A Grand 50th Birthday — No Joke!

Though off by one day — for it was on March 31, 1966, that Representatives Saylor, Reuss, & Dingell introduced the very first bill in history to create a COMPLETE (sic) Grand Canyon National Park. 

My post of 20 April 2012 gives the details, but in recognition of that birthday, here is some context. The first such proposal was in 1910, spear-headed by F. Dellenbaugh. In 1963, the Sierra Club called for extending the Park from Lees Ferry to Grand Wash Cliffs, and reiterated that position in 1964. No legislation was prepared, however.

In February 1966, the middle of the fight over the dams, then Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall suggested to (needled?) Bill Zimmerman, Club DC Representative, that the Club should do something positive about a dam-opposing Park expansion. And meanwhile, on our own, Dave Brower, Martin Litton, & I were cobbling together a proposal that, odd as it looked, tried to deal with the patchwork of land jurisdictions, and still create a Park that took in the entire length plus significant plateau land and side canyons — a Grand Canyon watershed, if you will, although in topographic fact, of course it was not, as no proposal can ever be (think Little Colorado River!!)

The map of that 50-year infant is here.

As a teen-ager, the concept behind that map was the foundation for our 1970’s effort to expand the National Park significantly, though that effort was thwarted by hunters fearful of losing game land.

The watershed idea sparked Interior Secretary Babbitt in 1998-2000 to sponsor what is now called, for no good reason, the Grand Canyon - Parashant National Monument (fourth in the series).

And currently, much of the eastern portion of the Canyon region is the subject of proposals and legislation by Representative Raul Grijalva and a collection of environmental groups. 

What all this will work out to over the coming years (decades?) is not predictable, but one thing is sure: The Grand Canyon continues, as it has since the 1880’s, to inspire those who revere this earth that nourishes and supports us, and who wish to honor the Canyon for the environmental icon that it, perforce, is.

Happy Birthday — and we are not just fooling around. 

Out of Fight, Out of Mind: How We Keep Mislaying the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon has the wonderful charisma that the first view each of its visitors has is so beyond expectation that it is the opposite of deja vu: That first time is like nobody had ever seen anything like this before. 

Over more visits, we may become comfortable with the Canyon’s ability to strike awe, even as we learn more and more about just how far-reaching the Canyon is — geographically & chronologically extensive, and spiritually intensive.

The urge to reach out, explore, and re-visit grows. That urge may transmute into a desire to celebrate the Canyon, to introduce others to it, to cherish & protect it even as it nourishes our  sense that our Earth is a generous home.

BMP & DEIS: Comment on Park Access Across the Havasupai Reservation Addition

Comment on Grand Canyon National Park Backcountry Management Plan, 

with respect to Access to the Park Across the Addition to the Havasupai Reservation

January 15, 2016

Jeffrey Ingram        

Tucson, Arizona

email: canyon-stuff@cox.net

—————————————————————————————————

In passing the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, Congress created a singular ownership/management arrangement for the south side of the central portion of the Grand Canyon (river miles 116.5 to 164.5). Subject to fierce debate, capping a near century-long struggle by the Havasupai, the 1975 Act mandated a complex compromise of the desires of National Park advocates and the Havasupai, an arrangement that envisioned a permanent relationship between the Havasupai, the National Park Service, both under the aegis of the Secretary of the Interior, and the public.

The compromise recognized: 

the 1882 Havasupai Reservation; 

a 185,000-acre addition to that Reservation; 

to the north and east of the addition, the National Park; 

and between the Reservation addition and the Colorado River, a 95,300-acre zoning of the Park labelled the Havasupai Use Lands, which parkland the Havasupai were permitted to use for “grazing and other traditional purposes”, subject to Secretarial “reasonable regulations” to protect the lands’ scenic, natural, and wildlife values. The reasonable regulations covering the Havasupai Use Lands were worked on between Park Service and the Havasupai in the late 1970’s, resulting in a Memorandum of Understanding referred to in the BMP as being finalized on 20 Sep 1982.

  The boundary between the Reservation addition and the Use Lands in the Park was set by the 1975 Act to be ¼-mile back from the outer gorge rim, roughly paralleling the course of the Colorado.

The addition was made subject to seven provisions; these three are pertinent:

  (7) except for uses specified in the Act, the addition was to remain “forever wild”;

  (4) the Secretary, in consultation with the Havasupai, was to develop a Land Use Plan which shall not be inconsistent with, or detract from, park uses and values. This plan was to be subject to public review and hearings, and submission to Congress. Any plan revisions shall be subject to the same procedures. (The Secretarial Land Use Plan was effective January 1982; it has not been revised.)

  (6) In order to visit Park land adjacent to the addition, nonmembers of the tribe shall be permitted to have access across the addition at locations established by the Secretary in consultation with the Tribal Council; 

  (6) A second part of this provision, applying only to the addition, says that with the consent of the tribe, nonmembers may be permitted to enter and temporarily utilize for recreation purposes addition lands in accordance with the approved Secretarial land use plan. This provision does NOT affect lands in, or use of, any part of the Park; it was included to remove any doubt that the Havasupai could provide remunerated recreation services for visitors on their addition. This provision is not involved in any determination of  park uses covered by the Park’s Backcountry Plan.

