# GCPBA RiverNews 11/6/15 - Unused Noncommercial Launch Dates Are Rescheduled, Not Lost



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

Great news. Thank you to everyone involved.


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

It would be interesting to see the total numbers of unused launch dates in past years, to know if they had ever exceeded the limit of 20 that will be rescheduled. I will look at the river stats and see if it's there.


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

Here is what I wanted to know, the number of unused launches from past years. The news is that "Up to 20 unused noncommercial launches (last minute cancellations) will be added to the subsequent year’s list of available dates..."

Out of the 503 launches each year that could go, unused were:

2014: 12
2013: 24
2012: 36
2011: 48
2010: 25
2009: 30
2008: 32
2007: 43

I hope that there being only 12 in 2014 is going to be more the trend, and so all rescheduled, rather than something in the 30's or 40's.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Amen to that, plenty of deserving boaters that would have put those unused permits to good use.


----------



## david d (Jan 25, 2007)

Unused dates are exactly that, deserving boaters had the chance to take advantage and missed the window. The private use Has already been increased and unused dates while unfortunate do not need to be added to the following year


----------



## johnryan (Feb 6, 2013)

How can you even think this??!! Every date should be available to us, including in the following year, up to a point. We wouldn't to slam in 100 more dates to a carefully controlled launch calendar. Twenty dates is very workable.


I'm glad the park is adding missed dates to the launch calendar. Missing the window, as you put it, could be due to unfortunate circumstances beyond the control of the permit holder and there was no time for someone else to pick up that date.


THANK YOU for GCPBA's part in making this happen!


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

While I'm no longer on the GCPBA Board, at one time I was in on some of the conversations with the Park on this issue.

Those discussions were consistent with the Park's continuing efforts to make sure every possible private launch went down the river. (Under the CRMP, there is a fixed maximum number of private launches each year.) So we were looking for a way to use historical data to estimate the number of launches that might not be claimed in a forthcoming year. Then, to compensate, the idea was to pre-emptively add a similar number of launches into each new main lottery.

The desired method would not result in any systematic overages in the number of launches. IIRC, I suggested using a floating average of the last several years' number of unclaimed launches. However, I don't know the final method they chose to add specific numbers. 

Concerns about potential impact on the resource are worth addressing. The private launch numbers embodied in the CRMP were determined by a rather lengthy process. It gave Park officials some assurance that the resource would not be damaged in any significant way by use at that level. (Yes, some variables can enter into that determination as time goes on. For instance, the amount of driftwood use in the winter is a notable issue they seemed to struggle with.) But this new system helps private boaters optimize use of our allocation without exceeding whatever environmental limits the CRMP established as acceptable.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

*250 unused dates since 2007*

There have been a total of 250 unused dates since 2007. It would be great if those were slowly allocated over time. Say 30 extra launch's per year for the next 8 years. 

It is weird that the reduction interval is a consistent multiple of 12 from 2011 to 2014. Did that data come from public NPS documents?

Also what happened in 2011? Maybe more unfilled calculations due to the poor economy? 

It is a good chance though!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I appreciate the goal to address unused permits and I think pushing some through to the next lottery makes sense. 20 seems workable. My concern for some of the recommendations, like putting all of the unused permits since 2007 back into play, is resource and user experience impact. I just worry that we can continue to push for more access because demand is there but forget to realize how heavily trafficked that corridor already is during prime months.

Look to other permits. Does the Middle Fork push unused permits into next year's lottery? How about the Selway?


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

Restrac2000,


Would you consider two private Launches per day in December and January heavy traffic?

I regards to the Middle Fork and Selway, you can do a preseason trip each year so it is not exactly a apples to apples comparison.

I agree that volume need some control though.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Buckman,

There is a limiting factor within the CRMP -- it allows only 503 private launches per year. There also are seasonally variable limits on the number of trips and people allowed on the river at one time (TAOT/PAOT). 

The number of unclaimed launches is relatively small -- usually a couple of dozen out of that 503. So the problem didn't seem to require a major re-tooling, or dramatic realignment of launch patterns seasonally. 

For that reason, our personal views on what might constitute heavy traffic in the winter season are not going to be persuasive with the Park. But this change could bring us even closer to 100% use of our allocation. (However, as I see it, things like trip length in the winter still could be discussed further if they didn't violate the TAOT/PAOT limits.)

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

buckman - The data came from the Park's website, here:

Helpful Links for Noncommercial River Trips - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Scroll down to River Statistics, click on each year. I think it's the second page of each file.




buckmanriver said:


> There have been a total of 250 unused dates since 2007. It would be great if those were slowly allocated over time. Say 30 extra launch's per year for the next 8 years.
> 
> It is weird that the reduction interval is a consistent multiple of 12 from 2011 to 2014. Did that data come from public NPS documents?
> 
> ...


----------

