Friday, September 10, 2010

GCNP boundary (add'l info, 9/13): More maps; More problems;

Sep 11: UPDATE:

And a day later, still more on the miniscule Coconino Plateau (CP) addition. Perplexed by my error, I went back through the maps of proposed GCNP boundaries I have that were drawn up, on NPS or congressional request. Several, but not all, of the maps show the number of acres proposed to be added or deleted. The CP addition appears in several of these, and in every case it is  640 acres (= one full section, or two half sections)*. But as I wrote in the Sep 10 entry below, the maps all show a 960-acre addition. 

The CP addition is shown on proposals from the 1950's. On the several maps until 1969, it is very clearly two sections wide by one-half section deep = 640 acres.  As late as Dec 1969, NPS was listing 640 as the number for the CP. Very good. 
March 70: 3 sections wide by one section deep. Would = 1920 ac.
   But there are no indications in the archives of a desire or decision for more than 640.
Aug 70, 3 wide still, but not quite a full section deep. Listing still says 640 acres.
Mar 71, 3 wide, a full one deep. 640 acres.
Jul 71, 3 wide, not quite one deep. 640 acres.
Aug 71, the same.
Feb 73, the Goldwater bill,not quite three wide; not quite one deep. 640
Nov 73, Senate passed: three wide, half a section deep. 640 acres
Mar 74, Udall bill: not shown
Jul 74, House subcommittee passed: three wide, half deep.
Oct 74, bill as passed the Senate: three wide, half deep. 640
Dec 74, final bill: three wide, half deep 
And this is what is shown on the BLM, FS, and NG maps. I frankly have no memories of any talk about this addition. So if there is something in the archives that explains these changes, and it is not just careless mapping, it will have to wait until I come to write about the 1975 Act's twenty-year history. As for how to reconcile the 640 acres on the legislative process maps with the 960 acres actually added to the Park, well, the map rules, and the as-passed map leaves off the listing of acreages.
*Sep 13: ADDITIONAL INFO: I dug out the 23 Jan 1975 memo on the newly authorized acreage of GCNP, sent by the NPS (DC) Assoc. Dir. for Legislation to the Western Regional Director. The Coconino  Plateau (tract 32) is listed as 640 acres. 

Sep 10:
Today, I added three up-to-date map sources: The 2006 BLM Arizona Strip (and south); the Tusayan District of the Kaibab National Forest (1982/2003); the National Geographic's Grand Canyon East and West (2009 copyrighted), which they say are based on USGS data plus information from other agencies. Lets call the three maps:  BLM, KNF, and NG. 

Right away, in checking boundary segment D between the Park and the Kaibab NF, I found that I had mismeasured the 1975 Coconino Plateau addition; it is 3 half-sections, not 2. The correction of the 1 Sep entry stands now corrected.

I made some other checks. Segment B along Marble Canyon on BLM & NG both show, wrongly as I have written, the Park boundary ¼ mile up from the river on the east, as far as Navajo Bridge. KNF shows the east side of Marble, correctly, on the east bank of the river.

NG, astonishingly, shows the river between the Park and the Hualapai as no-man's-land (a battle zone?), with the Park on the north side. On other parts of the boundary, NG has a purple band for emphasis and a dash-dot line (------- --) for accuracy. Along the river, however, they put in no such line. No explanation I have found so far. BLM comes down decisively in what the sainted Morris Udall called the "goomwah", by putting the boundary in the middle of the river.

BLM and NG do not quite agree on the north line of the wattle, and both seem a little shy of 2 miles for the line going north across the river to Pearce Canyon. The bigger problem, as I wrote, is that Fort Garrett Point, not Snap Point, should be the route up onto the Shivwits. 
NG makes it clear that the drainage with Rampart Cave in it is a separate one, and the Canyon's last, downstream from Cave Canyon.

No comments:

Post a Comment