BMP DEIS is wrong: Beaver Falls is in the Park, not the Havasupai Reservation

Comment on Grand Canyon National Park Backcountry Management Plan, 

with respect to error in DEIS on Havasupai Reservation boundary  

January 1, 2016

Jeffrey Ingram        

Tucson, Arizona

email: canyon-stuff@cox.net

—————————————————————————————————

On page 188 of the DEIS for the proposed Grand Canyon National Park BMP, the following paragraph appears under the general headings “Adjacent Lands”,  “Tribal Lands” (my underlining):

Havasupai Reservation 

The 188,077-acre Havasupai Reservation is located within, and along the rim of, Grand Canyon. The reservation is most commonly accessed via Route 66 and Indian Road 18 to Hualapai Hilltop. The reservation can also be reached by Forest Road 328 which departs Highway 64 near between Tusayan and the park’s South Entrance Station. The reservation can also be reached from the river by hiking up Havasu Canyon approximately four miles. Day hikers often venture onto tribal land to enjoy Havasu Creek’s spectacular waterfalls, although the hike is a relatively long one: eight miles round-trip to Beaver Falls, 12 miles round-trip to Mooney Falls, 14 miles round-trip to Havasu Falls, and 18 miles round-trip to Supai village. A permit and associated fee is required to access Havasupai tribal land. As resources allow, the tribe stations personnel at reservation boundaries to ensure compliance, and NPS personnel inform park visitors of the required fee. Camping within the reservation is permitted only in designated campgrounds. 

The implication of the underlined portions of this NPS-composed description of the “Havasupai Reservation” is that Beaver Falls is inside and part of that Reservation.

It is not.

Beaver Falls was retained by name within the National Park when the Reservation was enlarged by the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, P.L. 93-620.

Beaver Falls is explicitly part of Grand Canyon National Park; it is not Havasupai land, and they have no power to issue permits or charge fees for a visit to Beaver Falls coming upstream.

Amazingly, An Updated Park Service Plan for Managing GCNP Wilderness — oops, Backcountry

Introduction

The NPS administration at Grand Canyon National Park has published an updated Back-Country Management Plan (BMP) with its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The documents are available now, during the public comment period, here. The comment period runs until the 4th of March, and the website has links to the summary and to the full DEIS, as well as to the page where the public can send in comments. 

The 25-year (and more) period with no updated BMP included a tangle of political and administrative actions, misfires, and egos. A devoted reader can get a sketch of events by checking out the Index references in my Hijacking A River: A Political History of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. (See Vishnutemplepress.com)

Needless to say the years since the Park boundary was expanded in 1975 have seen many changes in the amount and character of Canyon visitation. The BMP, for instance, deals with hiking along the Canyon by hopping on and off boat trips, canyoneering, and speed-tripping across the Canyon. There are thousands more experienced individuals now who feel they have a stake in and a sound basis for commenting on the rules NPS wants to promulgate to guide backcountry users’ impact on the Canyon. 

Grijalva introduces Grand Canyon protection bill with Grand Canyon Associated Tribes

U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva, Democrat of southern Arizona, has made another move dramatizing his long-term commitment to the Grand Canyon and its appropriate treatment. His approach is novel, yet antique, and full of up-to-date considerations. The current politics of the U.S. Congress does not bode well for the kind of action on the bill that we have seen in the past on Grand Canyon affairs, but by introducing the legislation, Congressman Grijalva has provided for discussion and debate.

The bill, H. R. 3882,  as introduced on 3 Nov 2015, can be seen here.

Grijalva's Monument, by Felicia Fonseca

Arizona congressman pushes national monument in northern Arizona to keep mining ban in place

By FELICIA FONSECA (AP)
Published: 10/12/15 8:35 pm EDT - Updated: 10/12/15 8:35 pm EDT

      (A supporting op ed piece by Mark Udall, the sainted Morris Udall's son and  U.S.Senator from Colorado 2009-15 appears here.)

FLAGSTAFF, Arizona — U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva is reviving a push to designate a large swath of northern Arizona as a national monument.

Grijalva, a Democrat, said he would introduce legislation next week to create Greater Grand Canyon Heritage National Monument while acknowledging it likely won't get even a hearing in Congress. The goal is to have a template ready that President Barack Obama could consider signing as a proclamation for a new monument, he said.

The proposed 1.7 million-acre monument is a mix of towering cliffs and canyons, grasslands, forest and desert that is popular with hunters, hikers, ranchers and other recreationists. It also includes 1 million acres rich in uranium ore that is temporarily banned from the filing of new mining claims. Grijalva, environmentalists and tribes want to make that ban permanent but have faced stiff opposition from Republicans and the mining industry.

Tribal leaders who joined Grijalva on Monday in a news conference said the creation of a monument would protect the area's water, sacred sites and other cultural resources.

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said the tribe has struggled with the effects of uranium mining decades after it ceased on the reservation. He said he'd like to see Obama proclaim the area a national monument, using his authority under the Antiquities Act and further strengthen his commitment to American Indians.

"We believe this falls right side his agenda," Begaye said.

Grijalva's legislation follows other efforts since 2012 to have the area proclaimed a national monument.

Under a previous proposal, the monument was to be named Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick held a meeting earlier this year to talk about creating such a monument. Environmental groups weighed in on the region's water, large-diameter trees and wildlife corridors.

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission and sportsmen's groups criticized the effort to sidestep Congress and questioned the expense of running a national monument.

Don Martin of the Mohave Sportsmen Club said Monday he's skeptical of Grijalva's proposal as well.

"Anything that creates a national monument up there on the Grand Canyon is totally not needed, not wanted," he said. "It's just another ploy to lock things up from the American public."

Grijalva said access to recreation and hunting wouldn't change. Whichever federal agency manages the national monument would have three years from its creation to develop a management plan. A council made up of representatives from tribes, the sportsmen community, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, environmental groups, natural resources and science would advise the federal agency.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service now oversee much of the land in the proposal.