Carbide tipped shoes for traction. Very similar to the instep crampons, Katoolahs or Yak Tracs that hikers use in the winter. I've recently hiked the BA where the trail was extremely dangerous clear down to Three Mile Resthouse. All the hikers chose to walk where the pack mules had etched and broken up the ice rather than the glassy slik clear ice. Point of argument after point of argument against the mule rides are dispelled but the underlying truth is that NPS has NOT done their job but has just sought to propel a bias. Classic in it's misinformation to diminish the yet unaccepted realization of the Ride's importance. Lets see all the books and the underlying performance of the driving force, the just retired superintendent. To much time has been spent on the little brush fires of misinformation. Open it up or should OIG get involved. Correct the mistakes made and usher in a new day without the bias antagonisms.


Eliminate the trails all together and enjoy the view from the rim as god intended...


What does not get referenced usually in the NPS arguments is the,often life changing, experiences to the young and old alike that Ride the mules. It's just assumed that they all can have the same experience by walking. Putting your confidence into something other than your own two feet is transformational if not biblical in it's concept. You have an extremely safe and REAL partner in an awesome place.
Biggest benefit I see in people is that it's bigger than ourselves and not having everything our way is part of the relief and unburdening effect that all adventurers in the Canyon experience in some form. The Grand Canyon is a treasure to the people for the good things it does to us and right now that's a needed commodity:)!


I once wrote a satirical piece for a hiking newsletter suggesting that they cover the Grand Canyon with plexiglass to prevent damage by visitors, and to allow visitors with a fear of heights to enjoy the view safely. Then they put in a glass sidewalk on the West Rim. Oh,the irony!


I can understand the point you're trying to make Jim but in due respect that's pretty weak, I have guided in the canyon through the winter and it doesn't do that much damage. I say again...those trail were originally built for and by the mules and through the years without them any maintanance on them would be pretty tough because of the equipment needed to be packed in to work on them! This is just like the government....cut back in areas that makes no sense what so ever!! Why not put a toll gate at the head of all trails and charge ALL the hikers fees to hike it and thus create a new source of revenue! That's what they use to do at the canyon years ago...look it up! This seems to be all just a bunch of excuses to get the mules phased out to keep radical environmentalists and such happy! Pretty sad especially from a ranger considering I was good friends of most the rangers in my days there and they all too well knew the importance of the mules and their historic value! Obviously times have changed even since I last rode the trails there in 2005. Such a shame this is even being considered!! I'm sure there are many other areas that could be cut back or maybe created to gain the revenue needed for better trail maintanance! And as keeper noted, I myself have had to break the trail open to almost the 3 mile house riding back up and down 3 times to make a good enough pathe to allow groups out safely from phanton because the snow was so bad....funny thing no hiker dared it what so ever until I had broken it open and they took full advantage after that! Doubt any hikers that day bitched about the mules! Sure didn't see any park employee's out shoveling to ensure a precious hiker could get down that trail! Wow this all is so unbelievable and sad! Whatever.........


After the huge windfall of $200 million of Stimulus to IMR with massive new construction of buildings, reorganizing fragile real estate with construction of NEW above the Rim trails while mostly ignoring long needed corridor trail repairs the "no money" argument is pretty weak. The lack of consideration that could have been given to Riders while trail crews are absent especially with the history of trail crews and riders operating well on the same trails, is notable.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.