The President's Forest 1921

This post, done in 2010, should have appeared in the blog under "THE PARK" when that tab is clicked on. I have had to re-post it in order to correct the error and get it in the right place when the tabs are used.

MATHER GETS EVEN MORE AMBITIOUS

Redesignating the Kaibab National Forest

Not satisfied with the restrictive boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park, Mather used his energy and connections trying to find ways to provide the public a more expansive view.  In November 1921, he wrote the President about his summer visit to the "very largest area of virgin forest in the country". The Kaibab forest was splendid and extraordinary, and should be preserved. Emerson Hough had been with him and suggested the name President's Forest to signal their high estimate of its national worth. As a Forest Service opponent put it, "Mather has broken out in another place". At the time, the designation Kaibab National Forest applied only to the Kaibab Plateau, north of the Colorado River, today's North Kaibab Ranger District. Although part of Arizona, there was only ferry access, and in any case, the use and settlement of the entire Arizona Strip was oriented northwards, part of the Mormon expansion in the late XIXth century. 

The visit stirred up rumors, which, 17 Nov, E.G. Marshall of Grand Canyon Cattle Company (GCCC) confirmed to Kaibab NF supervisor Roak. Mather and a Union Pacific man were the moving spirits, Marshall wrote, visiting me, and asking if I would vacate my grazing leases in favor of preservation ideas. On the 30th, Marshall wrote to the President: Mather has brought the idea of a Presidential Forest to my attention, and we are willing to vacate our lands on the Kaibab and to the east. We ask only for time to dispose of sheep and that no one else be given a grazing permit. There would need to be an arrangement for buying our lands for the government. 

Then as now, much of the Kaibab and House Rock Valley were grazed by a single large outfit. Then as now, there were strongly held ideas that the Kaibab deserved special treatment, not oriented toward exploitation. Then as now, grazing hangs on as an administrative adornment, rather than for wealth creation.

In December, Roak summed up Kaibab resources for his bosses: 6500 cattle (4000 were GCCC's) and 5000 sheep. Numbers were low because the forest had a low capacity due to misuse in the "quite distant" past. There were 20,000 deer. KNF has a grazing function, but the main concern is the timber, which will be a big business, supplying a good part of Utah demand. There are 1,322 million board-feet total; the Park has 257 mbf of that, and wanted 138 mbf more. The presence of the deer herd would justify adding the area to the Park. We have been trying to work with state for three years, but it is complicated, in part because "game cranks can influence public sentiment". The Park would drop any management attempts. 

Forest Service officials provided each other with the following version of events: 

Mather convinced Utah governor Mabey to go with him to visit Senator Smoot, to urge him to introduce a bill to put Kaibab in GCNP. But Mabey objected because there would be no way to sell timber. Mather argued that a log sold only once, but the standing tree could be "sold" to the tourist many times, and Smoot seemed to agree. Mather had big ambitions for the Kaibab, but the governor remained unconvinced. 

In early January 1922, Mather presented the idea of a congressional resolution for a President's Forest to Smoot and Hayden, which would allow grazing, but not logging. There were GLO and FS officials at the meeting, and Mather was told that under Forest Service management, the Kaibab had all protections save a mining withdrawal. Little timber was being cut. Grazing had been reduced by 60% in 10 years [there had been about 25,000 animals at one time; the current 1,100 may still be too hard on the land]. The deer herd was getting very numerous. In that conversation, Mather claimed he was only responding to the ideas of Hough and Marshall. Speaking up, Hayden said he would not be stampeded and would sit on the lid until he heard from Arizona officials. Smoot seemed receptive to the idea, but wanted Mather and Forest Service to agree; otherwise it would be futile to continue.  FS commented afterward that over half the timber would be "tied up in this peculiar jurisdiction". Marshall probably appreciated there had to be a grazing reduction due to over-grazing, and he had lost his monopoly of House Rock winter grazing. Many of their pipelines have deteriorated, and the certainty of his operations was in doubt, so his interest may not be totally in the public interest. Even if we take up his offer, we should continue grazing, while opposing Mather's proposal. 

From the field came a categorical opposition by telegram:  We should reduce GCCC cattle by half or more, and redistribute allotments to others. He has been trying to dispose of his holdings for years; amusing that his patented land was gotten through mining claims. We could fence cattle away from roads and parks, and not cut trees along roads. Area is dry and not needed for Park; 600 mbf of timber would be tied up. Grazing will have to be limited in VT Park because grass is eaten to the roots. In response to an overture from a local Mather supporter, KNF's Roak turned down any ideas that grazing or logging would be curtailed. "We stand for use. We would cut carefully, but we will cut." And grazing allotments could not be easily redistributed. 

Hough's articles in the "Saturday Evening Post" came out later in January. The Presidential Forest on the Kaibab would be a forest of America to remind us of our heritage. It is the last real wilderness, and ought to be set apart unchanged and uncheapened in its august beauty forever. [Intensive, industrial logging did not start until after World War II.] The cattle and deer there are all in poor flesh; grazing is a losing proposition, according to the GCCC owner. It might be best to have it managed by a new bureau. He discussed intensive lion hunting, including inside the park; there were maybe a hundred left. 

Hayden followed up the meeting by consulting Arizona officials, saying that perhaps a name change would be enough. He wondered to the Governor whether Arizona would be deprived of revenue. To Coconino County officials, he was more forthright: When Mather made his suggestion, I promptly declined it. Easy for outsiders to propose that Congress lock up Arizona resources and throw key away. I told Mather that if someone else introduced such a bill, I was confident of my ability to throw enough monkey wrenches into the machinery so the bill would not pass." [What else do we need to know about Hayden's 50+ year career-- What his over-arching goal was; how he operated.] Finally I told him I would be absolutely fair and submit it to local people, knowing they would oppose it. Forest Service is also opposed, saying it can do everything necessary. Mather later informed me that Smoot was not pressing the resolution he had introduced in January. Hayden had checked with Arizona Senators, who did not like the idea. 

T.Riordan, as a local man, tried a more conciliatory line, and said it was objectionable from a purely commercial viewpoint. But he put the preservation of such unique scenery above dollars and cents. He suggested a reservation so mature timber and grazing land could be used under restrictions. He praised Mather for working for the "very best thing" for the country while keeping local rights in mind.

 

However, a petition went to Senator Smoot of Utah from citizens of Kanab and Fredonia opposing any Park extension or alteration of the National Forest. There would be "absurd" rules for the traveling public. The administration would not use local, knowledgable men. Timber and grazing resources would be lost. Anyway, tourists go along roads, and would not be bothered if the strip along them is cared for. A business organization emphasized that the Forest Service could do the job, and wanted nothing that would restrict river development. [This point, made by more than one respondent, emphasized the excitement generated by the idea of hydropower, booming for barely a decade.]

The owner of the sawmill for the Kaibab wrote Smoot that he had recently cut an area that had been logged 45 years before, and there was no sign of the old work. He attacked Hough as fancy and slick, and doubted Marshall's land claims and park interest. 

In April, the Flagstaff newspaper suggested Mather was working with a Los Angeles railroad to 

develop the north side. Hayden was attacked for siding with Utah; the Grand Canyon is in Arizona and Arizona should be for Arizonans. We want park developed and also the river for hydro power. Hayden defended himself, scoffing at north side development. He planned to get appropriations for over a million to get a road in the National Park, which will make Flagstaff the greatest auto tourist town. 

Hayden must have been satisfied with the many responses opposing the Hough-Mather idea, since after the Jan-Feb 1922 flurry of activity, the idea of the President's Forest died. Maybe Warren G. Harding was not the appropriate President. 

Sources

Nat. Park Service archives: Washington DC 

Forest Service archives: Kaibab NF @ Laguna Niguel NARA

Dist. III (Alb.) @ Denver NARA

Carl Hayden papers @ ASU

West End topographic

 THE GREATER GRAND CANYON

ITS WESTERN ENDING

The topographic detail of this map permits the determination of the actual drainage; how the land goes (follow the pencilled line) from the final expression (Chuarumpeak Point) of the Grand Canyon's highest plateau, and drops. First, to the Sanup, the intermediate Canyon level connecting the heights with the rims of the final (still unnamed) side canyons that drop into the river's gorge. Then it runs around on the rims to the ridges and gulches dropping west to finally meet the north marker butte, She Who Waves Farewell. From which, the line crosses the river to climb the divide with the Grand Wash Cliffs sliding to the Basin and Range, while looking east into Cave Canyon and the Grand Canyon's final expression.

Tap on the map to see it smaller and whole. 

To see more detail, you may be able to use the trick of two-fingers placed on the map and then spread apart.

On this 1970's USGS topo, the out-of-date and inappropriate name Fort Garrett shows up on the final point. I much prefer Chuarumpeak, the name of a Southern Paiute man who worked with J.W.Powell in the 19th century.

The 277 refers to the river mile, now altered a bit, to which the end of the Canyon was referred by the Board of Geographic Names in the last century. It is convenient, of course, since it is right at the good-bye butte. Which, by the way, is appropriately composed of formations (Muav and Bright Angel) we all learn as part of the iconic Grand Canyon geologic column. The butte, otherwise sits on silt and other much younger deposits.

The pencilled numbers identify ridges that I had my pencil hike down from the Sanup to the river. The are all in the Canyon drainage.

This map has no up-to-date boundaries (the red line is an old Lake Mead NRA line). And of course, the land that drains north of the line is part of the Pearce Canyon drainage, not part of the Grand Canyon. More confusing, much of that is inside the National Park, including the land up onto Snap Point. 

My error. 

I have a suggestion from Tom Martin for a route down the ~3400' from the Sanup rim to the river, using gulches. I will try to add it. Although feet-on-the-ground information is lacking, going from Chuarumpeak Point down across the Sanup along the drainage line, then scrambling down the unnamed west-end gullies to 277 is somewhere in the vicinity of how trans-Canyon trekkers should go if they wish to be in the Grand Canyon all the way. I have nothing against Pearce Canyon, but it isn't part of the Grand Canyon. 

X DOESN’T MARK THE SPOT

How to say a proper “so long for now” at the Canyon’s West Exit.

The map below, courtesy of Google, shows the west end of the Greater Grand Canyon. The big dark plateau is the Shivwits, with its several southward-aiming points left by the Canyon’s cutting into it.  

The Colorado and its gorge run up from the center bottom and head northwest to a final turn at the exit, after 277 miles, at the northside butte, temporarily being called, She Waves: Goodbye For Now. 

A Friendly Look at Grand Canyon's Northern Neighbor

The Grand Canyon's West End is defined and confused along its northwest boundary because the map drawers of 1968 wanted a straight line rather than one wandering along the contours of the Canyon's drainage. Maybe one day, that lazy line will be corrected. If so, then the dramatic features of Pearce Canyon could be highlighted for their own charm.

AND, the delights of exploring the West End could come into their own.

This map of Pearce from Google is an aerial depiction of the ground, but with odd coloring. Lake Mead is to the left; Snap Point's vegetated "arrowhead" is right top center.

A second brings out the ups and downs of the topography:

Together, they suggest esthetic unity for the corner of the Grand Wash Cliffs with the drainage of Pearce Canyon running north of the Grand Canyon and west into Lake Mead. These maps show how Pearce is cutting eastward into the arc formed by Snap Point on the north and the cliffs of Chuarumpeak (Grand Canyon's Westernmost High Point).

What if ....

 

the politics of the future allowed the west boundary of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to be adjusted to match the topographic ideal of including only land that drains into the Canyon? (See comment on previous post.) What would happen to the excluded pieces?

Defining the Canyon's west exit and end

THE GRAND CANYON'S WEST END AND ITS EXIT

Names Matter For The Canyon

In 1973, when we were building the legislation that became the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act… No, wait.

Yes, that was the name at the start. However, the 1972-5 struggles over the original bill wrought change so significant that I think it important, in this 50th anniversary of its enactment, that we correct Public Law 93-620’s name. We cannot do it in law, but we can do it in use, and we should, to honor and adjust our view of what was in fact accomplished.

A HUALAPAI BOUNDARY CASE

THE HUALAPAI AND THE PARK SERVICE

A RIVER-RELATED COURT CASE 

In early ’90’s, a personal injury case arose out of a boating incident in the Grand Canyon. Down river from Diamond Creek, a Hualapai motor-driven raft was turned in so tight, fast a curve that a man was thrown out and then cut badly when the motor ran over him.

Crucially, the National Park Service claimed it had no responsibility in this matter, even though the National Park includes the entire river from the Paria junction to river mile 277. Indeed in the District Judge’s decision, it was (falsely) stated that the incident occurred within the Hualapai Reservation that started at Diamond Creek! 

Furthermore, NPS claimed the Hualapai were not regulated in their river operation by the GCNP administration, and therefore NPS did not even have a responsibility to warn or inform users of the Hualapai operation that NPS had nothing to do with Hualapai boating. 

At this time, GCNP boating was regulated under a Colorado River Management Plan. If the NPS statement is correct, then that Plan did not cover operations below Diamond Creek. The CRMP was not mentioned in the decision, so it did not appear whether it did in fact include permits or other official actions to regulate Hualapai operations, even though in fact, the entire river from the Paria to r.m. 277 is inside the Park as legislated in the 1975 Grand Canyon Natiional Park Enlargement Act.

This lapse in NPS administration, if it did in fact exist, was remedied during the late-’90’s superintendency of R. Arnberger, who went so far as to sign, in 2000, along with the Hualapai and Lake Mead NRA, a memorandum of agreement in which the parties set aside boundary issues in order to be able to discuss matters arising from matters of joint interest dealing with boating operations. These discussions involved the highest and all appropriate personnel in a Core Group that met twice a year. (It lasted five years.)

Returning to the court case, both the district judge and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court accepted the NPS argument of having no responsibility and rejected the injured party’s claim. 

Clearly, the government was in error about NPS jurisdiction over the river, since the entire 277-mile stretch of the Colorado River is in the Grand Canyon and its Park. The government claimed that it did not concern itself with the last 40 miles of the river in the Park because the Hualapai disputed that ownership. This is sophistry at best, since the Hualapai were not claiming jurisdiction over river craft operation navigating the River, which was under the 1975 Act NPS’s responsibility.

Indeed, GCNP officials had laid claim  starting in 1975 not just to the river, but the river  the land up to the “historic highwater mark”.

The question of NPS and Hualapai relations over the river may have involved disagreements about various matters (thus the Core Group), but such matters had been brought up and discussed at least since the 1960’s, and NPS was well aware of the various attempts of the Hualapai to use river boating to raise revenue for the tribal treasury. None of this was evidenced in the judicial decisions. As mentioned, the CRMP did not appear in the case either (there actually had been two previous versions), so it is not clear whether those highly important river administration documents dealt at all with the Hualapai. If they did not, this would be further evidence off NPS failure to properly administer navigation of the river in the Park.

In conclusion, it appears that justice was not served in this case with its errors and NPS failure to exercise its jurisdiction over the river in accordance with the law.

The Grand Canyon's Second Odd Couple

 

JOHN MUIR AND GIFFORD PINCHOT: 

LOVING THE GRAND CANYON AND LETTING THE PUBLIC IN ON IT

One strange aspect of the Powell-Harrison alliance to advance the idea of a Grand Canyon National Park (1882-1893) is how little public notice or activity there was. No speeches, no articles, no letter campaign. Whether this is due to a lack of historical research or whether the two just had many other issues on their minds, I wish I knew. 

If this existence out of the public eye seems true for the 1880’s, it certainly changed in the next decade, the 1890’s, featuring our second odd couple: John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Visitation was starting to grow, and the railroad was coming, thus increasing the potential for public interest hugely, but these two epitomize pushing the Park idea and effort into public view. And  without seeming to take account of the Powell-Harrison effort.